SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Records Management and Peer-Reviewed Journals: An Assessment
11 references·0 citing·43 second hop
Records Management and Peer-Reviewed Journals: An Assessment (2013)Records Management and Peer-Reviewed Jour…Ensuring open access for publicly funded research (2012)Ensuring open access for publ…Peer‐to‐peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority (2010)Peer‐to‐peer Review and the F…Development of RMJ (2010)Development of RMJThe ups and downs of peer review (2007)The ups and downs of peer rev…Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance (2006)Effect of Blinded Peer Review…Reviewing the reviewers (2003)Reviewing the reviewersFrom Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review (2002)From Book Censorship to Acade…The essential role of peer review (2001)The essential role of peer re…A Tool for Reviewers (2001)A Tool for ReviewersLearned inquiry and the Net: the role of peer review, peer commentary and copyright (1997)Learned inquiry and the Net: …Peer Review: A Study of Reliability (1982)Peer Review: A Study of Relia…Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry (1990)First Steps Towards Electronic Research Communication (1994)Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals (1995)Proposing a Knowledge Exchange Model for Scholarly Publishing (2000)Quality control in academic publishing: challenges in the age of cyberscience (2004)Scientific Communication and the Nature of Science (2012)The history of the Royal Society of London .... (1968)The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy (1988)The history of the Royal Society of London for the improving of natural knowledge (2001)Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis (2007)Scientific peer review (2011)Bias in peer review (2012)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more (2007)Here comes everybody: the power of organizing without organizations (2008)Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership (2014)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)An 'important contribution' or 'tiresome reading'? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions (2004)How to review journal manuscripts: A lesson learnt from the world's excellent reviewers (2014)Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (2014)US and Non-US Submissions (1998)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice (2016)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1991)Internet encyclopaedias go head to head (2005)Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas (2006)Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication (2012)How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications (2014)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Scientific Production on Open Access: A Worldwide Bibliometric Analysis in the Academic and Scientific Context (2016)Brazilian Publication Profiles: Where and How Brazilian authors publish (2020)The Impact of Open Access Mandates on Invention (2020)Reading Peer Review (2020)Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer Review (2021)Peer review in an Era of Evaluation (2022)Is Peer Review Censorship? (2009)Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data (2015)How to be a good peer reviewer of scientific manuscripts (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2007The ups and downs of peer review299 cited
  • 2006Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance250 cited
  • 2002From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review200 cited
  • 1982Peer Review: A Study of Reliability87 cited
  • 2012Ensuring open access for publicly funded research71 cited
  • 2001The essential role of peer review43 cited
  • 2010Peer‐to‐peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority40 cited
  • 2003Reviewing the reviewers32 cited
  • 1997Learned inquiry and the Net: the role of peer review, peer commentary and copyright28 cited
  • 2001A Tool for Reviewers27 cited
  • 2010Development of RMJ14 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work