SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Relationship between the duration of peer-review, publication decision, and agreement among reviewers in three Chilean journals
13 references·2 citing·45 second hop
Relationship between the duration of peer-review, publication decision, and agreement among reviewers in three Chilean journals (2015)Relationship between the duration of peer…What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: Analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection (2013)What is submitted and what ge…The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals (2013)The publishing delay in schol…Substantial Agreement of Referee Recommendations at a General Medical Journal – A Peer Review Evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International (2013)Substantial Agreement of Refe…A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review (2013)A Three-Decade History of the…How Long is the Peer Review Process for Journal Manuscripts? A Case Study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition (2010)How Long is the Peer Review P…A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)A Reliability-Generalization …Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice (2008)Peer Review and Manuscript Ma…Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a Publisher's Perspective (2006)Best Practice Guidelines on P…Rejections and the importance of first response times (2004)Rejections and the importance…Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal? (2003)Peer review time: how late is…Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees (1990)Neglected considerations in t…Fields or subfields of knowledge: Rejection rates and agreement in peer review (1990)Fields or subfields of knowle…Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)Patterns of evaluation in sci…Which review aspect has a greater impact on the duration of open peer review in multiple rounds? —Evidence from Nature Communications (2024)Which review aspect has a gre…Rejection rate and reasons for rejection after peer review: a case study of a Russian economics journal (2021)Rejection rate and reasons fo…The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process (2000)Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal (2011)Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure (2012)‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics (2015)CORD-19: The COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (2020)The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape (2021)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes (1990)Computing inter‐rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement (2006)Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research (2015)How Robust Are Multirater Interrater Reliability Indices to Changes in Frequency Distribution? (2016)Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field (2017)Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice (2008)A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ? (2009)The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review (2009)Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review (2014)Characteristics of a Megajournal: A Bibliometric Case Study (2015)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? (2000)The Top 10 Reasons Why Manuscripts Are Not Accepted for Publication (2004)Fate of manuscripts declined by theBritish Journal of Surgery (2010)Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache (2018)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Introduction to Meta‐Analysis (2009)Bias in peer review (2012)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)Essentials of Psychological Testing (1960)Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments. (1975)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication (2005)The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism (1970)On the mechanics of economic development (1988)Aardvark et al.: quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies (2007)Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective (2017)Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? (2011)Scientific peer review (2011)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Toward a new economics of science (1994)Scientific Utopia (2012)The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era (2015)Ethical guidelines for publishing in the journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle: update 2017 (2017)Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: update 2019 (2019)Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: update 2021 (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1971Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system813 cited
  • 2013The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals478 cited
  • 2010A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants262 cited
  • 2006Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a Publisher's Perspective231 cited
  • 2008Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice119 cited
  • 1990Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees82 cited
  • 2004Rejections and the importance of first response times48 cited
  • 2013What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: Analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection34 cited
  • 2013Substantial Agreement of Referee Recommendations at a General Medical Journal – A Peer Review Evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International32 cited
  • 2010How Long is the Peer Review Process for Journal Manuscripts? A Case Study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition27 cited
  • 2013A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review26 cited
  • 2003Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal?21 cited
  • 1990Fields or subfields of knowledge: Rejection rates and agreement in peer review14 cited

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

Cited by

  • 2021Rejection rate and reasons for rejection after peer review: a case study of a Russian economics journal6 cited
  • 2024Which review aspect has a greater impact on the duration of open peer review in multiple rounds? —Evidence from Nature Communications5 cited