SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The scientists who get credit for peer review
0 references·15 citing·45 second hop
The scientists who get credit for peer review (2014)The scientists who get credit for peer re…Identifying fabricated networks within authorship-for-sale enterprises (2024)Identifying fabricated networ…Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment (2024)Can peer review accolade awar…A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections (2024)A harm reduction approach to …Toward a Potential Solution of the Crisis in Scholarly Publishing: An Academic Research Community Alliance Model (2023)Toward a Potential Solution o…Perspectives on Open Science and Scholarly Publishing: a Survey Study Focusing on Early Career Researchers in Europe (2021)Perspectives on Open Science …Do Legitimate Publishers Benefit or Profit from Error, Misconduct or Fraud? (2021)Do Legitimate Publishers Bene…Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data (2021)Characteristics of scholars w…Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics (2020)Who reviews for predatory jou…Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research (2019)Rewarding the quantity of pee…The Clarivate TM Analytics acquisition of Publons – an evolution or commodification of peer review? (2017)The Clarivate TM Analytics ac…Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives (2017)Addressing Reproducibility: P…Will Publons Popularize the Scientific Peer-Review Process? (2016)Will Publons Popularize the S…Rewarding peer‐review work: the Publons initiative (2016)Rewarding peer‐review work: t…Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process (2016)Peer review in medical journa…Peer Review - Essential For Article and Journal Scientific Assessment and Validity (2016)Peer Review - Essential For A…Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015)Which Are the Tools Available for Scholars? A Review of Assisting Software for Authors during Peer Reviewing Process (2019)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Ethics in Peer Review of Academic Journal Articles as Perceived by Authors in the Educational Sciences (2018)Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos (2022)Enhancing scholarly discourse in the age of artificial intelligence: A guided approach to effective peer review process. (2023)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Is the quality of reviews reflected in editors' and authors' satisfaction with peer review? A cross‐sectional study in 12 journals across four research fields (2020)Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication (2015)Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact (2018)Reconhecimento da Contribuição do Avaliador Anônimo (2018)Peer Review in Academic Publishing: Threats and Challenges (2019)Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review (2014)The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era (2015)The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise (2016)It’s Time We Fix the Peer Review System (2018)Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons? (2020)The scandal of poor medical research (1994)Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010)How do Clarivate Analytics and Publons propose to fortify peer review in the COVID-19 era? (2021)Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish? (2022)No reward without responsibility: Focus on peer review reports (2024)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The (ir)rational consideration of the cost of science in transition economies (2017)Academic Librarians and Their Role in Disseminating Accurate Knowledge and Information about the Gray Zone in Predatory Publishing (2022)Science for sale? Why academic marketization is a problem and what sustainability research can do about it (2023)The undeclared use of third-party service providers in academic publishing is unethical: an epistemic reflection and scoping review (2024)Advances in Record-Linkage Methodology as Applied to Matching the 1985 Census of Tampa, Florida (1989)Predatory publishers are corrupting open access (2012)On the geopolitics of academic publishing: the mislocated centers of scholarly communication (2021)“Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!”: A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations (2023)Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database (2023)1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility (2016)Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition (2018)A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers (2020)Ethical Publishing: How Do We Get There? (2022)Perception of Open Science in the Scientific Community of the Republic of Moldova (2022)Open access in Ukraine: Characteristics and evolution from 2012 to 2021 (2024)Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates (1992)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Science of science (2018)A proposed framework to address metric inflation in research publications (2024)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2016Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process31 cited
  • 2016Peer Review - Essential For Article and Journal Scientific Assessment and Validity28 cited
  • 2021Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data27 cited
  • 2021Do Legitimate Publishers Benefit or Profit from Error, Misconduct or Fraud?26 cited
  • 2021Perspectives on Open Science and Scholarly Publishing: a Survey Study Focusing on Early Career Researchers in Europe22 cited
  • 2016Will Publons Popularize the Scientific Peer-Review Process?22 cited
  • 2017The Clarivate TM Analytics acquisition of Publons – an evolution or commodification of peer review?22 cited
  • 2016Rewarding peer‐review work: the Publons initiative22 cited
  • 2024Identifying fabricated networks within authorship-for-sale enterprises22 cited
  • 2019Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research16 cited
  • 2024Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment15 cited
  • 2017Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives11 cited
  • 2020Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics

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

11 cited
  • 2024A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections8 cited
  • 2023Toward a Potential Solution of the Crisis in Scholarly Publishing: An Academic Research Community Alliance Model7 cited