SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
0 references·10 citing·38 second hop
A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. (2000)A comparison of reports from referees cho…La revisión por pares (“peer review”) en las revistas científicas: un proceso que requiere intervención (2019)La revisión por pares (“peer …Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers (2019)Characteristics of Peer Revie…Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts (2018)Reviewer selection biases edi…Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers? (2017)Should Authors be Requested t…Peering into Peer-Review (2011)Peering into Peer-ReviewEl proceso de “peer-review” en las Revistas Biomédicas: Cualidades de los Revisores de “Excelencia” (2010)El proceso de “peer-review” e…Assessment of Publication Bias in Dental Specialty Journals (2010)Assessment of Publication Bia…A review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical research (2009)A review of the review proces…Landmark, Landmine, or Landfill? The Role of Peer Review in Assessing Manuscripts (2007)Landmark, Landmine, or Landfi…Accuracy in the Identification of Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals and the Peer-Review Process Across Disciplines (2003)Accuracy in the Identificatio…The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context (2000)Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic‐related systematic reviews (2013)Publication rates of editorial board members in oral health journals (2014)Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of Nursing Interventions in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease: General Implications of the Findings (2019)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)The “Gender Gap” in Authorship of Academic Medical Literature — A 35-Year Perspective (2006)US and Non-US Submissions (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Subjective Performance and the Value of Blind Evaluation (2011)Submission letters for academic publication: Disciplinary differences and promotional language (2014)Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals (2016)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)Journal Peer Review (1985)Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study (2006)Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors (2006)How blind is blind review? (1984)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)A Primer on Peer Review (2007)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises (1998)Bias in peer review (2012)Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping (2014)Does it take too long to publish research? (2016)A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review (2017)Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers? (2017)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Gender bias in scholarly peer review (2017)Meta-assessment of bias in science (2017)Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos (2022)Use of preprint peer review to educate and enculturate science undergraduates (2022)Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)SCImago Journal & Country Rank (2008)Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review (2014)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2003Accuracy in the Identification of Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals and the Peer-Review Process Across Disciplines23 cited
  • 2017Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?22 cited
  • 2010Assessment of Publication Bias in Dental Specialty Journals19 cited
  • 2009A review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical research18 cited
  • 2018Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts15 cited
  • 2011Peering into Peer-Review13 cited
  • 2019La revisión por pares (“peer review”) en las revistas científicas: un proceso que requiere intervención11 cited
  • 2010El proceso de “peer-review” en las Revistas Biomédicas: Cualidades de los Revisores de “Excelencia”10 cited
  • 2007Landmark, Landmine, or Landfill? The Role of Peer Review in Assessing Manuscripts10 cited
  • 2019Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers9 cited

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