Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses

1 references·16 citing·54 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2006Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey195 cited

Cited by

2020Innovative Strategies for Peer Review54 cited
2018Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment53 cited
2022Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons29 cited
2017Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution28 cited
2022The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal’s perspective24 cited
2017Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?21 cited
2024Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences—and one common cause18 cited
2024AI-powered peer review needs human supervision17 cited
2017Reviewers’ Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Journalism and Mass Communication17 cited
2018What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: A study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals15 cited
2020Finding reviewers: A crisis for journals and their authors12 cited
2017Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives11 cited
2018Acceptance or decline of requests to review manuscripts: A gender-based approach from a public health journal

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

11 cited

2020How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports11 cited

2024A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections8 cited

2024Do you want your paper published? – Then referee others! The view from seasoned editors8 cited