SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Does the removal of results from a submitted paper reduce publication bias?
5 references·0 citing·25 second hop
Does the removal of results from a submitted paper reduce publication bias? (2016)Does the removal of results from a submit…Reproducibility: does it really matter? (2016)Reproducibility: does it real…Can Results-Free Review Reduce Publication Bias? The Results and Implications of a Pilot Study (2016)Can Results-Free Review Reduc…Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility (2015)Negative results: negative pe…Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review (2014)Problems with Traditional Sci…Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? (2014)Open, single-blind, double-bl…CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010)Reproducibility in Science (2014)Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest (2019)A Systematic Mapping of Negative Effects of Gamification in Education/Learning Systems (2021)Negative effects of gamification in education software: Systematic mapping and practitioner perceptions (2022)Bias in peer review (2012)Predatory publishers are corrupting open access (2012)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers (2016)Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ (2020)The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review (2022)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2008)Peer review and the publication process (2016)Social Media Scholarship and Alternative Metrics for Academic Promotion and Tenure (2017)Is Peer Review a Good Idea? (2019)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)What does research reproducibility mean? (2016)Growth in a Time of Debt (2010)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)The Failure to Examine Failures in Democratic Innovation (2017)Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review (2020)Pre-Analysis Plans: An Early Stocktaking (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2014Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review158 cited
  • 2016Can Results-Free Review Reduce Publication Bias? The Results and Implications of a Pilot Study74 cited
  • 2015Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility56 cited
  • 2014Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?38 cited
  • 2016Reproducibility: does it really matter?6 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