SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Open review and the quest for increased transparency in neuroscience publication
3 references·3 citing·27 second hop
Open review and the quest for increased transparency in neuroscience publication (2017)Open review and the quest for increased t…The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise (2016)The Global Burden of Journal …Research integrity: Don't let transparency damage science (2016)Research integrity: Don't let…Registered reports at the European Journal of Neuroscience: consolidating and extending peer‐reviewed study pre‐registration (2016)Registered reports at the Eur…Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review (2025)Does the disconnect between t…Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review (2021)Ensuring effective scholarly …Transparent review at the European Journal of Neuroscience: experiences one year on (2017)Transparent review at the Eur…Trolls just want to have fun (2014)Promoting an open research culture (2015)Our path to better science in less time using open data science tools (2017)Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond (2019)The Future of Women in Psychological Science (2020)The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009 (2011)Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2015)Meta-research: Why research on research matters (2018)A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review (2021)Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis (2024)HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known (1998)Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)Promoting transparency and reproducibility in Behavioral Neuroscience: Publishing replications, registered reports, and null results. (2017)Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA): a new tool for assessing research quality and reproducibility (2022)Scientific literature: Information overload (2016)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Impact of peer review institute on scientific maturity of Russian journals (2022)Use of peer reviewing indicators for planning the work of the editorial office of a scientific edition (on the example of a biological journal) (2022)Resources to develop the research publication competencies of Russian researchers (2023)Bias in peer review (2012)Predatory journals: no definition, no defence (2019)The strain on scientific publishing (2024)Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges (2026)The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2016The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise271 cited
  • 2016Research integrity: Don't let transparency damage science103 cited
  • 2016Registered reports at the European Journal of Neuroscience: consolidating and extending peer‐reviewed study pre‐registration24 cited

Cited by

  • 2021Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review12 cited
  • 2017Transparent review at the European Journal of Neuroscience: experiences one year on7 cited
  • 2025Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review5 cited

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