SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution
2 references·16 citing·55 second hopsampled
Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution (2017)Recruitment of reviewers is becoming hard…The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise (2016)The Global Burden of Journal …Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal (2015)Editor and reviewer gender in…“It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers”—myths and facts about peer review (2023)“It is becoming increasingly …What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis (2022)What works for peer review an…The Role of Publons in the Context of Open Peer Review (2022)The Role of Publons in the Co…The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal’s perspective (2022)The challenge of recruiting p…Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia (2022)Improving equity, diversity, …Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish? (2021)Peer-reviewing in Surgical Jo…Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi‐stakeholder perspective on causes and effects (2021)Overburdening of peer reviewe…Letter to the Editor: publish, publish … cursed! (2021)Letter to the Editor: publish…Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals (2021)Editorial Work and the Peer R…What is meaningful research and how should we measure it? (2020)What is meaningful research a…We need to talk about peer-review—Experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation (2020)We need to talk about peer-re…Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865-1965 (2019)Managing the Growth of Peer R…Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey (2019)Librarians as methodological …Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution (2019)Gender diversity of editorial…Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution (2017)Difficulty of recruiting revi…A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspect…Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks (2001)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines (2015)How the entire scientific community can confront gender bias in the workplace (2018)Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM (2019)Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals (2021)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)On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective (2019)Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis (2024)Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013 (2013)Women in Academic Science (2014)Gender Differences in First and Corresponding Authorship in Public Health Research Submissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020)Women Are Underrepresented and Receive Differential Outcomes at ASM Journals: a Six-Year Retrospective Analysis (2020)The influence of the global COVID‐19 pandemic on manuscript submissions and editor and reviewer performance at six ecology journals (2021)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Meta-analysis Metastasis (2019)More consideration is needed for retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews in medicine: a systematic review (2021)Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data (2023)Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey (2006)Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)Analysis of peer reviewers’ response to invitations by gender and geographical region: cohort study of manuscripts reviewed at 19 biomedical journals before and during covid-19 pandemic (2023)Social Theory and Social Structure (1958)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Letter: A call for a radical change in research evaluation in Spain (2021)Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing (2022)A Practical Guide to Focus-Group Research (2006)Achieving Saturation in Thematic Analysis: Development and Refinement of a Codebook (2014)Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South (2016)Innovating peer review, reconfiguring scholarly communication: an analytical overview of ongoing peer review innovation activities (2022)Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills (2022)The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science (2024)RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses (2013)The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto (2013)RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations (2016)Towards theorizing peer review (2022)How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals (2024)Equality and diversity in research: building an inclusive future (2025)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing (2018)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)The consistency of peer-reviewers: Assessment of separate parts of the manuscripts vs final recommendations (2022)Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention (2012)Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis (2013)The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science (2020)Building leaders for the UN Ocean Science Decade: a guide to supporting early career women researchers within academic marine research institutions (2022)Barriers to equality, diversity and inclusion in research and academia stubbornly persist. So, what are we doing about it? (2023)Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Editorial Boards of Global Health Journals (2023)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 2016The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise246 cited
  • 2015Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal125 cited

Cited by

  • 2022Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia102 cited
  • 2019Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution80 cited
  • 2021Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi‐stakeholder perspective on causes and effects73 cited
  • 2022What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis53 cited
  • 2021Letter to the Editor: publish, publish … cursed!47 cited
  • 2020We need to talk about peer-review—Experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation46 cited
  • 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review38 cited
  • 2019Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey38 cited
  • 2022The Role of Publons in the Context of Open Peer Review37 cited
  • 2019Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865-196536 cited
  • 2021Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish?34 cited

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

2021
Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals
30 cited
  • 2017Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution28 cited
  • 2020What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?27 cited
  • 2022The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal’s perspective24 cited
  • 2023“It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers”—myths and facts about peer review24 cited