SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The state‐of‐the‐art of open peer review: Early adopters
5 references·0 citing·21 second hop
The state‐of‐the‐art of open peer review: Early adopters (2017)The state‐of‐the‐art of open peer review:…Open Peer Review: An Innovation in Scientific Publishing (2016)Open Peer Review: An Innovati…Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers (2016)Open Peer Review in Scientifi…Open Scholarship and Peer Review: a Time for Experimentation (2013)Open Scholarship and Peer Rev…Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature (2013)Defining and Characterizing O…Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-Regulation (2012)Multi-Stage Open Peer Review:…Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2008)Clickstream Data Yields High-Resolution Maps of Science (2009)Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities (2013)Evidence-Based Management and the Trustworthiness of Our Cumulative Scientific Knowledge: Implications for Teaching, Research, and Practice (2014)Guidelines for open peer review implementation (2019)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)Transferring Knowledge from Discourse to Arguments: A Case Study with Scientific Abstracts (2019)DISAPERE: A Dataset for Discourse Structure in Peer Review Discussions (2022)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Open Peer Review in the Era of Open Science: A Pilot Study of Researchers' Perceptions (2017)Determining the informativeness of comments: a natural language study of F1000Research open peer review reports (2020)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Bias in peer review (2012)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Peer review, bibliometrics and altmetrics ‐ Do we need them all? (2018)Open peer review correlates with altmetrics but not with citations: Evidence from Nature Communications and PLoS One (2024)Open-access mega-journals (2017)Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science (2020)Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2013Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature136 cited
  • 2012Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-Regulation105 cited
  • 2013Open Scholarship and Peer Review: a Time for Experimentation22 cited
  • 2016Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers15 cited
  • 2016Open Peer Review: An Innovation in Scientific Publishing9 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