SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A new twist on peer review
1 references·3 citing·13 second hop
A new twist on peer review (2018)A new twist on peer reviewConsultative review is worth the wait (2017)Consultative review is worth …Scientific publishing without gatekeeping: an empirical investigation of eLife’s new peer review process (2025)Scientific publishing without…Toward a Potential Solution of the Crisis in Scholarly Publishing: An Academic Research Community Alliance Model (2023)Toward a Potential Solution o…Credit and Priority in Scientific Discovery: A Scientist’s Perspective (2019)Credit and Priority in Scient…End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments (2011)The eLife approach to peer review (2013)The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s (2017)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The Relationship of William Henry Perkin, Jr. and Sir Robert Robinson: Teacher and Student, then Student and Teacher (2020)Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity (2011)Promoting an open research culture (2015)Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories (2018)Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes (1990)Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement (2007)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2017Consultative review is worth the wait11 cited

Cited by

  • 2019Credit and Priority in Scientific Discovery: A Scientist’s Perspective15 cited
  • 2023Toward a Potential Solution of the Crisis in Scholarly Publishing: An Academic Research Community Alliance Model7 cited
  • 2025Scientific publishing without gatekeeping: an empirical investigation of eLife’s new peer review process6 cited

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