SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer review in a rapidly evolving publishing landscape
16 references·6 citing·27 second hop
Peer review in a rapidly evolving publishing landscape (2012)Peer review in a rapidly evolving publish…The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2015)The STM Report: An overview o…Altmetrics: A manifesto (2010)Altmetrics: A manifestoHow Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)How Many Scientists Fabricate…The mismeasurement of science (2007)The mismeasurement of scienceThe History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor (2006)The History and Meaning of th…Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process…Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…Scientists behaving badly (2005)Scientists behaving badlyThe politics of publication (2003)The politics of publicationThe history of the peer-review process (2002)The history of the peer-revie…Peer review in health sciences (2002)Peer review in health sciencesEffects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Effects of Editorial Peer Rev…Editorial peer review : its strengths and weaknesses (2001)Editorial peer review : its s…Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmask…The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)The Evolution of Editorial Pe…Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Peer Review in 18th-Century S…Reviewers’ Feedback on Second-Language Writers’ Submissions to Academic Journals (2019)Reviewers’ Feedback on Second…Academics and the Field of Academic Publishing: Challenges and Approaches (2019)Academics and the Field of Ac…Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon's “Sting” in science (2016)Dimensions of trust in schola…Peer Review, Root Canals, and Other Amazing Life Events (2015)Peer Review, Root Canals, and…Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century (2014)Peer review at the beginning …Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: how do they do it? (2013)Learning to review submission…Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation (1972)Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact (2001)A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases (2013)Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics (2015)A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2016)The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1974)The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)Practical Meta-Analysis (2000)Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)Bibliometric Methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities (2005)When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic Rankings (2009)Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries (2011)Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Misinformation in and about science (2021)Scientific peer review (2011)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Inferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication (2019)The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era (2015)Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective (2017)Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart's Law in action (2019)How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications (2014)The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention (2015)A survey on dataset quality in machine learning (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2006The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor2,765 cited
  • 2009How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data1,909 cited
  • 2005Scientists behaving badly1,089 cited
  • 2006Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals868 cited
  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
  • 2010Altmetrics: A manifesto455 cited
  • 2002The history of the peer-review process445 cited
  • 2015The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing396 cited
  • 2003The politics of publication359 cited
  • 1990Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism350 cited
  • 2002Peer review in health sciences349 cited
  • 2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review347 cited
  • 1990The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review346 cited
  • 2007The mismeasurement of science296 cited
  • 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review281 cited
  • 2001Editorial peer review : its strengths and weaknesses231 cited

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

Cited by

  • 2013Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: how do they do it?22 cited
  • 2016Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon's “Sting” in science22 cited
  • 2015Peer Review, Root Canals, and Other Amazing Life Events21 cited
  • 2019Academics and the Field of Academic Publishing: Challenges and Approaches21 cited
  • 2014Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century16 cited
  • 2019Reviewers’ Feedback on Second-Language Writers’ Submissions to Academic Journals10 cited