SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Retaining and Rewarding Journal Peer Reviewers
8 references·0 citing·31 second hop
Retaining and Rewarding Journal Peer Reviewers (2018)Retaining and Rewarding Journal Peer Revi…Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement (2017)Core competencies for scienti…Rewarding peer‐review work: the Publons initiative (2016)Rewarding peer‐review work: t…Editorial: ORCID is a Wonderful (But Not Required) Tool for Authors (2016)Editorial: ORCID is a Wonderf…Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication (2015)Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Ma…Peer review as a business transaction (2015)Peer review as a business tra…Review rewards (2014)Review rewardsFree for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review (2013)Free for Service: The Inadequ…The ‘peer reviewer as collaborator’ model for publishing (2009)The ‘peer reviewer as collabo…Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)The ups and downs of peer review (2007)SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials (2013)Is peer review duration shorter for attractive manuscripts? (2023)Where are the carrots? A proposal to start crediting peer reviewers for their contribution to science (2023)Open access is tiring out peer reviewers (2014)The Clarivate TM Analytics acquisition of Publons – an evolution or commodification of peer review? (2017)The current peer review system is unsustainable-awaken the paid reviewer force! (2017)Rate of publication in predatory journals by orthopedic surgeons members of the French orthopedic and traumatology society (SOFCOT): A follow-up note (2020)The sociology of science (1973)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Theory and practise of the g-index (2006)Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process (2025)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and Limitations (2017)Innovative Strategies for Peer Review (2020)Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading (2023)The scientists who get credit for peer review (2014)Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact (2018)Reconhecimento da Contribuição do Avaliador Anônimo (2018)Peer Review in Academic Publishing: Threats and Challenges (2019)AMA manual of style: a guide for authors and editors (2007)Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010)A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals (2017)Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison (2017)A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals (2019)Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study (2019)Understanding ORCID adoption among academic researchers (2025)Towards peer review as a group engagement (2022)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2015Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication89 cited
  • 2017Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement82 cited
  • 2015Peer review as a business transaction24 cited
  • 2016Rewarding peer‐review work: the Publons initiative22 cited
  • 2016Editorial: ORCID is a Wonderful (But Not Required) Tool for Authors18 cited
  • 2013Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review16 cited
  • 2014Review rewards13 cited
  • 2009The ‘peer reviewer as collaborator’ model for publishing11 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