SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The Peer Review Process: Underwriting Manuscript Quality & Validity
4 references·0 citing·10 second hop
The Peer Review Process: Underwriting Manuscript Quality & Validity (2018)The Peer Review Process: Underwriting Man…The peer review process: a primer forJNISreaders (2015)The peer review process: a pr…Double-blind peer review (2015)Double-blind peer reviewPeer 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…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact (2013)JNIS podcasts: the early part of our journey (2016)Highly cited forensic practitioners in the discipline legal and forensic medicine and the importance of peer-review and publication for admission of expert testimony (2022)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Who stands to win from double-blind peer review? (2015)Scientific peer review (2011)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 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
  • 2015The peer review process: a primer forJNISreaders11 cited
  • 2015Double-blind peer review11 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