SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Open Science: A Review on Open Peer Review Literature
16 references·0 citing·54 second hop
Open Science: A Review on Open Peer Review Literature (2018)Open Science: A Review on Open Peer Revie…Peer review in forensic science (2017)Peer review in forensic scien…Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review (2017)Academic Primer Series: Key P…Editorial behaviors in peer review (2016)Editorial behaviors in peer r…The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline? (2015)The evolution of peer review …Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview (2015)Open peer review at four STEM…Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)Emerging trends in peer revie…Predatory Publishing, Questionable Peer Review, and Fraudulent Conferences (2014)Predatory Publishing, Questio…Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study (2014)Impact of peer review on repo…Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science (2012)Peer review versus editorial …Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Peer review in a changing wor…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:…In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do reviewer comments differ from comments written by interested members of the scientific community? A content analysis of comments written for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (2012)In public peer review of subm…Open and transparent: the review process of the Semantic Web journal (2011)Open and transparent: the rev…Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial (2010)Effect on peer review of tell…Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Measuring the Quality of Edit…Comparison of Review Articles Published in Peer-Reviewed and Throwaway Journals (2002)Comparison of Review Articles…The Chronicle of Higher Education (1977)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Does health informatics have a replication crisis? (2018)Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature (2020)Bad Beliefs (2021)Strong Inference (1964)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry (2016)Article-processing charges as a barrier for science in low-to-medium income regions (2022)Comparing human and AI expertise in the academic peer review process: towards a hybrid approach (2025)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)The Technique of Clear Writing. (1968)The Medical Review Article: State of the Science (1987)Validation of an index of the quality of review articles (1991)Relation between randomized controlled trials published in leading general medical journals and the global burden of disease (2004)Science and Pseudoscience in Communication Disorders (2005)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2006)The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009 (2011)Predatory publishers are corrupting open access (2012)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)The Pressure to Publish More and the Scope of Predatory Publishing Activities (2016)The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals (2017)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)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)A Descriptive and Historical Review of Bibliometrics with Applications to Medical Sciences (2015)Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2016)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes (2010)How to make more published research true (2015)Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial (2015)Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review (2019)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Peer review in health sciences (2002)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises (1998)Quality Systems—Medical Devices—Particular Requirements for the Application of ISO 9001 (2004)Cognitive biases in the peer review of bullet and cartridge case comparison casework: A field study (2020)Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis (2020)Firearm examination: Examiner judgments and computer‐based comparisons (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers393 cited
  • 2002Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review230 cited
  • 2015Emerging trends in peer review—a survey192 cited
  • 2010Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial163 cited
  • 2014Predatory Publishing, Questionable Peer Review, and Fraudulent Conferences126 cited
  • 2012Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-Regulation105 cited
  • 2014Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study103 cited
  • 2002Comparison of Review Articles Published in Peer-Reviewed and Throwaway Journals67 cited
  • 2017Peer review in forensic science52 cited
  • 2015The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?34 cited
  • 2015Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview29 cited
  • 2012Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science27 cited
  • 2016Editorial behaviors in peer review26 cited
  • 2011Open and transparent: the review process of the Semantic Web journal

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

25 cited
  • 2012In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do reviewer comments differ from comments written by interested members of the scientific community? A content analysis of comments written for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics25 cited
  • 2017Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review24 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.