SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Reconhecimento da Contribuição do Avaliador Anônimo
16 references·0 citing·46 second hop
Reconhecimento da Contribuição do Avaliador Anônimo (2018)Reconhecimento da Contribuição do Avaliad…The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures (2018)The peer review game: an agen…The life cycle of altmetric impact: A longitudinal study of six metrics from PlumX (2018)The life cycle of altmetric i…Reliability and accuracy of altmetric providers: a comparison among Altmetric.com, PlumX and Crossref Event Data (2018)Reliability and accuracy of a…Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons (2017)Are peer-review activities re…Altmetrics: métricas alternativas de impacto científico com base em redes sociais (2015)Altmetrics: métricas alternat…Manuscript Rejection (2014)Manuscript RejectionDoes mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial (2012)Does mentoring new peer revie…Revising a Manuscript: Ten Principles to Guide Success for Publication (2010)Revising a Manuscript: Ten Pr…To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing (2008)To give is better than to rec…The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality (2007)The Relationship of Previous …Effect of Written Feedback by Editors on Quality of Reviews (2002)Effect of Written Feedback by…Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees? (2001)Is It Worthwhile to Pay Refer…What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)What Makes a Good Reviewer an…Effect of Attendance at a Training Session on Peer Reviewer Quality and Performance (1998)Effect of Attendance at a Tra…Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ (1996)Guidelines for authors and pe…Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors (1990)Is There Value-Added from the…Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (1987)Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (1996)Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (2005)Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases (2006)Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (2013)Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations (2022)Bibliometrics and beyond: some thoughts on web-based citation analysis (2001)Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web (2010)The Altmetrics Collection (2012)A repercussão de artigos de periódicos brasileiros da ciência da informação no Facebook (2018)Divulgação científica como forma de compartilhar conhecimento (2020)Research data management: a bibliometric and altmetric study based on Dimensions (2021)Salience of Feedback on Error and Its Effect on EFL Writing Quality (1986)Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1999)Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial (2007)Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review (2019)Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (2001)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews (2016)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial (2000)What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? (2008)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1998)Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance (1998)Differences in Editorial Board Reviewer Behavior Based on Gender (2010)Thought and language (1962)Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987)Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development (1994)A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it (2016)The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies (2019)Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms (1992)The ethics of peer review in bioethics (2013)Complex Problem Solving (2014)Editorial: Peer Review and the Editorial Process - A Look Behind the Curtain (2014)Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field (2017)Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services (2013)Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective (2014)Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature (2017)General discussion of data quality challenges in social media metrics: Extensive comparison of four major altmetric data aggregators (2018)Correlation Between Altmetric Score and Citations in Pediatric Surgery Core Journals (2019)A scientometric overview of CORD-19 (2021)Optimal Pricing Mechanisms with Unknown Demand (2003)An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision‐Makers (2007)Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study (2012)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1996Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ1,821 cited
  • 2008To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing842 cited
  • 1998What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?266 cited
  • 2007The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality139 cited
  • 2018Reliability and accuracy of altmetric providers: a comparison among Altmetric.com, PlumX and Crossref Event Data137 cited
  • 1990Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors127 cited
  • 2012Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial89 cited
  • 1998Effect of Attendance at a Training Session on Peer Reviewer Quality and Performance78 cited
  • 2002Effect of Written Feedback by Editors on Quality of Reviews76 cited
  • 2015Altmetrics: métricas alternativas de impacto científico com base em redes sociais57 cited
  • 2017Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons55 cited
  • 2018The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures53 cited
  • 2014Manuscript Rejection50 cited
  • 2018The life cycle of altmetric impact: A longitudinal study of six metrics from PlumX

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

47 cited
  • 2010Revising a Manuscript: Ten Principles to Guide Success for Publication36 cited
  • 2001Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees?32 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.