SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses
0 references·16 citing·56 second hop
Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses (2002)Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and …The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals (2017)The extent of South African a…Peer Review: From “Sacred Ideals” to “Profane Realities” (2017)Peer Review: From “Sacred Ide…Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers? (2017)Does single blind peer review…Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F 1000 P rime peer review (2015)Interrater reliability and co…Biological Importance and Statistical Significance (2013)Biological Importance and Sta…Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure (2012)Saint Matthew strikes again: …A Labour of Love? Academics in Business Schools (2012)A Labour of Love? Academics i…Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors (2010)Quality and Peer Review of Re…Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (2010)Do Author-Suggested Reviewers…The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review (2009)The manuscript reviewing proc…A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ? (2009)A content analysis of referee…The Effectiveness of the Peer Review Process: Inter‐Referee Agreement and Predictive Validity of Manuscript Refereeing at Angewandte Chemie (2008)The Effectiveness of the Peer…Selecting manuscripts for a high‐impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008)Selecting manuscripts for a h…Refereeing the Game of Peer Review (2008)Refereeing the Game of Peer R…Editor's Comments: Why Review? Because Reviewing is a Professional Responsibility (2008)Editor's Comments: Why Review…Is peer review in crisis? (2005)Is peer review in crisis?Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Usefulness of Hirsch’s h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain (2007)The Oxford Handbook of International Psychological Ethics (2012)The ethos of post-normal science (2017)The Handbook of Social Psychology (1969)The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. (1971)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay (2012)Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: A scoping review (2020)Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors (2023)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game (2016)Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals (2017)The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures (2018)The Subject and Power (1982)Handbook of Qualitative Research (1994)Handbook of qualitative research (2000)Careering through academia: Securing identities or engaging ethical subjectivities? (2015)The Academic Game: Compliance and Resistance in Universities (2017)Mothers and researchers in the making: Negotiating ‘new’ motherhood within the ‘new’ academia (2018)Real science what it is, and what it means (2000)Real Science (2000)Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature (2007)Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches (2009)A Multilevel Modelling Approach to Investigating the Predictive Validity of Editorial Decisions: Do the Editors of a High Profile Journal Select Manuscripts that are Highly Cited After Publication? (2011)The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications (2016)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977 (1980)Gender Diversity in Editorial Boards of Management Journals. (2009)Of Journal Editors and Editorial Boards: Who Are the Trailblazers in Increasing Editorial Board Gender Equality? (2015)Tourism’s lost leaders: Analysing gender and performance (2017)Statistics for Experimenters (1979)Empirical Model Building and Response Surfaces (1988)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields (1983)Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning (1991)The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (2004)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)The miracle of peer review and development in science: an agent-based model (2017)How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management (2020)Predatory publishers are corrupting open access (2012)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics (2015)Revisiting the Term Predatory Open Access Publishing (2019)Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level (2021)Understanding Higher Education: Alternative Perspectives (2021)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge (2007)The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science (2010)Normalisation of citation impact in economics (2019)Knowledge and innovation in start-up ventures: A systematic literature review and research agenda (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2012A Labour of Love? Academics in Business Schools178 cited
  • 2017The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals111 cited
  • 2013Biological Importance and Statistical Significance75 cited
  • 2010Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors73 cited
  • 2008Selecting manuscripts for a high‐impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere73 cited
  • 2008The Effectiveness of the Peer Review Process: Inter‐Referee Agreement and Predictive Validity of Manuscript Refereeing at Angewandte Chemie70 cited
  • 2005Is peer review in crisis?67 cited
  • 2008Refereeing the Game of Peer Review67 cited
  • 2012Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure62 cited
  • 2017Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?62 cited
  • 2008Editor's Comments: Why Review? Because Reviewing is a Professional Responsibility56 cited
  • 2009The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review54 cited
  • 2009A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?

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

47 cited
  • 2017Peer Review: From “Sacred Ideals” to “Profane Realities”46 cited
  • 2010Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics43 cited
  • 2015Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F 1000 P rime peer review34 cited