SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Are we capable of separating the wheat from the chaff when assessing meta-analyses?
10 references·0 citing·38 second hop
Are we capable of separating the wheat from the chaff when assessing meta-analyses? (2019)Are we capable of separating the wheat fr…Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017 (2018)Reproducible research practic…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…Reasons for Journal Impact Factor Changes: Influence of Changing Source Items (2016)Reasons for Journal Impact Fa…Meta‐analysis at middle age: a personal history (2015)Meta‐analysis at middle age: …Assessing science (2014)Assessing scienceA Comprehensive Analysis of Articles Retracted Between 2004 and 2013 from Biomedical Literature – A Call for Reforms (2014)A Comprehensive Analysis of A…The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (2013)The San Francisco Declaration…San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (2013)San Francisco Declaration on …Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research (1976)Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. (1986)A power primer. (1992)Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists (2017)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide (2021)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)Retracted Science and the Retraction Index (2011)Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008 (2011)Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? (2013)Retracted articles in rehabilitation: just the tip of the iceberg? A bibliometric analysis (2020)A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed (2021)The Citation of Retracted Papers and Impact on the Integrity of the Scientific Biomedical Literature (2025)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor (2006)The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach (2017)The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects (2019)Inequalities in the growth of Web of Science (2021)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles (2019)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond (2019)Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration (2023)Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use—a scoping review (2025)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future (2018)Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019)Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts? (2018)Reducing the precarity of academic research careers (2021)The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate (2016)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False10,571 cited
  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False4,755 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,499 cited
  • 2013San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment340 cited
  • 2018Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017287 cited
  • 2013The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment171 cited
  • 2015Meta‐analysis at middle age: a personal history100 cited
  • 2016Reasons for Journal Impact Factor Changes: Influence of Changing Source Items45 cited
  • 2014A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles Retracted Between 2004 and 2013 from Biomedical Literature – A Call for Reforms39 cited
  • 2014Assessing science7 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