Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing

16 references·12 citing·46 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2004Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)6,450 cited
1946On the Theory of Scales of Measurement4,758 cited
1977Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system1,013 cited
2012Bias in peer review997 cited
2016Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI656 cited
2007Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors551 cited
2017What is open peer review? A systematic review453 cited
2002The history of the peer-review process445 cited
2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers393 cited
2017Gender bias in scholarly peer review380 cited
2002Peer review in health sciences349 cited
1953On the Statistical Treatment of Football Numbers.342 cited
2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review293 cited
1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review281 cited
1998

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

Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?

278 cited

Cited by

2021Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review—A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists23 cited
2024Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review23 cited
2021The influence of opening up peer review on the citations of journal articles19 cited
2020The benefits to climate science of including early-career scientists as reviewers17 cited
2021Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review17 cited
2024Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment15 cited
2022Towards improving peer review: Crowd-sourced insights from Twitter14 cited
2021Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review12 cited
2023What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals12 cited
2022Toward More Inclusive Metrics and Open Science to Measure Research Assessment in Earth and Natural Sciences11 cited
2024Journeying Through Journals: The Publishing Process and How to Maximise Research Impact10 cited
2022Perception of Open Science in the Scientific Community of the Republic of Moldova7 cited