Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peer-review

16 references·9 citing·41 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2014Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research1,315 cited
2006Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals868 cited
1989Problems of citation analysis: A critical review803 cited
2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
1992The skewness of science713 cited
2010Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network589 cited
1996The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research356 cited
1994Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine324 cited
2011Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial291 cited
2016Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis218 cited
2006The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency185 cited
2010Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?177 cited
1998Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance141 cited
2007

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

Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

112 cited

2014Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system103 cited

2013Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review103 cited

Cited by

2021Recent trends in business financial risk – A bibliometric analysis47 cited
2020Citation impact was highly variable for reporting guidelines of health research: a citation analysis37 cited
2025The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review26 cited
2020Online survey about the STROBE statement highlighted diverging views about its content, purpose, and value21 cited
2020Improving transparency and reproducibility of patent landscapes: the Reporting Items for Patent Landscapes (RIPL) statement and other considerations13 cited
2021Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial12 cited
2024Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers10 cited
2019A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines10 cited
2019A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines9 cited