SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The Value and Process of High-Quality Peer Review in Scientific Professional Journals
4 references·0 citing·19 second hop
The Value and Process of High-Quality Peer Review in Scientific Professional Journals (2019)The Value and Process of High-Quality Pee…Writing an Effective Manuscript Review: The 6 “Be's” to Success (2013)Writing an Effective Manuscri…Peer Review Guidance: How Do You Write a Good Review? (2013)Peer Review Guidance: How Do …The Art of Peer-Reviewing an Original Research Paper (2010)The Art of Peer-Reviewing an …A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript (2005)A Systematic Guide to Reviewi…Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts (2001)HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER (2003)Reasons for Rejection of Manuscripts Submitted to AJR by International Authors (2007)Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases (2010)Peer review and the publication process (2016)The One-Minute Manager (1983)Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. (2000)How to review a manuscript (2010)Making a Difference Through Quality Manuscript Review (2018)International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (1990)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)Editors’ Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development (2017)An overview of assessing the quality of peer review reports of scientific articles (2018)Defining quality in peer review reports: a scoping review (2025)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)Arbitrariness of peer review: A Bayesian analysis of the NIPS experiment (2015)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2005A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript128 cited
  • 2013Peer Review Guidance: How Do You Write a Good Review?28 cited
  • 2010The Art of Peer-Reviewing an Original Research Paper13 cited
  • 2013Writing an Effective Manuscript Review: The 6 “Be's” to Success12 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