SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review — The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
14 references·4 citing·47 second hop
Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review — The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (2019)Everything You Need to Know About Peer Re…An Introduction to Writing Narrative and Systematic Reviews — Tasks, Tips and Traps for Aspiring Authors (2018)An Introduction to Writing Na…Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews (2016)Improving the peer review of …Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2016)Impact of interventions to im…Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias (2015)Medical Journal Peer Review: …Publishing: The peer-review scam (2014)Publishing: The peer-review s…Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial (2010)Effect on peer review of tell…The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review (2009)The manuscript reviewing proc…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for…‘Why not give us the full story?’: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers (2003)‘Why not give us the full sto…The history of the peer-review process (2002)The history of the peer-revie…Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication (1998)Freedom and Responsibility in…What Makes a Good Scientist?: Determinants of Peer Evaluation among Biologists (1995)What Makes a Good Scientist?:…Peer review of the biomedical literature (1990)Peer review of the biomedical…Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: a scoping review (2022)Towards a new paradigm for ‘j…Research Methods: How to Perform an Effective Peer Review (2022)Research Methods: How to Perf…THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN ASIA (2021)THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN AS…Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study (2020)Quantifying gender disparity …Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews (2016)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)An introduction to functional grammar (1986)Politeness : Some Universals in Language Usage (1987)Introduction to functional grammar . By M. A. K. Halliday London & Baltimore: Edward Arnold, 1985. Pp. xxxv, 387. (1989)The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: questions of equity, access and domain loss (2007)Evaluative language in peer review referee reports (2008)Publishing research in English-language journals: Attitudes, strategies and difficulties of multilingual scholars of medicine (2014)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Peer review in health sciences (2002)Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians (2017)The state of the art in peer review (2018)Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review (2019)The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence (1990)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication (2015)Peer review: The current landscape and future trends (2016)A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals (2017)A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies (2009)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Transparency in literature reviews: an assessment of reporting practices across review types and genres in top IS journals (2017)Building Resilience: The Conceptual Basis and Research Evidence for Resilience Training Programs (2018)Diverse Approaches to Creating and Using Causal Loop Diagrams in Public Health Research: Recommendations From a Scoping Review (2021)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors (2011)Web-Based Interventions to Improve Mental Health in Home Caregivers of People With Dementia: Meta-Analysis (2019)How can employees adapt to change? Clarifying the adaptive performance concepts (2020)Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review and opportunities for future research (2020)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Misinformation in and about science (2021)Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process (2015)The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics (2016)Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research (2017)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.44,857 cited
  • 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement37,549 cited
  • 2002The history of the peer-review process445 cited
  • 2018An Introduction to Writing Narrative and Systematic Reviews — Tasks, Tips and Traps for Aspiring Authors274 cited
  • 2014Publishing: The peer-review scam228 cited
  • 2016Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis218 cited
  • 2016Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews194 cited
  • 2010Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial163 cited
  • 2003‘Why not give us the full story?’: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers134 cited
  • 2015Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias125 cited
  • 1995What Makes a Good Scientist?: Determinants of Peer Evaluation among Biologists110 cited
  • 1998Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication60 cited
  • 2009The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review54 cited
  • 1990Peer review of the biomedical literature

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

29 cited

Cited by

  • 2020Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study21 cited
  • 2022Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: a scoping review19 cited
  • 2022Research Methods: How to Perform an Effective Peer Review13 cited
  • 2021THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN ASIA8 cited