SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Imperfect but important: a fellow’s perspective on journal peer review · Study

WorkImperfect but important: a fellow’s perspective on journal peer review

Natalie R. Neumann2019

OA

Workhybrid2019

Imperfect but important: a fellow’s perspective on journal peer review

Natalie R. Neumann

8 citations·0/0 files stored·Journal of Medical Toxicology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic Writing and Publishing Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

No abstract was published for this record.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

References

1986Guarding the Guardians: A Conference on Editorial Peer Review 2005A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript 2017Making the First Cut: An Analysis of Academic Medicine Editors’ Reasons for Not Sending Manuscripts Out for External Peer Review 2012Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals 2011Any jackass can trash a manuscript, but it takes good scholarship to create one (how MBoC promotes civil and constructive peer review)2010How to Peer Review 2015Just Because It's Published Doesn't Mean It's Perfect

Cited by

2023Scientists’ perception of pilot study quality was influenced by statistical significance and study design

Related works

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

2011To publish or perish: How to review a manuscriptarticle · 2 shared references 2013How Do Reviewers Affect the Final Outcome? Comparison of the Quality of Peer Review and Relative Acceptance Rates of Submitted Manuscriptsarticle · 2 shared references 2011To publish or perish: How to review a manuscriptarticle · 2 shared references 2021How We Review a Medical Education Research Manuscriptarticle · 2 shared references 2014ACCEPTANCE RATE AND REASONS FOR REJECTION OF MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO VETERINARY RADIOLOGY & ULTRASOUND DURING 2012article · 2 shared references 2022Publishing your scholarship: a survey of pearls from top reviewersarticle · 2 shared references

Details

Year2019

Typeeditorial

Published2019-12-18

VenueJournal of Medical Toxicology

ISSN-L1556-9039

Languageen

Citations8

Files0 public / 0

ShelfAcademic Writing and Publishing

Identifiers

doi10.1007/s13181-019-00751-w

openalex_workW2995336185

Links

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.