SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer reviewing an original research paper
16 references·0 citing·50 second hop
Peer reviewing an original research paper (2020)Peer reviewing an original research paperWriting the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key (2019)Writing the title and abstrac…The peer review process (2019)The peer review processWriting a model research paper (2017)Writing a model research paperRecommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (2015)Recommendations for the condu…Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process (2015)Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking t…Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials (2014)Why training and specializati…Peer review: still king in the digital age (2014)Peer review: still king in th…Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system (2014)Peer review for biomedical pu…Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers (2011)Reviewing Manuscripts for Pee…Classical peer review: an empty gun (2010)Classical peer review: an emp…A review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical research (2009)A review of the review proces…Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing? (2008)Content and communication: Ho…The ups and downs of peer review (2007)The ups and downs of peer rev…HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER (2003)HOW TO REVIEW A PAPERManuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. (2000)Manuscript peer review: a hel…Statistical reviewing for medical journals (1998)Statistical reviewing for med…The scandal of poor medical research (1994)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency (2006)A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration (2021)Standardised regression coefficient as an effect size index in summarising findings in epidemiological studies (2022)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication (2015)Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review (2019)Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi‐stakeholder perspective on causes and effects (2021)Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. (1951)Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers (1975)Peer review in health sciences (2002)Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay (2012)Peer review and the publication process (2016)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1999)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Ethics and scientific publication (2005)Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Handbook (2008)Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study (2008)The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1991)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas (2006)Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication (2012)How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications (2014)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers (2013)The value of peer review (2014)Ten considerations for open peer review (2018)Publishing: The peer-review scam (2014)Academic Misconduct, Misrepresentation and Gaming: A Reassessment (2018)Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors (2018)“It is important to reinforce the importance of …”: ‘Hype’ in reports of randomized controlled trials (2019)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)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2008)The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Title (2019)A brief guide to the science and art of writing manuscripts in biomedicine (2020)The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Abstract and Keywords (2020)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)Women Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review to Outline the Boundaries of Scientific Literature (2020)AI-assisted peer review (2021)Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results (2017)Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration (2018)The AASPIRE practice-based guidelines for the inclusion of autistic adults in research as co-researchers and study participants (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2015Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals739 cited
  • 2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
  • 2014Peer review: still king in the digital age243 cited
  • 2015Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process163 cited
  • 1998Statistical reviewing for medical journals160 cited
  • 2019Writing the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key146 cited
  • 2003HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER143 cited
  • 2010Classical peer review: an empty gun134 cited
  • 2011Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers125 cited
  • 2014Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system103 cited
  • 2014Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials75 cited
  • 2000Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees.69 cited
  • 2008Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?57 cited
  • 2019The peer review process46 cited
  • 2017Writing a model research paper

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

22 cited
  • 2009A review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical research18 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.