SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

The good, the bad and the rude peer-review · Study

WorkThe good, the bad and the rude peer-review

Andreas F. Mavrogenis2020

Work2020

The good, the bad and the rude peer-review

Andreas F. Mavrogenis · Andrew Quaile · Marius M. Scarlat

82 citations·0/0 files stored·International Orthopaedics

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 — 82 citations exist upstream.

References

2013Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science 2006Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012Bias in peer review 2015Stereotype Threat 2006Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals 2008Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence.2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals 2013The Matilda Effect in Science Communication

Cited by

2024The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science 2020Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature 2021Assessing the ideological homogeneity in entrepreneurial finance research by highly cited publications 2021Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers 2022Promoting equity in the peer review process of journal publication 2021Demystifying the process of scholarly peer-review: an autoethnographic investigation of feedback literacy of two award-winning peer reviewers

Related works

Explore the map →

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

2019How to evaluate reviewers – the international orthopedics reviewers score (INOR-RS)editorial · 9 shared references 2015Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editorsarticle · 6 shared references 2015Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review modelsarticle · 6 shared references 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer reviewarticle · 6 shared references 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer reviewarticle · 5 shared references 2015Emerging trends in peer review—a surveyreview · 5 shared references

Details

Year2020

Typeeditorial

Published2020-02-10

VenueInternational Orthopaedics

ISSN-L0341-2695

Languageen

Citations82

Files0 public / 0

ShelfAcademic Writing and Publishing

Identifiers

doi10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1

openalex_workW3006014645

Links

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

2022Bringing light to a hidden genre: the peer review report

2023The relevance of title, abstract, and keywords for scientific paper quality and potential impact