Citation map · Study

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

16 references·16 citing·39 second hopsampled

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

2013Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science1,496 cited
2006Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology1,164 cited
2012Bias in peer review997 cited
2015Stereotype Threat918 cited
2006Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals868 cited
2008Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence.831 cited
2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
2013The Matilda Effect in Science Communication469 cited
1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial415 cited
2013Gender differences in evaluation of new business opportunity: A stereotype threat perspective343 cited
1998US and Non-US Submissions318 cited
2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial261 cited
2019Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM189 cited
2006Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors147 cited
1980A Manuscript Masquerade

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

94 cited

2006Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study88 cited

Cited by

2024The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science70 cited
2020Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature47 cited
2021Assessing the ideological homogeneity in entrepreneurial finance research by highly cited publications41 cited
2021Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers26 cited
2022Promoting equity in the peer review process of journal publication20 cited
2021Demystifying the process of scholarly peer-review: an autoethnographic investigation of feedback literacy of two award-winning peer reviewers18 cited
2022Bringing light to a hidden genre: the peer review report17 cited
2023The relevance of title, abstract, and keywords for scientific paper quality and potential impact15 cited
2020How fast is the peer-review process for orthopaedic publications related to the Covid-19 pandemic?14 cited
2020Using the peer review process to educate and empower emerging nurse scholars14 cited
2021Writing for “International Orthopaedics”: authorship, fraud, and ethical concerns13 cited
2024Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment13 cited
2023Research Outputs as Testimony & the APC as Testimonial Injustice in the Global South12 cited
2020Useful and useless publications measured by bibliometrics and scientometrics in orthopaedic surgery. Are the relevance of a journal and publication metrics useful enough for the scientific promotion of surgeons?11 cited
2023Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics8 cited
2024Beyond disclaimers: the need for a curation-based model of PubMed7 cited