SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Do’s and Don’ts for a Good Reviewer of Scientific Papers: A Beginner’s Brief Decalogue
8 references·3 citing·47 second hop
Do’s and Don’ts for a Good Reviewer of Scientific Papers: A Beginner’s Brief Decalogue (2020)Do’s and Don’ts for a Good Reviewer of Sc…Seven Reasons Not to Be a Peer Reviewer—And Why These Reasons Are Wrong (2012)Seven Reasons Not to Be a Pee…How to review a manuscript (2010)How to review a manuscriptCONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updat…Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for…Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study (2008)Perceptions of Ethical Proble…Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process…A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript (2005)A Systematic Guide to Reviewi…Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. (2000)Manuscript peer review: a hel…Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos (2022)Reglas y consejos para ser un…Alice through the Looking-glass: Can We Improve Peer Review? (2022)Alice through the Looking-gla…Review Article: The Flagship of Evidence-Based Medicine (2021)Review Article: The Flagship …Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts (2001)HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER (2003)Reasons for Rejection of Manuscripts Submitted to AJR by International Authors (2007)Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases (2010)Peer review and the publication process (2016)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)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare 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)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials (2013)CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials (2016)CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials (2016)The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews (1993)Rigor of Peer Review and the Standing of a Journal (2002)The Title Says It All (2009)Scholarly peer reviewing′: The art, its joys and woes (2015)Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review (2020)The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)The history of the peer-review process (2002)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Manuscript Rejection (2014)The peer review process (2019)What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis (2020)Opening up BMJ peer review (1999)The politics of publication (2003)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature (2010)Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM (2019)Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)Peer review: reform or revolution? (1997)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Peer review as professional responsibility: A quality control system only as good as the participants (2007)A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers (2021)Defining quality in peer review reports: a scoping review (2025)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 health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Scientific peer review (2011)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement37,549 cited
  • 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials3,824 cited
  • 2006Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals868 cited
  • 2008Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study135 cited
  • 2005A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript128 cited
  • 2000Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees.69 cited
  • 2010How to review a manuscript52 cited
  • 2012Seven Reasons Not to Be a Peer Reviewer—And Why These Reasons Are Wrong20 cited

Cited by

  • 2021Review Article: The Flagship of Evidence-Based Medicine14 cited
  • 2022Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos13 cited
  • 2022Alice through the Looking-glass: Can We Improve Peer Review?10 cited

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