SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity
16 references·1 citing·45 second hop
Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity (2020)Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publ…The Changing Face of Academic Surgery: Overrepresentation of Women among Surgeon-Scientists with R01 Funding (2020)The Changing Face of Academic…STROCSS 2019 Guideline: Strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery (2019)STROCSS 2019 Guideline: Stren…The Problem Is Not Professional Publishing, But the Publish-or-Perish Culture (2018)The Problem Is Not Profession…Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review (2018)Are university rankings usefu…Why do you publish? On the tensions between generating scientific knowledge and publication pressure (2017)Why do you publish? On the te…Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Reviewer bias in single- vers…Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015 (2017)Publish or perish: how Centra…Publish and Perish? An Assessment of Gender Gaps in Promotion to Tenure in Academia (2017)Publish and Perish? An Assess…Gender disparities in scholarly productivity of US academic surgeons (2016)Gender disparities in scholar…I Publish in I Edit? - Do Editorial Board Members of Urologic Journals Preferentially Publish Their Own Scientific Work? (2013)I Publish in I Edit? - Do Edi…Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmask…Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Does Masking Author Identity …The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. (1990)The effects of blinding on th…The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial (1990)The effects of blinding on th…The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review (1990)The Effects of Blinding on th…Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Peer-review practices of psyc…Editors publishing in their own journals – a systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects (2021)Editors publishing in their o…How blind is blind review? (1991)Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review (1997)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Bias in peer review (2012)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)Peer Review (1994)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Peer review in biomedical publication (1974)Journal Peer Review (1985)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process? (1994)Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)Statistical principles in experimental design. (1962)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Toward an experimental ecology of human development. (1977)Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities (1994)Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. (1995)Scientific Utopia (2012)Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor (1985)Framed by Gender (2011)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Exploratory Research (2020)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Publishing While Female: are Women Held to Higher Standards? Evidence from Peer Review (2022)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond (2019)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research (2023)Measuring the academic reputation through citation networks via PageRankPreferred 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)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)A longitudinal analysis of university rankings (2020)Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021)Using the Delphi Technique to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials: Recommendations for the Future Based on a Systematic Review of Existing Studies (2011)Reporting Quality of Observational Studies in Plastic Surgery Needs Improvement (2015)The STROCSS statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery (2017)STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery (2021)STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery (2021)The STROCSS 2024 guideline: strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional, and case–control studies in surgery (2024)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2019STROCSS 2019 Guideline: Strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery1,548 cited
  • 1982Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again1,071 cited
  • 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review631 cited
  • 2017Publish and Perish? An Assessment of Gender Gaps in Promotion to Tenure in Academia287 cited
  • 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review284 cited
  • 1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?281 cited
  • 1990The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial271 cited
  • 1990The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review267 cited
  • 2018Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review203 cited
  • 1990The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.113 cited
  • 2016Gender disparities in scholarly productivity of US academic surgeons113 cited
  • 2017Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–201588 cited
  • 2017Why do you publish? On the tensions between generating scientific knowledge and publication pressure62 cited
  • 2018The Problem Is Not Professional Publishing, But the Publish-or-Perish Culture

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

49 cited
  • 2020The Changing Face of Academic Surgery: Overrepresentation of Women among Surgeon-Scientists with R01 Funding33 cited
  • 2013I Publish in I Edit? - Do Editorial Board Members of Urologic Journals Preferentially Publish Their Own Scientific Work?32 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2021Editors publishing in their own journals – a systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects7 cited