SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Using the peer review process to educate and empower emerging nurse scholars
16 references·0 citing·48 second hop
Using the peer review process to educate and empower emerging nurse scholars (2020)Using the peer review process to educate …The good, the bad and the rude peer-review (2020)The good, the bad and the rud…Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM (2019)Unprofessional peer reviews d…Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada (2018)Assessment of potential bias …Expertise versus Bias in Evaluation: Evidence from the NIH (2017)Expertise versus Bias in Eval…Peer review and the publication process (2016)Peer review and the publicati…Let’s make peer review scientific (2016)Let’s make peer review scient…Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training (2015)Grant Peer Review: Improving …Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system (2014)Peer review for biomedical pu…Heterogeneity of Inter-Rater Reliabilities of Grant Peer Reviews and Its Determinants: A General Estimating Equations Approach (2012)Heterogeneity of Inter-Rater …Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel (2011)Funding grant proposals for s…Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)Improving the peer-review pro…Everyone's a Little Bit Biased (Even Physicians) (2008)Everyone's a Little Bit Biase…Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications (2007)Peer review for improving the…A Multilevel Cross-Classified Modelling Approach to Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Effects of Assessor and Researcher Attributes on Assessor Ratings (2003)A Multilevel Cross-Classified…Peer review in health sciences (2002)Peer review in health sciencesPeer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Peer Review in Health SciencesChance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity (2016)Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions (2019)The value of research funding for knowledge creation and dissemination: A study of SNSF Research Grants (2021)Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1975)The Integrated Mind (1978)Motivated Reasoning and Performance on the was on Selection Task (2002)Expert bias in peer review (2011)Ethical considerations and statistical analysis of industry involvement in machine learning research (2021)AI ethics and its pitfalls: not living up to its own standards? (2022)Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches (2009)The Roles of Creativity in Society (2010)Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis (2019)Statistical principles in experimental design. (1962)Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (2003)A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom motivation and climate: Potential benefits of male teachers for boys? (2008)Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention (1962)Strategic Information Transmission (1982)Endogenous Technological Change (1989)The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences (2018)Algorithm-Augmented Work and Domain Experience: The Countervailing Forces of Ability and Aversion (2021)Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Bias in peer review (2012)“I don't see gender”: Conceptualizing a gendered system of academic publishing (2019)Innovative Strategies for Peer Review (2020)The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science (2024)Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. (1994)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review (2018)Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? (2019)Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration (2023)Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color (1991)Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles? (2003)Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines (2015)Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups (2023)Diversity and Standards in Writing for Publication in the Age of AI—Between a Rock and a Hard Place (2024)Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis (2007)Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases (2011)Content Validity—Establishing and Reporting the Evidence in Newly Developed Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments for Medical Product Evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report: Part 1—Eliciting Concepts for a New PRO Instrument (2011)COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies) (2014)Iterative categorization (IC): a systematic technique for analysing qualitative data (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2002Peer review in health sciences349 cited
  • 2008Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.299 cited
  • 1999Peer Review in Health Sciences268 cited
  • 2019Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM189 cited
  • 2017Expertise versus Bias in Evaluation: Evidence from the NIH175 cited
  • 2018Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada151 cited
  • 2008Everyone's a Little Bit Biased (Even Physicians)149 cited
  • 2003A Multilevel Cross-Classified Modelling Approach to Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Effects of Assessor and Researcher Attributes on Assessor Ratings139 cited
  • 2011Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel134 cited
  • 2016Peer review and the publication process125 cited
  • 2016Let’s make peer review scientific111 cited
  • 2014Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system103 cited
  • 2007Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications99 cited
  • 2015Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training86 cited
  • 2020The good, the bad and the rude peer-review

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

82 cited
  • 2012Heterogeneity of Inter-Rater Reliabilities of Grant Peer Reviews and Its Determinants: A General Estimating Equations Approach82 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.