SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research
16 references·0 citing·44 second hop
Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research (2020)Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in C…Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science (2020)Open peer review: promoting t…The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)The effect of publishing peer…Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Reviewer bias in single- vers…Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)Peer Review in Scientific Pub…Relative status of journal and conference publications in computer science (2010)Relative status of journal an…Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study (2008)Perceptions of Ethical Proble…The ups and downs of peer review (2007)The ups and downs of peer rev…Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey (2006)Why do peer reviewers decline…HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER (2003)HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER‘Why not give us the full story?’: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers (2003)‘Why not give us the full sto…Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Measuring the Quality of Edit…Author Perception of Peer Review (2002)Author Perception of Peer Rev…Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts (2001)Reasons Reviewers Reject and …Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial (2000)Open peer review: A randomise…Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Effect on the Quality of Peer…Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy (1992)Peerless Science: Peer Review…Publication and related biases. (2000)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses (1965)Association Between Funding and Quality of Published Medical Education Research (2007)Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review (2007)Limited by our limitations (2019)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)A Descriptive and Historical Review of Bibliometrics with Applications to Medical Sciences (2015)Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2016)Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable (1994)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Gender bias in scholarly peer review (2017)Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review (2018)The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1991)Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas (2006)Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication (2012)How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications (2014)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)The history of the peer-review process (2002)Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic (2020)Superiority of external attentional focus for motor performance and learning: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. (2021)Toward a sustainability organizational culture model (2023)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions (2019)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention (2022)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals (2021)Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals (2021)The Moderating Effect of Environmental Munificence and Dynamism on the Relationship Between Discretionary Social Responsibility and Firm Performance (2004)Scientific Culture and Educational Research (2005)Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2007)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review605 cited
  • 2014Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.399 cited
  • 1998Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports334 cited
  • 2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
  • 1992Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy280 cited
  • 2019The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals276 cited
  • 2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial261 cited
  • 2001Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts235 cited
  • 2002Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review230 cited
  • 2006Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey195 cited
  • 2020Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science167 cited
  • 2003HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER143 cited
  • 2002Author Perception of Peer Review140 cited
  • 2010Relative status of journal and conference publications in computer science139 cited
  • 2008Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study135 cited

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

2003
‘Why not give us the full story?’: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers
134 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.