SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)
16 references·1 citing·35 second hop
The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R) (2021)The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Public…The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape (2021)The evolving role of preprint…Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting (2020)Systematic examination of pre…Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science (2020)Open peer review: promoting t…Guidelines for open peer review implementation (2019)Guidelines for open peer revi…Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts (2019)Co-reviewing and ghostwriting…How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)How open science helps resear…Promoting an open research culture (2015)Promoting an open research cu…Publishing: The peer-review scam (2014)Publishing: The peer-review s…Publish or perish: Where are we heading? (2014)Publish or perish: Where are …Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Who's Afraid of Peer Review?The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index (2010)The rate of growth in scienti…The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization (2006)The Scientific Article in the…The history of the peer-review process (2002)The history of the peer-revie…Phenomena of Retraction (1998)Phenomena of RetractionThe Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation (1990)The Philosophical Basis of Pe…Discovery and Justification (1978)Discovery and JustificationEnsuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review (2021)Ensuring effective scholarly …The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Mapping of available health research and development data: what's there, what's missing, and what role is there for a global observatory? (2013)Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews (2015)The natural selection of bad science (2016)Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact (2001)Nipype: A Flexible, Lightweight and Extensible Neuroimaging Data Processing Framework in Python (2011)Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition (2018)Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond (2019)Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021)The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals (2013)Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations (2020)Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations (2020)ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health (2023)Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure (2018)Reproducible and replicable pain research: a critical review (2018)The significant cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials (2019)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods (2005)Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (2005)A review of theory and practice in scientometrics (2015)Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Misinformation in and about science (2021)The "impact factor" revisited (2005)The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science (2013)Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central (2016)Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process (2015)The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics (2016)Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research (2017)How to Make More Published Research True (2014)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2015Promoting an open research culture2,686 cited
  • 2010The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index964 cited
  • 2013Who's Afraid of Peer Review?934 cited
  • 2016How open science helps researchers succeed790 cited
  • 2021The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape556 cited
  • 2002The history of the peer-review process445 cited
  • 1990The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation436 cited
  • 2014Publish or perish: Where are we heading?386 cited
  • 1998Phenomena of Retraction230 cited
  • 2014Publishing: The peer-review scam228 cited
  • 2020Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science167 cited
  • 1978Discovery and Justification113 cited
  • 2020Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting112 cited
  • 2019Guidelines for open peer review implementation92 cited
  • 2006The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization70 cited
  • 2019

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

Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts
66 cited

Cited by

  • 2021Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review12 cited