SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Como o modelo econômico afeta o meu periódico
11 references·0 citing·49 second hop
Como o modelo econômico afeta o meu periódico (2021)Como o modelo econômico afeta o meu perió…The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019 (2019)The limitations of retraction…The adoption of Article Processing Charges as a business model by Brazilian Open Access journals (2019)The adoption of Article Proce…Guidelines for open peer review implementation (2019)Guidelines for open peer revi…Ten considerations for open peer review (2018)Ten considerations for open p…Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections (2018)Improving the integrity of pu…What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)What is open peer review? A s…Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers (2017)Survey on open peer review: A…Financiamento público no Brasil para a publicação de artigos em acesso aberto: alguns apontamentos (2017)Financiamento público no Bras…CEVAP Journal: the first Brazilian electronic scientific publication turns 20 years old (2015)CEVAP Journal: the first Braz…Science publishing: The trouble with retractions (2011)Science publishing: The troub…Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (2009)Retractions: Guidance from th…Phenomena of Retraction (1998)Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case (2006)Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? (2006)A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research (2009)COPE's retraction guidelines (2009)A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature (2012)Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles (2006)CEVAP journal towards a new phase (2013)The rising trend in authorship (2014)Do Disquete às Nuvens: a saga da primeira revista eletrônica científica brasileira (2018)Ciência aberta, gestão de dados de pesquisa e novas possibilidades para a editoração científica (2020)O Alinhamento das revistas brasileiras sobre Medicina Tropical e Doenças infecciosas e Parasitárias às práticas da Ciência Aberta (2020)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems (2012)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future (2018)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)Psychology's Replication Crisis and Clinical Psychological Science (2019)The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)Self-correction in science at work (2015)Amending published articles: time to rethink retractions and corrections? (2017)What difference might retractions make? An estimate of the potential epistemic cost of retractions on meta-analyses (2021)Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines (2022)Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices (2023)Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (2001)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Bias in peer review (2012)Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view (2020)Innovative Strategies for Peer Review (2020)Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish? (2021)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Open access: The true cost of science publishing (2013)Práticas de Ciência Aberta da comunidade acadêmica brasileira: estudo a partir da produção científica (2019)Waiving article processing charges for least developed countries: a keystone of a large-scale open access transformation (2021)OLIVA: La Producción Científica Indexada en América Latina. Diversidad Disciplinar, Colaboración Institucional y Multilingüismo en SciELO y Redalyc (1995-2018) (2023)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)Calibrating the Scientific Ecosystem Through Meta-Research (2019)Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ (2020)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)The (ir)rational consideration of the cost of science in transition economies (2017)Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data (2020)Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors (2021)Exploring the role of rejection in scholarly knowledge production: Insights from granular interaction thinking and information theory (2024)Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank (2013)Facts Are More Important Than Novelty (2014)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review479 cited
  • 2011Science publishing: The trouble with retractions328 cited
  • 2017Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers276 cited
  • 2019The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019126 cited
  • 2019Guidelines for open peer review implementation92 cited
  • 2018Ten considerations for open peer review81 cited
  • 2018Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections65 cited
  • 2019The adoption of Article Processing Charges as a business model by Brazilian Open Access journals54 cited
  • 2015CEVAP Journal: the first Brazilian electronic scientific publication turns 20 years old35 cited
  • 2009Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics33 cited
  • 2017Financiamento público no Brasil para a publicação de artigos em acesso aberto: alguns apontamentos27 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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