How to bring peer review ghostwriters out of the dark

Gary S. McDowell · Caroline A. Niziolek · Rebeccah S. Lijek

8 citations0/0 files storedMolecular Biology of the Cell

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

Early career researchers are frequent and valuable contributors to peer review. Systemic changes that acknowledge this fact would result in ethical co-reviewing, peer reviews of greater quality, and a reduction in peer reviewer burden.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

References

1996Chronicle of Higher Education 2014Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.1998What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?2016The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise 2021Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals 2016Decoupling of the minority PhD talent pool and assistant professor hiring in medical school basic science departments in the US 1993The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews 2007The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.