SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer review experiences of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States
16 references·1 citing·50 second hop
Peer review experiences of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States (2021)Peer review experiences of academic chemi…Large survey finds questionable research practices are common (2021)Large survey finds questionab…Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: A scoping review (2020)Motivations for performing sc…Civil disobedience in scientific authorship: Resistance and insubordination in science (2020)Civil disobedience in scienti…Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM (2019)Unprofessional peer reviews d…Is Peer Review a Good Idea? (2019)Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations (2019)Elsevier investigates hundred…Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: An international study (2019)Early career researchers and …Characterizing Peer Review Comments and Revision from a Writing-to-Learn Assignment Focused on Lewis Structures (2019)Characterizing Peer Review Co…The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications (2018)The ability of different peer…Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century (2016)Researchers’ Individual Publi…Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community (2015)Authorship Issues and Conflic…Influences on Authorship Issues: An Evaluation of Receiving, Not Receiving, and Rejecting Credit (2010)Influences on Authorship Issu…Influences on Authorship Issues: An Evaluation of Giving Credit (2010)Influences on Authorship Issu…Credit and Authorship Practices: Educational and Environmental Influences (2010)Credit and Authorship Practic…What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)What Makes a Good Reviewer an…Guardians of Science (1993)Guardians of SciencePaying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges (2026)Paying peer reviewers: benefi…The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1974)Chronicle of Higher Education (1998)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines (2011)Best Practices for Allocating Appropriate Credit and Responsibility to Authors of Multi-Authored Articles (2011)Mentoring: A Typology of Costs for Higher Education Faculty (2013)The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial (1990)Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language (1994)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge (2007)Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries (2011)Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics (2015)On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications (2017)Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? (2018)Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases (2021)Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (1986)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Scientific conclusions need not be accurate, justified, or believed by their authors (2021)Philosophy of Open Science (2023)The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence (2025)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19 (2020)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)Thought and language (1962)Writing as a Mode of Learning (1977)To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing (2008)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)The good, the bad and the rude peer-review (2020)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)Bias in peer review (2012)Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)How is open access publishing going down with early career researchers? An international, multi-disciplinary study (2020)National comparisons of early career researchers' scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours (2020)The pandemic and changes in early career researchers’ career prospects, research and publishing practices (2023)Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions (2000)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)Measuring the developmental function of peer review: a multi-dimensional, cross-disciplinary analysis of peer review reports from 740 academic journals (2022)The Role of Publons in the Context of Open Peer Review (2022)Towards theorizing peer review (2022)What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior (2008)Scientific peer review (2011)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1998What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?268 cited
  • 2016Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century204 cited
  • 2019Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM197 cited
  • 2019Is Peer Review a Good Idea?137 cited
  • 1993Guardians of Science111 cited
  • 2018The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications73 cited
  • 2010Influences on Authorship Issues: An Evaluation of Receiving, Not Receiving, and Rejecting Credit61 cited
  • 2019Characterizing Peer Review Comments and Revision from a Writing-to-Learn Assignment Focused on Lewis Structures54 cited
  • 2020Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: A scoping review51 cited
  • 2019Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: An international study50 cited
  • 2020Civil disobedience in scientific authorship: Resistance and insubordination in science41 cited
  • 2015Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community39 cited
  • 2019Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations38 cited
  • 2010Credit and Authorship Practices: Educational and Environmental Influences36 cited

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

  • 2021Large survey finds questionable research practices are common33 cited
  • 2010Influences on Authorship Issues: An Evaluation of Giving Credit29 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2026Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges5 cited