SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Journal and disciplinary variations in academic open peer review anonymity, outcomes, and length
16 references·2 citing·40 second hop
Journal and disciplinary variations in academic open peer review anonymity, outcomes, and length (2022)Journal and disciplinary variations in ac…Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) (2021)Journal citation reports and …Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science (2020)Open peer review: promoting t…Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations (2020)Google Scholar, Microsoft Aca…Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations (2020)Google Scholar, Microsoft Aca…Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review (2019)Peer Review Bias: A Critical …The state of the art in peer review (2018)The state of the art in peer …Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers (2017)Survey on open peer review: A…Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective (2017)Duration and quality of the p…The length of words reflects their conceptual complexity (2016)The length of words reflects …Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2016)Impact of interventions to im…Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures (2013)Journal acceptance rates: A c…Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Peer review in a changing wor…Bias in peer review (2012)Bias in peer reviewEffects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Effects of Editorial Peer Rev…Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Effect of open peer review on…Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)Have referees rejected some o…Critical reflections on the journal peer review process (2024)Critical reflections on the j…The effectiveness of peer review in identifying issues leading to retractions (2023)The effectiveness of peer rev…Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science (1988)Science as Social Knowledge (1990)A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (1994)Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science (2016)Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature (2017)Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review (2007)The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians (2017)The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process (2000)The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals (2013)The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2015)Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions (2017)On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective (2019)How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists (2020)The ups and downs of peer review (2007)Psychology's Replication Crisis and Clinical Psychological Science (2019)Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories (2018)Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources (2019)Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies (2020)Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic (2021)Citationchaser: A tool for transparent and efficient forward and backward citation chasing in systematic searching (2022)Exploratory Bibliometrics: Using VOSviewer as a Preliminary Research Tool (2023)Predatory publishers are corrupting open access (2012)‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics (2015)Predatory journals: no definition, no defence (2019)A bibliometric analysis of Research on Education 4.0 during the 2017–2021 period (2022)Recalibrating the scope of scholarly publishing: A modest step in a vast decolonization process (2022)A comprehensive review of circular economy research in the textile and clothing industry (2024)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2020Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations1,016 cited
  • 2012Bias in peer review997 cited
  • 2020Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations916 cited
  • 1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial415 cited
  • 2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers393 cited
  • 2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review347 cited
  • 2017Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective303 cited
  • 2017Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers243 cited
  • 2016Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis218 cited
  • 2021Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)172 cited
  • 2018The state of the art in peer review171 cited
  • 2020Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science167 cited
  • 2019Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review165 cited
  • 2016The length of words reflects their conceptual complexity

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

153 cited
  • 2013Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures120 cited
  • 1996Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times?103 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2023The effectiveness of peer review in identifying issues leading to retractions17 cited
    • 2024Critical reflections on the journal peer review process10 cited