SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts
16 references·2 citing·49 second hop
Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts (2022)Peer reviewers equally critique theory, m…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…Quantifying professionalism in peer review (2020)Quantifying professionalism i…No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic (2020)No time for that now! Qualita…Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature (2020)Comparing quality of reportin…The changing forms and expectations of peer review (2018)The changing forms and expect…Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions (2018)Comparing published scientifi…Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada (2018)Assessment of potential bias …Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Information From Interviews (2013)Quantitative Analysis of Qual…The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality (2007)The Relationship of Previous …Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts (2001)Reasons Reviewers Reject and …Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (1996)Readers' evaluation of effect…Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable (1994)Peer review. Crude and unders…Peer Review (1994)Peer ReviewManuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)Manuscript Quality before and…Effects of Peer Review and Editing on the Readability of Articles Published in Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)Effects of Peer Review and Ed…The Manuscript Review and Decision-Making Process (1987)The Manuscript Review and Dec…Textual features of peer review predict top-cited papers: An interpretable machine learning perspective (2024)Textual features of peer revi…Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals (2022)Does peer review improve the …Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals (1988)The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation (1990)Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists (1995)The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography (2007)The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses (1965)Association Between Funding and Quality of Published Medical Education Research (2007)Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review (2007)Limited by our limitations (2019)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (2001)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial (2012)Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews (2016)Peer review in biomedical publication (1974)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases (2010)A Descriptive and Historical Review of Bibliometrics with Applications to Medical Sciences (2015)Paradigm Development and Particularism: Journal Publication in Three Scientific Disciplines (1977)Editorial Policies and Practices Among Leading Journals in Four Scientific Fields (1978)Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates (1988)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)The Use of Bibliometrics to Measure Research Performance in Education Sciences (2012)Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. (1994)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review (2018)Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? (2019)Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration (2023)Little Science, Big Science (1963)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19 (2020)The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future (2024)The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence (2025)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (2015)Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers (2019)Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting (2020)Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic (2022)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)A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters (2008)Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping (2014)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2021The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape556 cited
  • 1994Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine324 cited
  • 2001Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts235 cited
  • 1994Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable235 cited
  • 1987The Manuscript Review and Decision-Making Process200 cited
  • 2018The changing forms and expectations of peer review179 cited
  • 1994Peer Review155 cited
  • 2018Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada151 cited
  • 2020Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature146 cited
  • 2007The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality139 cited
  • 2013Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Information From Interviews121 cited
  • 1994Effects of Peer Review and Editing on the Readability of Articles Published in Annals of Internal Medicine95 cited
  • 2020No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic85 cited
  • 1996Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde

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

84 cited
  • 2018Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions76 cited
  • 2020Quantifying professionalism in peer review68 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2022Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals14 cited
    • 2024Textual features of peer review predict top-cited papers: An interpretable machine learning perspective13 cited