SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
An Empirical Assessment of Reviewer 2
7 references·2 citing·35 second hop
An Empirical Assessment of Reviewer 2 (2022)An Empirical Assessment of Reviewer 2Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself (2020)Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourse…Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review (2019)Peer Review Bias: A Critical …Publish peer reviews (2018)Publish peer reviewsReviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Reviewer bias in single- vers…Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Who's Afraid of Peer Review?Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial (2010)Effect on peer review of tell…Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmask…Peer review: the imprimatur of scientific publication (2024)Peer review: the imprimatur o…Peer review: the imprimatur of scientific publication (2024)Peer review: the imprimatur o…The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review (1990)Peer Review (1994)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)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)Bias in peer review (2012)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Peer review in health sciences (2002)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond (2019)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research (2023)Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers (2017)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences (2019)Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review (2022)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)The Process of Science: A Critical Evaluation of more than 15 Years of Research on Self-Compassion with the Self-Compassion Scale (2020)The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis (2020)The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future (2024)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals (2016)Don’t be reviewer 2! Reflections on writing effective peer review comments (2021)Peer review in academic publishing: Challenges in achieving the gold standard (2022)Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews (2022)Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape (2021)How to Make More Published Research True (2014)‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics (2015)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2013Who's Afraid of Peer Review?1,147 cited
  • 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review631 cited
  • 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review284 cited
  • 2019Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review165 cited
  • 2010Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial163 cited
  • 2018Publish peer reviews90 cited
  • 2020Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself51 cited

Cited by

  • 2024Peer review: the imprimatur of scientific publication7 cited
  • 2024Peer review: the imprimatur of scientific publication5 cited

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