SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Open Peer Review in the Era of Open Science: A Pilot Study of Researchers' Perceptions
8 references·1 citing·34 second hop
Open Peer Review in the Era of Open Science: A Pilot Study of Researchers' Perceptions (2017)Open Peer Review in the Era of Open Scien…Open Peer Review: An Innovation in Scientific Publishing (2016)Open Peer Review: An Innovati…Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers (2016)Open Peer Review in Scientifi…Let’s make peer review scientific (2016)Let’s make peer review scient…Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals (2014)Science for sale: the rise of…Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Who's Afraid of Peer Review?Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure (2012)Anatomy of open access publis…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…Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review (2021)The cautious faculty: Malaysi…Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? (2019)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)Diffusion of Innovations (1963)The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009 (2011)‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics (2015)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles (2018)Diffusion of Innovations 1 (2019)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Predatory publishers are corrupting open access (2012)Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? (2018)Why do authors publish in predatory journals? (2018)Sample Selection in Systematic Literature Reviews of Management Research (2021)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Peer review in health sciences (2002)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Registering Clinical Trials (2003)The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise (2016)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)Bias in peer review (2012)Peer review, bibliometrics and altmetrics ‐ Do we need them all? (2018)Open peer review correlates with altmetrics but not with citations: Evidence from Nature Communications and PLoS One (2024)Determining Sample Size for Research Activities (1970)A theory of organizational readiness for change (2009)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)How to Make More Published Research True (2014)The state‐of‐the‐art of open peer review: Early adopters (2017)Determining the informativeness of comments: a natural language study of F1000Research open peer review reports (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2013Who's Afraid of Peer Review?1,147 cited
  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals814 cited
  • 2012Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure417 cited
  • 2014Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals165 cited
  • 2010Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial163 cited
  • 2016Let’s make peer review scientific111 cited
  • 2016Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers15 cited
  • 2016Open Peer Review: An Innovation in Scientific Publishing9 cited

Cited by

  • 2021The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review5 cited

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