SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
How to Be a More Effective Reviewer
6 references·0 citing·35 second hopsampled
How to Be a More Effective Reviewer (2022)How to Be a More Effective ReviewerHow to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process (2017)How to Write an Effective Ref…From the Editors: How to write a high-quality review (2013)From the Editors: How to writ…Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers (2011)Reviewing Manuscripts for Pee…Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Peer Reviewing (2011)Quantifying the Volunteer Eff…The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review (2009)The manuscript reviewing proc…Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate (2009)Are three heads better than t…The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. (1982)The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (1983)Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (2005)The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science (2010)Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use? (2011)The conceptual foundation of environmental decision support (2015)Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates (1988)Publishing as Prostitution? – Choosing Between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success (2003)Rejection Rates for Journals Publishing in the Atmospheric Sciences (2010)Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism (2014)Editorial peer review : its strengths and weaknesses (2001)The emergence of China as a leading nation in science (2005)Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? (2009)Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research (2020)The impact of peer review on the contribution potential of scientific papers (2021)Monthly Weather Review at 150 Years: Its History, Impact, and Legacy (2022)Peer Review and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Management Discipline (2004)Peer Review in the Organizational and Management Sciences: Prevalence and Effects of Reviewer Hostility, Bias, and Dissensus (2006)The As-Is Journal Review Process: Let Authors Own Their Ideas. (2007)Becoming a great reviewer: Four actionable guidelines (2017)From Boxing to Dancing: Creating a Developmental Editorial Culture (2017)Defining quality in peer review reports: a scoping review (2025)Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. (1951)Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers (1975)Peer review in health sciences (2002)Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay (2012)Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication (2015)Peer review and the publication process (2016)The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process (2000)Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q‐r Theory (2002)Nine Facts about Top Journals in Economics (2013)What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals (2017)The Remarkable Growth in Financial Economics, 1974-2020 (2020)The remarkable growth in financial economics, 1974–2020 (2021)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 2011Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers125 cited
  • 2009The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review54 cited
  • 2017How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process42 cited
  • 2009Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate40 cited
  • 2011Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Peer Reviewing28 cited
  • 2013From the Editors: How to write a high-quality review28 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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