SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review
16 references·0 citing·45 second hop
The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review (2021)The cautious faculty: Malaysian universit…Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science (2020)Open peer review: promoting t…The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)The effect of publishing peer…The changing forms and expectations of peer review (2018)The changing forms and expect…Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers (2017)Survey on open peer review: A…Gender bias in scholarly peer review (2017)Gender bias in scholarly peer…Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals (2016)Peer Review Quality and Trans…How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)How open science helps resear…Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)Emerging trends in peer revie…Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature (2013)Defining and Characterizing O…Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Peer review in a changing wor…Change Readiness (2012)Change ReadinessEffect 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…A theory of organizational readiness for change (2009)A theory of organizational re…Making Reviewers Visible (2002)Making Reviewers VisibleDetermining Sample Size for Research Activities (1970)Determining Sample Size for R…Book Review: Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences (1954)Book Review: Research Methods…The Chronicle of Higher Education (1977)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas (2016)Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)The theory of planned behavior (1991)Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (1992)Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams (1999)An Affect-Based Model of Recipients’ Responses to Organizational Change Events (2016)Organizations Driving Positive Social Change (2016)The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study (2021)Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research (1975)Review of Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). (1979)Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (1999)Characteristics of successful changes in health care organizations: an interview study with physicians, registered nurses and assistant nurses (2020)Internationalization, digitalization, and sustainability: Are SMEs ready? A survey on synergies and substituting effects among growth paths (2021)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)Nipype: A Flexible, Lightweight and Extensible Neuroimaging Data Processing Framework in Python (2011)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition (2018)The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles (2018)Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks (2001)Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals (2020)In the wake of COVID-19, academia needs new solutions to ensure gender equity (2020)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)The ups and downs of peer review (2007)The state of the art in peer review (2018)Psychology's Replication Crisis and Clinical Psychological Science (2019)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting (2005)The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: An extended approach to information adoption (2016)Sample Size for Survey Research: Review and Recommendations (2020)The Handbook of Research on Teaching (1962)Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics (1970)Is working memory training effective? (2012)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1970Determining Sample Size for Research Activities22,093 cited
  • 2009A theory of organizational readiness for change2,444 cited
  • 2016How open science helps researchers succeed878 cited
  • 2012Change Readiness712 cited
  • 1954Book Review: Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences708 cited
  • 2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers417 cited
  • 2017Gender bias in scholarly peer review411 cited
  • 2019The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals276 cited
  • 2017Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers243 cited
  • 2015Emerging trends in peer review—a survey192 cited
  • 2018The changing forms and expectations of peer review179 cited
  • 2002Making Reviewers Visible167 cited
  • 2020Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science167 cited
  • 2016Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals166 cited
  • 2010Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial163 cited

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

  • 2013Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature136 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.