References

• 2016The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise246 cited
• 2008Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making.192 cited
• 2018The state of the art in peer review171 cited
• 2007The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality139 cited
• 2016Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained124 cited
• 2014What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics117 cited
• 2019Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review111 cited
• 2015Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers’ Work89 cited
• 2017Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers77 cited
• 2021Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi‐stakeholder perspective on causes and effects73 cited
• 2019Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study69 cited
• 2011Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing68 cited
• 2005Reviewing the Reviewers: Comparison of Review Quality and Reviewer Characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology