SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer review as a measurable responsibility of those who publish: The peer review debt index
16 references·0 citing·43 second hop
Peer review as a measurable responsibility of those who publish: The peer review debt index (2022)Peer review as a measurable responsibilit…Gender, Race and Parenthood Impact Academic Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Survey to Action (2021)Gender, Race and Parenthood I…The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)The limitations to our unders…Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions (2020)Purposes of peer review: A qu…How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? (2020)How many manuscripts should I…The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise (2016)The Global Burden of Journal …Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication (2015)Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Ma…Peer review: still king in the digital age (2014)Peer review: still king in th…Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)Peer Review in Scientific Pub…Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Peer review in a changing wor…Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals (2012)Best peer reviewers and the q…To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing (2008)To give is better than to rec…The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality (2007)The Relationship of Previous …Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey (2006)Why do peer reviewers decline…Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Measuring the Quality of Edit…What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)What Makes a Good Reviewer an…Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Peer Review in 18th-Century S…Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)A Descriptive and Historical Review of Bibliometrics with Applications to Medical Sciences (2015)Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2016)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial (2000)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? (2008)Thought and language (1962)Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987)Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development (1994)A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it (2016)The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies (2019)The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009 (2011)The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2015)Meta-research: Why research on research matters (2018)On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective (2019)Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis (2024)The history of the peer-review process (2002)Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic (2020)Superiority of external attentional focus for motor performance and learning: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. (2021)Toward a sustainability organizational culture model (2023)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)Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review (2023)Guidance for Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Editors on Use of AI, Language Models, and Chatbots (2023)The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly (2025)Inequality Regimes (2006)Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative Research (2008)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Climate change, COVID-19, and the co-production of injustices: a feminist reading of overlapping crises (2021)Researching gender inequalities in academic labor during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Avoiding common problems and asking different questions (2021)The Impact of Motherhood on Women’s Career Progression: A Scoping Review of Evidence-Based Interventions (2024)The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)Women Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review to Outline the Boundaries of Scientific Literature (2020)AI-assisted peer review (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2008To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing842 cited
  • 2014Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.399 cited
  • 2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers393 cited
  • 2020The limitations to our understanding of peer review383 cited
  • 1990Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism350 cited
  • 2021Gender, Race and Parenthood Impact Academic Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Survey to Action306 cited
  • 1998What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?266 cited
  • 2016The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise246 cited
  • 2014Peer review: still king in the digital age243 cited
  • 2002Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review230 cited
  • 2006Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey195 cited
  • 2007The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality139 cited
  • 2015Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication89 cited
  • 2012Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals47 cited

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

  • 2020Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions40 cited
  • 2020How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?33 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.