SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Online training in manuscript peer review: a systematic review
16 references·0 citing·44 second hop
Online training in manuscript peer review: a systematic review (2022)Online training in manuscript peer review…The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review (2021)A billion-dollar donation: es…Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature (2018)Misrepresentation and distort…A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspect…PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement (2016)PRESS Peer Review of Electron…Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2016)Impact of interventions to im…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…Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping (2014)Measuring the effectiveness o…Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Peer review in a changing wor…The ups and downs of peer review (2007)The ups and downs of peer rev…Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Editorial peer review for imp…Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Effects of training on qualit…The peer‐review process (2002)The peer‐review processThe Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)The Evolution of Editorial Pe…Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A Comparison of Results of Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials and Recommendations of Clinical Experts (1992)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)PRISMA Statement (2010)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISEASES OF CHILDREN (1951)Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers (1979)Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science (1988)Quantitative Research Methods, Study Quality, and Outcomes: The Case of Interaction Research (2011)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence (2017)Museum Activism (2019)AI-assisted peer review (2021)The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1991)Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas (2006)Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication (2012)How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications (2014)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches (2015)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2020)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)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)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)PRISMA2020 : An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis (2022)Science Since Babylon (1961)Bridging Neurodiversity and Open Scholarship: How Shared Values Can Guide Best Practices for Research Integrity, Social Justice, and Principled Education (2022)Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis (2024)The strain on scientific publishing (2024)Scientific peer review (2011)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews119,202 cited
  • 2016PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement5,744 cited
  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 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
  • 1990The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review346 cited
  • 2014Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping337 cited
  • 2007Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies312 cited
  • 2021A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review305 cited
  • 2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
  • 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review293 cited
  • 2018Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature273 cited
  • 2004Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial268 cited
  • 2014Peer review: still king in the digital age243 cited
  • 2016Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

218 cited
  • 2002The peer‐review process206 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.