SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review
14 references·2 citing·43 second hop
A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review (2022)A validation study on the factors affecti…The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)The effect of publishing peer…What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)What is open peer review? A s…Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers (2017)Survey on open peer review: A…A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspect…Transparent peer review at Nature Communications (2015)Transparent peer review at Na…For what it’s worth – the open peer review landscape (2015)For what it’s worth – the ope…Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature (2013)Defining and Characterizing O…A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review models (2013)A comparison of the quality o…Peerage of Science: will it work? (2012)Peerage of Science: will it w…Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? A study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes (2010)Is interactive open access pu…The pros and cons of open peer review (2006)The pros and cons of open pee…Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial (2000)Open peer review: A randomise…Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Peer-review practices of psyc…The Science of Research Management (1957)The Science of Research Manag…Emerging plagiarism in peer-review evaluation reports: a tip of the iceberg? (2024)Emerging plagiarism in peer-r…Are the confidence scores of reviewers consistent with the review content? Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI (2024)Are the confidence scores of …Statistical principles in experimental design. (1962)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Toward an experimental ecology of human development. (1977)Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. (1995)Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability (2011)The Significance of Insecure and Disorganized Attachment for Children’s Internalizing Symptoms: A Meta-Analytic Study (2012)Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. (2004)Science and Engineering Indicators (2004)Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (2005)Citation rates in mathematics: a study of variation by subdiscipline (2012)Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator (2016)Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator (2016)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)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)Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought (2013)The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future (2018)AI-assisted peer review (2021)Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)The ups and downs of peer review (2007)Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)The state of the art in peer review (2018)Psychology's Replication Crisis and Clinical Psychological Science (2019)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals (2021)Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals (2021)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Bias in peer review (2012)Assessment Strategies for Online Learning: Engagement and Authenticity (2018)Awareness of predatory journals and open access among medical oncologists: results of an online survey (2019)Digital Technology and the Practices of Humanities Research (2019)Modeling users’ acceptance of mobile services (2012)Evolution of topics in education research: a systematic review using bibliometric analysis (2019)From green entrepreneurial intentions to green entrepreneurial behaviors: the role of university entrepreneurial support and external institutional support (2020)Open-access mega-journals (2017)Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science (2020)Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1982Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again1,071 cited
  • 1957The Science of Research Management466 cited
  • 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review453 cited
  • 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review293 cited
  • 2019The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals276 cited
  • 2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial261 cited
  • 2017Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers243 cited
  • 2013Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature136 cited
  • 2006The pros and cons of open peer review56 cited
  • 2010Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? A study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes39 cited
  • 2015For what it’s worth – the open peer review landscape38 cited
  • 2015Transparent peer review at Nature Communications25 cited
  • 2012Peerage of Science: will it work?20 cited
  • 2013A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review models

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

16 cited

Cited by

  • 2024Emerging plagiarism in peer-review evaluation reports: a tip of the iceberg?18 cited
  • 2024Are the confidence scores of reviewers consistent with the review content? Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI12 cited