SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
An evaluation of the process of peer review
16 references·0 citing·36 second hop
An evaluation of the process of peer review (2022)An evaluation of the process of peer revi…The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science (2021)The fight against fake-paper …Is Peer Review a Good Idea? (2019)Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals (2016)Peer Review Quality and Trans…Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review (2014)Problems with Traditional Sci…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…Bias in peer review (2012)Bias in peer reviewThe ups and downs of peer review (2007)The ups and downs of peer rev…Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals (2007)Peer Review and Manuscript Ma…The peer‐review process (2002)The peer‐review processThe history of the peer-review process (2002)The history of the peer-revie…Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmask…Peer Review (1994)Peer ReviewThe Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)The Evolution of Editorial Pe…Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Peer Review in 18th-Century S…Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system (1971)Patterns of evaluation in sci…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)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)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)Science as Social Knowledge (1990)A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (1994)Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature (2017)Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019)The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research (2023)Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. (1973)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era (2015)Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: A comparative study (2017)Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review (2019)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)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors (2006)Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)Misinformation in and about science (2021)Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)Toward a new economics of science (1994)Shall we Really do it Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences (2009)Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study (2022)Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia‐based paper mill (2023)The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2012Bias in peer review997 cited
  • 1971Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system790 cited
  • 2002The history of the peer-review process445 cited
  • 2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers393 cited
  • 1990Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism350 cited
  • 1990The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review346 cited
  • 2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
  • 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review281 cited
  • 2021The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science251 cited
  • 2002The peer‐review process206 cited
  • 2007Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals184 cited
  • 2016Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals166 cited
  • 2014Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review158 cited
  • 1994Peer Review155 cited
  • 2019Is Peer Review a Good Idea?137 cited
  • 2013

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

Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature
136 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.