SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer reviewers from low- and middle-income countries(LMIC) for open access journals in oncology can improve the equity in cancer research and clinical trials
16 references·0 citing·51 second hop
Peer reviewers from low- and middle-income countries(LMIC) for open access journals in oncology can improve the equity in cancer research and clinical trials (2023)Peer reviewers from low- and middle-incom…Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year (2021)Publishing at any cost: a cro…Equitable Open Access Publishing: Changing the Financial Power Dynamics in Academia (2021)Equitable Open Access Publish…Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows (2020)Publishing habits and percept…Predatory journals enter biomedical databases through public funding (2020)Predatory journals enter biom…An “alarming” and “exceptionally high” rate of COVID-19 retractions? (2020)An “alarming” and “exceptiona…Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study (2019)Open access policies of leadi…What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing's ‘death penalty' (2018)What a massive database of re…Knowledge sharing in global health research – the impact, uptake and cost of open access to scholarly literature (2017)Knowledge sharing in global h…Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication (2015)Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Ma…Peer review as a business transaction (2015)Peer review as a business tra…Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias (2015)Medical Journal Peer Review: …350 years of scientific periodicals (2015)350 years of scientific perio…Open Access (2012)Open AccessAnatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure (2012)Anatomy of open access publis…Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1999)Development of the Review Qua…Peer review of the biomedical literature (1990)Peer review of the biomedical…Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. (1968)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Diffusion of Innovations (1963)The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009 (2011)‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics (2015)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles (2018)Diffusion of Innovations 1 (2019)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)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise (2016)Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature (2017)Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading (2023)The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg (1971)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Victorian sensation: the extraordinary publication, reception, and secret authorship of Vestiges of the natural history of creation (2001)Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States (2018)Letter to the Editor: publish, publish … cursed! (2021)Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: A Brief History of Scientific Journals (2022)The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence (1990)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication (2015)Peer review: The current landscape and future trends (2016)A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals (2017)Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles (2006)Towards a common definition of global health (2009)The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era (2015)Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A large-scale analysis (2018)Gender equality in science, medicine, and global health: where are we at and why does it matter? (2019)Scientists are drowning in COVID-19 papers. Can new tools keep them afloat? (2020)Let’s do better: public representations of COVID-19 science (2021)Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues (2022)Biomedical researchers’ perspectives on the reproducibility of research (2024)Predatory publishers are corrupting open access (2012)Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison (2017)Predatory journals: no definition, no defence (2019)A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers (2021)Predatory Journals- The Power of the Predator Versus the Integrity of the Honest (2021)Signs of divisiveness, discrimination and stigmatization caused by Jeffrey Beall's “predatory” open access publishing blacklists and philosophy (2021)The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies (2004)A Survey of Scholarly Journals Using Open Journal Systems (2010)Too much to know: managing scholarly information before the modern age (2011)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)Fake science and the knowledge crisis: ignorance can be fatal (2019)The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019 (2019)Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2012Open Access685 cited
  • 2012Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure417 cited
  • 1999Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts177 cited
  • 2017Knowledge sharing in global health research – the impact, uptake and cost of open access to scholarly literature151 cited
  • 2018What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing's ‘death penalty'144 cited
  • 2015Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias125 cited
  • 2015Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication89 cited
  • 2015350 years of scientific periodicals62 cited
  • 2020An “alarming” and “exceptionally high” rate of COVID-19 retractions?59 cited
  • 2020Predatory journals enter biomedical databases through public funding44 cited
  • 2021Equitable Open Access Publishing: Changing the Financial Power Dynamics in Academia44 cited
  • 2021Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year36 cited
  • 2020Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows35 cited
  • 1990Peer review of the biomedical literature29 cited

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

  • 2015Peer review as a business transaction24 cited
  • 2019Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study15 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.