SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Ponderings on peer review: Part I. Basic principles
16 references·0 citing·46 second hop
Ponderings on peer review: Part I. Basic principles (2023)Ponderings on peer review: Part I. Basic …We, um, have, like, a problem: excessive use of fillers in scientific speech (2022)We, um, have, like, a problem…To grant you an edge: Part 2. Tactical tips for addressing specific aspects of biomedical research proposals (2022)To grant you an edge: Part 2.…To grant you an edge: Part 1. General strategies for writing competitive biomedical research proposals (2022)To grant you an edge: Part 1.…Talking the talk: tips for effective oral presentations in biomedical research (2022)Talking the talk: tips for ef…The academic biomedical research laboratory as a “small business” (2021)The academic biomedical resea…Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness (2021)Grant Review Feedback: Approp…The peer review process (2019)The peer review processWhat do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? (2018)What do we know about grant p…A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspect…Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices (2012)Peer Review of Grant Applicat…The history of the peer-review process (2002)The history of the peer-revie…Peer review in health sciences (2002)Peer review in health sciencesMeasuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Measuring the Quality of Edit…Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Effects of Editorial Peer Rev…Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? (1998)Peer review of grant applicat…Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation (1997)Peer review for journals: Evi…The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research (1968)The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. (1968)Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (1994)Reviewers’ Ratings and Bibliometric Indicators: Hand in Hand When Assessing Over Research Proposals? (2013)What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? (2017)Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review (2020)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)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)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation (1990)Principles of forecasting : a handbook for researchers and practitioners (2001)Scientific Utopia (2012)Media representation of Muslims and Islam from 2000 to 2015: A meta-analysis (2016)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)FROM SCIENCE AS PROCESS † (1988)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions (2005)Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences (2009)The sociology of scientific validity: How professional networks shape judgement in peer review (2018)Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards (2011)Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science (2011)The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants (2020)What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis (2022)Scientific peer review (2011)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Peer review: Troubled from the start (2016)Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers (2024)The undeclared use of third-party service providers in academic publishing is unethical: an epistemic reflection and scoping review (2024)Comparing human and AI expertise in the academic peer review process: towards a hybrid approach (2025)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Bias in peer review (2012)The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future (2018)AI-assisted peer review (2021)Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Misinformation in and about science (2021)Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review (2007)The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)Content Validity—Establishing and Reporting the Evidence in Newly Developed Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments for Medical Product Evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report: Part 1—Eliciting Concepts for a New PRO Instrument (2011)COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies) (2014)Iterative categorization (IC): a systematic technique for analysing qualitative data (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2002The history of the peer-review process445 cited
  • 2002Peer review in health sciences349 cited
  • 2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review347 cited
  • 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review293 cited
  • 1997Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation262 cited
  • 2002Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review230 cited
  • 1998Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?146 cited
  • 2018What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?102 cited
  • 2012Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices75 cited
  • 2019The peer review process46 cited
  • 2021The academic biomedical research laboratory as a “small business”24 cited
  • 2022We, um, have, like, a problem: excessive use of fillers in scientific speech23 cited
  • 2021Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness21 cited
  • 2022To grant you an edge: Part 1. General strategies for writing competitive biomedical research proposals14 cited
  • 2022To grant you an edge: Part 2. Tactical tips for addressing specific aspects of biomedical research proposals

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

13 cited
  • 2022Talking the talk: tips for effective oral presentations in biomedical research13 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.