SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey
16 references·2 citing·35 second hop
Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey (2023)Knowledge and motivations of training in …The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity (2020)The Hong Kong Principles for …Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review (2019)Tools used to assess the qual…The changing forms and expectations of peer review (2018)The changing forms and expect…A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspect…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…Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Peer review in a changing wor…Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged…The ups and downs of peer review (2007)The ups and downs of peer rev…Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process…Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) (2004)Improving the Quality of Web …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…Assessment of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guideline adherence in medical imaging diagnostic accuracy studies published in 2023 (2024)Assessment of Standards for R…Limited online training opportunities exist for scholarly peer reviewers (2023)Limited online training oppor…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)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. (2006)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)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)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)Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics (2015)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)The preregistration revolution (2018)Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society (2021)Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands (2022)A typology of validity: content, face, convergent, discriminant, nomological and predictive validity (2024)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)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)Scientific peer review (2011)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians (2008)Knowledge and Perceptions of COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers: Cross-Sectional Study (2020)A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2004Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)6,450 cited
  • 2006Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals868 cited
  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
  • 2020The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity545 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
  • 2007The ups and downs of peer review296 cited
  • 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review293 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-analysis218 cited
  • 2002The peer‐review process206 cited
  • 2012Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals200 cited

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

2018
The changing forms and expectations of peer review
179 cited
  • 2019Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review111 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2023Limited online training opportunities exist for scholarly peer reviewers16 cited
    • 2024Assessment of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guideline adherence in medical imaging diagnostic accuracy studies published in 202311 cited