SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Reconsidering editorial consideration
4 references·1 citing·23 second hop
Reconsidering editorial consideration (2023)Reconsidering editorial considerationStop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off (2023)Stop the peer-review treadmil…Figure errors, sloppy science, and fraud: keeping eyes on your data (2019)Figure errors, sloppy science…Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping (2014)Measuring the effectiveness o…Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (2002)Stanford encyclopedia of phil…Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing (2025)Reputation shortcoming in aca…THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems (2017)The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)Retracted Science and the Retraction Index (2011)The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications (2016)Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience (2018)Error publication (published erratum) in neurosurgical journals worldwide using PubMed during the last 30 years (2020)Publons' Global State Of Peer Review 2018 (2018)Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature (2020)A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review (2021)Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review (2023)The future of academic publishing (2023)Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science (2024)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)The Matthew effect in science funding (2018)Reply to Neveu and Neveu: Inference in an information-restricted environment (2025)A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural Scientists (2014)A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews and Literature Searches (2014)Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2002Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy802 cited
  • 2014Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping356 cited
  • 2023Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off71 cited
  • 2019Figure errors, sloppy science, and fraud: keeping eyes on your data20 cited

Cited by

  • 2025Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing5 cited

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