SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review · Study

ReviewChallenges and Controversies in Peer Review

Fred M Kusumoto2023

OA

Reviewbronze2023

Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review

Fred M Kusumoto · John A. Bittl · Mark A. Creager · Harold L. Dauerman · Anuradha Lala · Mary McGrae McDermott +3 more

26 citations·0/0 files stored·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic Publishing and Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing

Abstract

No abstract was published for this record.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

References

1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?2013Who's Afraid of Peer Review?2019Predatory journals: no definition, no defence 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review 2007Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors 1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial 1998Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports 2021AI-assisted peer review

Related works

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer reviewarticle · 11 shared references 2016Blind Peer Review by Academic Journalschapter · 10 shared references 2022Double- vs single-blind peer review effect on acceptance rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trialsreview · 9 shared references 2021Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysisreview · 8 shared references 2016Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the processreview · 8 shared references 2019Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?article · 8 shared references

Details

Year2023

Typereview

Published2023-11-01

VenueJournal of the American College of Cardiology

ISSN-L0735-1097

Languageen

Citations26

Files0 public / 0

ShelfAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Identifiers

doi10.1016/j.jacc.2023.08.056

openalex_workW4388623136

Links

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.