SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review
16 references·0 citing·36 second hop
Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review (2023)Challenges and Controversies in Peer Revi…AI-assisted peer review (2021)AI-assisted peer reviewPredatory journals: no definition, no defence (2019)Predatory journals: no defini…Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review (2019)Peer Review Bias: A Critical …On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective (2019)On the value of preprints: An…Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Reviewer bias in single- vers…Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige (2016)Single-blind vs Double-blind …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…Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Who's Afraid of Peer Review?Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)Double-blind review favours i…Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey (2006)Why do peer reviewers decline…Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Effect of open peer review on…Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Effect on the Quality of Peer…Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmask…Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Does Masking Author Identity …Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Assessing the quality of repo…The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review (1990)The Effects of Blinding on th…Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. (1999)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)US and Non-US Submissions (1998)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)Implicit Bias, Stereotype Threat, and Women in Philosophy (2013)Gender, Race and Parenthood Impact Academic Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Survey to Action (2021)Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions (2019)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention (2022)Bias in peer review (2012)Big Data's Disparate Impact (2014)The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate (2016)Speeding up to keep up: exploring the use of AI in the research process (2021)Artificial intelligence in academic writing: a paradigm-shifting technological advance (2023)The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future (2024)A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors (2006)Publication and related biases. (2000)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature (2017)How to Make More Published Research True (2014)Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in business and management research: A contemporary overview (2022)Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews (2022)ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?17,580 cited
  • 2013Who's Afraid of Peer Review?934 cited
  • 2019Predatory journals: no definition, no defence725 cited
  • 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review605 cited
  • 2007Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors551 cited
  • 1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial415 cited
  • 1998Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports334 cited
  • 2021AI-assisted peer review284 cited
  • 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review281 cited
  • 1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?278 cited
  • 1990The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review261 cited
  • 2016Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis218 cited
  • 2006Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey195 cited
  • 2016Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige192 cited
  • 2019On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective

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

184 cited
  • 2019Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review165 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.