SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Prevalence of Short Peer Reviews in 3 Leading General Medical Journals
15 references·0 citing·51 second hop
Prevalence of Short Peer Reviews in 3 Leading General Medical Journals (2023)Prevalence of Short Peer Reviews in 3 Lea…Relationship between journal impact factor and the thoroughness and helpfulness of peer reviews (2023)Relationship between journal …Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing (2022)Understanding the peer review…Incentives for Research Effort: An Evolutionary Model of Publication Markets with Double-Blind and Open Review (2022)Incentives for Research Effor…Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: a systematic review (2021)Time from submission to publi…Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies (2021)Peer review: concepts, varian…A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review (2021)A billion-dollar donation: es…Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review (2019)Tools used to assess the qual…Bias in the Peer Review Process (2019)Bias in the Peer Review Proce…Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process (2016)Ancient texts to PubMed: a br…Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias (2015)Medical Journal Peer Review: …Changing Norms to Change Behavior (2015)Changing Norms to Change Beha…Prepublication histories and open peer review at The BMJ (2014)Prepublication histories and …Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)Peer Review in Scientific Pub…Making Reviewers Visible (2002)Making Reviewers VisibleWhat Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)What Makes a Good Reviewer an…Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? (2002)Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals (2008)We Have to Break Up (2009)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial (2010)Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study (2014)Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process (2016)Evolution or revolution? Changing the way science is published and communicated (2019)Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ (2020)Defining the 'field at a given time.' (1943)Effectiveness of social norms media marketing in reducing drinking and driving: A statewide campaign (2010)Paradigm lost: Reinvigorating the study of organizational culture (2016)Gender norms and social norms: differences, similarities and why they matter in prevention science (2019)Social Influence and Group Identity (2020)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial (2000)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? (2008)The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence (1990)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication (2015)Peer review: The current landscape and future trends (2016)A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals (2017)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)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study (2019)Quantifying professionalism in peer review (2020)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses (2014)Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews (2016)A study of the correlation between publication delays and measurement indicators of journal articles in the social network environment—based on online data in PLOS (2023)We extended the 2-week systematic review (2weekSR) methodology to larger, more complex systematic reviews: A case series (2023)Fabricated citations: an audit across 2·5 million biomedical papers (2026)Science Since Babylon (1961)Bridging Neurodiversity and Open Scholarship: How Shared Values Can Guide Best Practices for Research Integrity, Social Justice, and Principled Education (2022)Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis (2024)The strain on scientific publishing (2024)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor (2006)quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data (2018)Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey (2025)Limitations of Academic Bibliometric Indices: The Need for More Comprehensive Metrics (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2015Changing Norms to Change Behavior530 cited
  • 2014Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.399 cited
  • 2021A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review305 cited
  • 1998What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?266 cited
  • 2002Making Reviewers Visible167 cited
  • 2015Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias125 cited
  • 2019Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review111 cited
  • 2021Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: a systematic review59 cited
  • 2023Relationship between journal impact factor and the thoroughness and helpfulness of peer reviews43 cited
  • 2014Prepublication histories and open peer review at The BMJ34 cited
  • 2019Bias in the Peer Review Process33 cited
  • 2022Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing32 cited
  • 2016Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process21 cited
  • 2022Incentives for Research Effort: An Evolutionary Model of Publication Markets with Double-Blind and Open Review20 cited
  • 2021Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies

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

17 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.