SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys
16 references·0 citing·36 second hop
Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys (2024)Honorary authorship is highly prevalent i…The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)PRISMA 2020 explanation and e…Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence (2021)Conducting proportional meta-…Seriously misleading results using inverse of Freeman‐Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta‐analysis of single proportions (2019)Seriously misleading results …Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication (2018)Transparency in authors’ cont…Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure (2018)Assessing scientists for hiri…Publication practices and responsible authorship: a review article (2017)Publication practices and res…Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research (2017)Authorship and citation manip…AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisa…Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (2015)Recommendations for the condu…Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Preferred reporting items for…Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Preferred reporting items for…Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys (2014)Scientists Admitting to Plagi…A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines (2011)A Systematic Review of Resear…How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)How Many Scientists Fabricate…Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses (2008)Chapter 9: Analysing Data and…The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1974)The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)Practical Meta-Analysis (2000)Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010)Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)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)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems (2012)Basics of meta‐analysis: I 2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity (2017)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2020)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis (2010)Meta-analysis of prevalence (2013)Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis (2015)Arcsine‐based transformations for meta‐analysis of proportions: Pros, cons, and alternatives (2020)How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study (2020)Suicide, self-harm and suicidal ideation during COVID-19: A systematic review (2021)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021)Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias (1994)A systematic review and meta-analysis of suicidality in autistic and possibly autistic people without co-occurring intellectual disability (2023)The prevalence of gambling and problematic gambling: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024)The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for analytical cross-sectional studies (2025)Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results (2017)Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration (2018)The AASPIRE practice-based guidelines for the inclusion of autistic adults in research as co-researchers and study participants (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews107,380 cited
  • 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement26,189 cited
  • 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation13,108 cited
  • 2021PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews11,660 cited
  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 2008Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses2,780 cited
  • 2009How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data1,909 cited
  • 2015Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals739 cited
  • 2021Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence736 cited
  • 2019Seriously misleading results using inverse of Freeman‐Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta‐analysis of single proportions622 cited
  • 2018Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure461 cited
  • 2011A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines394 cited
  • 2018Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication

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

390 cited
  • 2017Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research205 cited
  • 2014Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys128 cited
  • 2017Publication practices and responsible authorship: a review article98 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.