SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review
16 references·0 citing·44 second hop
A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review (2024)A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorshi…A Report on the Representation of Women in Academic Plastic Surgery Leadership (2019)A Report on the Representatio…Scholarly activity in academic plastic surgery: the gender difference (2018)Scholarly activity in academi…Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Reviewer bias in single- vers…Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians (2017)Explicit Bias Toward High-Inc…The Impact of National Institutes of Health Funding on Scholarly Productivity in Academic Plastic Surgery (2016)The Impact of National Instit…Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige (2016)Single-blind vs Double-blind …Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal (2016)Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer…Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality (2015)Is Double-Blinded Peer Review…Are Quantitative Measures of Academic Productivity Correlated with Academic Rank in Plastic Surgery? A National Study (2015)Are Quantitative Measures of …Research Productivity and Gender Disparities: A Look at Academic Plastic Surgery (2014)Research Productivity and Gen…Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists? (2012)Is NIH funding predictive of …Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study (2011)Blinded vs. unblinded peer re…Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors (2007)Double-blind review favours i…Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Effect of Blinding and Unmask…The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review (1990)The Effects of Blinding on th…The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew Effect in ScienceAn index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Index aims for fair ranking of scientists (2005)Does the h index have predictive power? (2007)Gender Differences in Successful NIH Grant Funding in Otolaryngology (2013)Gender Differences in Promotion and Scholarly Impact: An Analysis of 1460 Academic Ophthalmologists (2014)Understanding Bibliometric Parameters and Analysis (2015)Peer Review (1994)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Bias in peer review (2012)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)US and Non-US Submissions (1998)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science (2011)Women in Academic Science (2014)Is There Still a Glass Ceiling for Women in Academic Surgery? (2011)Gender disparities in scholarly productivity of US academic surgeons (2016)Influences for Gender Disparity in Academic Neuroradiology (2017)Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine (2021)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1974)COVID-19 mental health impact and responses in low-income and middle-income countries: reimagining global mental health (2021)Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making (2021)Publishing child development research from around the world: An unfair playing field resulting in most of the world's child population under‐represented in research (2022)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond (2019)The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research (2023)Inadequate Progress for Women in Academic Medicine: Findings from the National Faculty Study (2015)Sex Differences in Physician Salary in US Public Medical Schools (2016)Comparison of postoperative outcomes among patients treated by male and female surgeons: a population based matched cohort study (2017)Prevalence of Workforce Diversity Research Among Surgical Specialties in the United States (2021)Quantifying the Pipeline of Ethnically Underrepresented in Medicine Physicians in Academic Plastic Surgery Leadership (2021)Discrimination Toward Women in Surgery (2022)The Social System (1951)Little Science, Big Science (1963)Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy (1986)Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law (2005)The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge (2007)Communication And Persuasion (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1968The Matthew Effect in Science7,959 cited
  • 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review631 cited
  • 2007Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors569 cited
  • 1998Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review284 cited
  • 1990The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review267 cited
  • 2016Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige192 cited
  • 2017Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians124 cited
  • 2012Is NIH funding predictive of greater research productivity and impact among academic otolaryngologists?120 cited
  • 2014Research Productivity and Gender Disparities: A Look at Academic Plastic Surgery117 cited
  • 2019A Report on the Representation of Women in Academic Plastic Surgery Leadership88 cited
  • 2011Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study58 cited
  • 2018Scholarly activity in academic plastic surgery: the gender difference54 cited
  • 2015Are Quantitative Measures of Academic Productivity Correlated with Academic Rank in Plastic Surgery? A National Study53 cited
  • 2015Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality

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

47 cited
  • 2016The Impact of National Institutes of Health Funding on Scholarly Productivity in Academic Plastic Surgery42 cited
  • 2016Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal37 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.