SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture
16 references·0 citing·50 second hop
A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture (2024)A scoping review on what constitutes a go…Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review (2022)Dynamics of cumulative advant…Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2021)Updated methodological guidan…Speeding up to keep up: exploring the use of AI in the research process (2021)Speeding up to keep up: explo…Virtual conferences raise standards for accessibility and interactions (2020)Virtual conferences raise sta…The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach (2020)The Open Innovation in Scienc…Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk (2020)Research integrity: nine ways…Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions (2020)Conducting high quality scopi…Scientific Utopia III: Crowdsourcing Science (2019)Scientific Utopia III: Crowds…Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond (2019)Open science challenges, bene…Making Open Science Work for Science and Society (2019)Making Open Science Work for …Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure (2018)Assessing scientists for hiri…Answers to 18 Questions About Open Science Practices (2018)Answers to 18 Questions About…Untangling Academic Publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research (2017)Untangling Academic Publishin…The Status of Women in STEM in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature 2007–2017 (2017)The Status of Women in STEM i…A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)A manifesto for reproducible …Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics (2015)Bibliometrics: The Leiden Man…Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor (2006)The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? (2015)Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2017)Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Bioconda: sustainable and comprehensive software distribution for the life sciences (2018)The preregistration revolution (2018)Sustainable data analysis with Snakemake (2021)The Journal of College Science Teaching (1971)Education at a Glance (2009)Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions (2016)Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? (2016)An entrepreneurship education and peer mentoring program for women in STEM: mentors’ experiences and perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intent (2020)Gender and retention patterns among U.S. faculty (2023)Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (1992)A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field (2019)Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers (2019)Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations (2019)1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility (2016)Jupyter Notebooks – a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows (2016)The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity (2020)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021)The past, present and future of Registered Reports (2021)Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation (1990)The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations (2000)Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (2003)Crisis as opportunity, disruption and exposure: Exploring emergent responses to crisis through digital technology (2021)How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward (2021)Academia's responses to crisis: A bibliometric analysis of literature on online learning in higher education during COVID‐19 (2022)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Scoping studies: advancing the methodology (2010)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)Synthesizing research evidence on self-regulated learning and academic achievement in online and blended learning environments: A scoping review (2023)“How-to”: scoping review? (2024)Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses and scoping reviews and development of guidelines for rapid reviews: a scoping review protocol (2025)Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (1988)Using thematic analysis in psychology (2006)The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines (2019)Expert views about missing AI narratives: is there an AI story crisis? (2022)Friend or foe? Exploring the implications of large language models on the science system (2023)The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Study of the Psychology of Religion (2024)The changing forms and expectations of peer review (2018)The state of the art in peer review (2018)Regional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage (2024)Tools to support the automation of systematic reviews: a scoping review (2021)Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols (2022)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2017A manifesto for reproducible science3,368 cited
  • 2015Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics2,816 cited
  • 2021Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews1,448 cited
  • 2019Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond605 cited
  • 2018Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure461 cited
  • 2017The Status of Women in STEM in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature 2007–2017353 cited
  • 2020Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions305 cited
  • 2020The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach255 cited
  • 2017Untangling Academic Publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research217 cited
  • 2021Speeding up to keep up: exploring the use of AI in the research process217 cited
  • 2019Scientific Utopia III: Crowdsourcing Science176 cited
  • 2020Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk167 cited
  • 2018Answers to 18 Questions About Open Science Practices147 cited
  • 2022Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review142 cited
  • 2020

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

Virtual conferences raise standards for accessibility and interactions
131 cited
  • 2019Making Open Science Work for Science and Society126 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.