SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Towards improving peer review: Crowd-sourced insights from Twitter
16 references·0 citing·47 second hop
Towards improving peer review: Crowd-sourced insights from Twitter (2022)Towards improving peer review: Crowd-sour…The Impossibility of Automating Ambiguity (2021)The Impossibility of Automati…AI-assisted peer review (2021)AI-assisted peer reviewA billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review (2021)A billion-dollar donation: es…The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)The limitations to our unders…Editorial Evaluation and Peer Review During a Pandemic (2020)Editorial Evaluation and Peer…Fast Lane to Slow Science (2019)Fast Lane to Slow ScienceThe state of the art in peer review (2018)The state of the art in peer …Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers (2017)Survey on open peer review: A…A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)A manifesto for reproducible …The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review (2016)The Peer Reviewers' Openness …The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise (2016)The Global Burden of Journal …How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals (2015)How Long Is Too Long in Conte…Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. (2014)Peer Review in Scientific Pub…The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals (2013)The publishing delay in schol…Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)Peer review in a changing wor…Bias in peer review (2012)Bias in peer reviewThe Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process (2000)Prominent but Less Productive (2016)CORD-19: The COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (2020)The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape (2021)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science (1988)Science as Social Knowledge (1990)A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (1994)Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science (2016)Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature (2017)Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019)Scientific Utopia (2012)Promoting an open research culture (2015)Detecting and avoiding likely false‐positive findings – a practical guide (2016)A Large-Scale Test of the Goldilocks Hypothesis (2017)Exploratory Research (2020)The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009 (2011)The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2015)Meta-research: Why research on research matters (2018)On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective (2019)Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis (2024)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)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)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)Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review (2023)Guidance for Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Editors on Use of AI, Language Models, and Chatbots (2023)The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly (2025)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)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)The strain on scientific publishing (2024)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2017A manifesto for reproducible science3,368 cited
  • 2012Bias in peer review997 cited
  • 2013The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals432 cited
  • 2014Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.399 cited
  • 2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers393 cited
  • 2020The limitations to our understanding of peer review383 cited
  • 2021A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review305 cited
  • 2016The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review284 cited
  • 2021AI-assisted peer review284 cited
  • 2016The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise246 cited
  • 2017Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers243 cited
  • 2018The state of the art in peer review171 cited
  • 2021The Impossibility of Automating Ambiguity170 cited
  • 2019Fast Lane to Slow Science162 cited
  • 2015How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals

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

135 cited
  • 2020Editorial Evaluation and Peer Review During a Pandemic99 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.