SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Evaluating science: A comparison of human and AI reviewers
16 references·0 citing·51 second hop
Evaluating science: A comparison of human and AI reviewers (2024)Evaluating science: A comparison of human…Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis (2024)Can Large Language Models Pro…People devalue generative AI’s competence but not its advice in addressing societal and personal challenges (2023)People devalue generative AI’…Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups (2023)Peer review perpetuates barri…Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy (2023)Opinion Paper: “So what if Ch…Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review (2023)Fighting reviewer fatigue or …Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers (2023)Comparing scientific abstract…Is the future of peer review automated? (2022)Is the future of peer review …A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review (2021)A billion-dollar donation: es…Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review (2019)Peer Review Bias: A Critical …Academic Plagiarism Detection (2019)Academic Plagiarism DetectionAuthor-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review (2018)Author-Reviewer Homophily in …Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective (2017)Duration and quality of the p…Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? (2017)Can editors save peer review …The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise (2016)The Global Burden of Journal …Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals (2016)Peer Review Quality and Trans…Bias in peer review (2012)Bias in peer reviewScience 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)The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009 (2011)Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2012)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)The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process (2000)The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals (2013)Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions (2017)How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists (2020)Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews (2004)Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art (2012)Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews (2014)Testing of Support Tools for Plagiarism Detection (2019)What are Automated Paraphrasing Tools and how do we address them? A review of a growing threat to academic integrity (2022)Evaluating the authenticity of ChatGPT responses: a study on text-matching capabilities (2023)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge (2007)How the entire scientific community can confront gender bias in the workplace (2018)The unequal impact of parenthood in academia (2021)Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration (2023)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)I.—COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE (1950)Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review (1989)Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review (2002)Artificial intelligence in logistics and supply chain management: A primer and roadmap for research (2023)ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope (2023)The ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology (2023)Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists (2023)ChatGPT is fun, but not an author (2023)Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text (2023)Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text (2023)Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use (2023)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)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)Harnessing the Power of ChatGPT for Automating Systematic Review Process: Methodology, Case Study, Limitations, and Future Directions (2023)The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023)The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2024)Art and the science of generative AI (2023)ChatGPT-supported collaborative argumentation: Integrating collaboration script and argument mapping to enhance EFL students’ argumentation skills (2024)The grass is not always greener: Teacher vs. GPT-assisted written corrective feedback (2024)Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2023Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy4,557 cited
  • 2023Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers1,097 cited
  • 2012Bias in peer review997 cited
  • 2021A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review305 cited
  • 2017Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective303 cited
  • 2023Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review268 cited
  • 2024Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis253 cited
  • 2016The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise246 cited
  • 2019Academic Plagiarism Detection237 cited
  • 2018Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review169 cited
  • 2016Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals166 cited
  • 2019Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review165 cited
  • 2023Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups97 cited
  • 2017

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

Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?
80 cited
  • 2022Is the future of peer review automated?80 cited
  • 2023People devalue generative AI’s competence but not its advice in addressing societal and personal challenges53 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.