SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Systematization of peer review in Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde
14 references·0 citing·54 second hop
Systematization of peer review in Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde (2024)Systematization of peer review in Epidemi…Peer reviews of peer reviews: A randomized controlled trial and other experiments (2025)Peer reviews of peer reviews:…Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals (2023)Challenges in peer review: ho…How to peer review: practical advice for early career researchers (2022)How to peer review: practical…Editor's desk: Improving author experience (2021)Editor's desk: Improving auth…Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research (2019)Generosity, collegiality, and…Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review — The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (2019)Everything You Need to Know A…Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache (2018)Reasons for Manuscript Reject…Peer reviews: the dreaded rejection (2018)Peer reviews: the dreaded rej…Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency (2018)Empowering peer reviewers wit…Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective (2017)Duration and quality of the p…Peer Review Guidance: How Do You Write a Good Review? (2013)Peer Review Guidance: How Do …Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? (2006)Is Peer Review a Game of Chan…How to Survive Peer Review (2002)How to Survive Peer ReviewSystematic Reviews: Checklists for review articles (1994)Systematic Reviews: Checklist…Meta-analysis in social research (1982)The Handbook of Research Synthesis. (1994)The Handbook of Research Synthesis. (1995)Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence‐Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review (2003)The integrative review: updated methodology (2005)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (1990)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review (1990)Editors’ Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development (2017)An overview of assessing the quality of peer review reports of scientific articles (2018)Defining quality in peer review reports: a scoping review (2025)Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors (2010)How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought (2023)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)The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises (1998)Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists (2007)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution (2018)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021)Problems with Peer Review Shine a Light on Gaps in Scientific Training (2023)Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts (1994)Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts (1994)The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index (2010)“It is important to reinforce the importance of …”: ‘Hype’ in reports of randomized controlled trials (2019)Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey (2019)Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals (2022)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. (1973)How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? (2020)Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada statements (2023)The history of the peer-review process (2002)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)Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study (2020)Research Methods: How to Perform an Effective Peer Review (2022)Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: a scoping review (2022)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review (2014)The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications (2016)Down the Rabbit Hole: How Digital Media Shapes Public Perceptions of Food Science and Technology Research (And How We Can Safeguard Science Integrity and Credibility) (2025)Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges (2026)Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research (2009)Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay (2012)Scientific writing: Strategies and tools for students and advisors (2014)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1994Systematic Reviews: Checklists for review articles480 cited
  • 2017Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective326 cited
  • 2006Is Peer Review a Game of Chance?81 cited
  • 2002How to Survive Peer Review56 cited
  • 2018Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency45 cited
  • 2019Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research36 cited
  • 2018Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache34 cited
  • 2013Peer Review Guidance: How Do You Write a Good Review?28 cited
  • 2019Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review — The Good, The Bad and The Ugly25 cited
  • 2023Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals24 cited
  • 2025Peer reviews of peer reviews: A randomized controlled trial and other experiments18 cited
  • 2021Editor's desk: Improving author experience9 cited
  • 2018Peer reviews: the dreaded rejection7 cited
  • 2022How to peer review: practical advice for early career researchers6 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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