SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Early Career Researchers on all Aspects of Peer Review: A Deep Dive Into the Data
16 references·0 citing·50 second hopsampled
Early Career Researchers on all Aspects of Peer Review: A Deep Dive Into the Data (2025)Early Career Researchers on all Aspects o…Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis (2024)Can Large Language Models Pro…The Janus Effect of Generative AI: Charting the Path for Responsible Conduct of Scholarly Activities in Information Systems (2023)The Janus Effect of Generativ…Rising adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: evaluating the role, risks, and ethical implications in paper drafting and review process (2023)Rising adoption of artificial…Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review (2023)Artificial intelligence to su…The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)The limitations to our unders…Arbitrariness in the peer review process (2020)Arbitrariness in the peer rev…Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM (2019)Unprofessional peer reviews d…So, are early career researchers the harbingers of change? (2019)So, are early career research…Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review (2019)Peer Review Bias: A Critical …What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing's ‘death penalty' (2018)What a massive database of re…The changing forms and expectations of peer review (2018)The changing forms and expect…What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)What is open peer review? A s…Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices (2017)Early career researchers and …A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)A multi-disciplinary perspect…Peer review: still king in the digital age (2014)Peer review: still king in th…Bias in peer review (2012)Bias in peer reviewThe Matthew Effect in Science (1968)Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises (1998)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management (2015)Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas (2016)Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019)On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model (2003)Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact (2011)Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services (2013)Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? (2019)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)Women Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review to Outline the Boundaries of Scientific Literature (2020)Social media use in the research workflow (2011)Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: A worldwide survey (2012)Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit (2015)Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers (2017)A global questionnaire survey of the scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (2020)Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions (2020)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems (2012)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future (2018)Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)Little Science, Big Science (1963)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19 (2020)The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future (2024)Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color (1991)Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles? (2003)Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines (2015)The good, the bad and the rude peer-review (2020)Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups (2023)Diversity and Standards in Writing for Publication in the Age of AI—Between a Rock and a Hard Place (2024)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)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 emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research (2023)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Some Moral and Technical Consequences of Automation (1960)On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition (1988)Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists (2023)The ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology (2023)Drivers of generative AI adoption in higher education through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (2024)The impending disruption of creative industries by generative AI: Opportunities, challenges, and research agenda (2024)Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence (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· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 2012Bias in peer review1,111 cited
  • 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review479 cited
  • 2020The limitations to our understanding of peer review436 cited
  • 2024Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis431 cited
  • 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review294 cited
  • 2023The Janus Effect of Generative AI: Charting the Path for Responsible Conduct of Scholarly Activities in Information Systems292 cited
  • 2014Peer review: still king in the digital age270 cited
  • 2019Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM197 cited
  • 2017Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices189 cited
  • 2018The changing forms and expectations of peer review179 cited
  • 2019Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review165 cited
  • 2023Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review160 cited
  • 2018What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing's ‘death penalty'144 cited
  • 2023Rising adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: evaluating the role, risks, and ethical implications in paper drafting and review process141 cited

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

  • 2019So, are early career researchers the harbingers of change?94 cited
  • 2020Arbitrariness in the peer review process82 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.