SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Peer reviews of peer reviews: A randomized controlled trial and other experiments
16 references·1 citing·46 second hop
Peer reviews of peer reviews: A randomized controlled trial and other experiments (2025)Peer reviews of peer reviews: A randomize…Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review (2022)Challenges, experiments, and …Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review (2019)Tools used to assess the qual…Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game (2016)Peer review and competition i…Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models (2015)Retrospective analysis of the…Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality (2015)Is Double-Blinded Peer Review…Commensuration Bias in Peer Review (2015)Commensuration Bias in Peer R…Longitudinal Trends in the Performance of Scientific Peer Reviewers (2010)Longitudinal Trends in the Pe…The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality (2007)The Relationship of Previous …Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Effects of training on qualit…Effect of Written Feedback by Editors on Quality of Reviews (2002)Effect of Written Feedback by…Author Perception of Peer Review (2002)Author Perception of Peer Rev…Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial (2000)Open peer review: A randomise…Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Effect of open peer review on…Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1999)Development of the Review Qua…Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1998)Reliability of Editors' Subje…Evaluating Peer Reviews (1994)Evaluating Peer ReviewsA large-scale randomized study of large language model feedback in peer review (2026)A large-scale randomized stud…Agreement among reviewers of review articles (1991)Validation of an index of the quality of review articles (1991)Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language (1994)ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (2004)Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)Salience of Feedback on Error and Its Effect on EFL Writing Quality (1986)Effect of Attendance at a Training Session on Peer Reviewer Quality and Performance (1998)Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial (2007)Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial (2012)What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? (1998)Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (2001)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews (2016)Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review (1998)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. (2006)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. (1968)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? (2008)A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases (2010)Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance (1998)How I Review an Original Scientific Article (2002)The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature (2010)Flows of Research Manuscripts Among Scientific Journals Reveal Hidden Submission Patterns (2012)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Testing and adjusting for publication bias (2001)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)The Essential Tension (1977)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)False-Positive Psychology (2011)What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? (2018)Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants (2019)NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores (2020)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)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study (2019)Quantifying professionalism in peer review (2020)Relationship between journal impact factor and the thoroughness and helpfulness of peer reviews (2023)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature (2017)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial415 cited
  • 2004Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial268 cited
  • 2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial261 cited
  • 1999Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts177 cited
  • 2002Author Perception of Peer Review140 cited
  • 2007The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality139 cited
  • 1998Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts122 cited
  • 2019Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review111 cited
  • 2015Commensuration Bias in Peer Review89 cited
  • 2002Effect of Written Feedback by Editors on Quality of Reviews76 cited
  • 2016Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game70 cited
  • 2022Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review66 cited
  • 2015Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models64 cited
  • 2010Longitudinal Trends in the Performance of Scientific Peer Reviewers63 cited

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

  • 2015Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality47 cited
  • 1994Evaluating Peer Reviews39 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2026A large-scale randomized study of large language model feedback in peer review14 cited