SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing
16 references·1 citing·49 second hop
Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing (2025)Reputation shortcoming in academic publis…Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust (2021)Transparent communication abo…Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals (2021)Peer review and gender bias: …The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)The limitations to our unders…Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review (2019)Peer Review Bias: A Critical …The Matthew effect in science funding (2018)The Matthew effect in science…The changing forms and expectations of peer review (2018)The changing forms and expect…Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability (2018)Prestigious Science Journals …What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)What is open peer review? A s…What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)What is open peer review? A s…Gender bias in scholarly peer review (2017)Gender bias in scholarly peer…Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors (2015)Ensuring the Quality, Fairnes…The wisdom of select crowds. (2014)The wisdom of select crowds.Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping (2014)Measuring the effectiveness o…Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing (2012)Coercive Citation in Academic…The Impact Factor Game (2006)The Impact Factor GameThe Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew Effect in ScienceReply to Neveu and Neveu: Inference in an information-restricted environment (2025)Reply to Neveu and Neveu: Inf…A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. (1955)Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1975)The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations (2004)Identifying Expertise to Extract the Wisdom of Crowds (2014)Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change (2017)Forecasting: theory and practice (2022)THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems (2017)The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)Chronicle of Higher Education (1998)The politics of publication (2003)A review of theory and practice in scientometrics (2015)Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level (2016)Microsoft Academic Graph: When experts are not enough (2020)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks (2001)Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals (2020)In the wake of COVID-19, academia needs new solutions to ensure gender equity (2020)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)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)Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data (2009)Power-law distributions in empirical data (2018)Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists (2019)Global citation inequality is on the rise (2021)Servant Leadership: a Systematic Literature Review and Network Analysis (2021)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)Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)The Social System (1951)Little Science, Big Science (1963)Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy (1986)Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law (2005)The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge (2007)Communication And Persuasion (2017)Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses (2007)Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact (2011)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1968The Matthew Effect in Science7,959 cited
  • 2018The Matthew effect in science funding651 cited
  • 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review479 cited
  • 2012Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing457 cited
  • 2020The limitations to our understanding of peer review436 cited
  • 2017Gender bias in scholarly peer review411 cited
  • 2006The Impact Factor Game409 cited
  • 2014Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping356 cited
  • 2014The wisdom of select crowds.265 cited
  • 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review232 cited
  • 2021Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust228 cited
  • 2018Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability213 cited
  • 2021Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals196 cited
  • 2018The changing forms and expectations of peer review179 cited
  • 2019Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review165 cited
  • 2015Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors

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

161 cited

Cited by

  • 2025Reply to Neveu and Neveu: Inference in an information-restricted environment0 cited