SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Evaluation of Large Language Models for Peer Review in Transplantation Research: Algorithm Validation Study
14 references·0 citing·50 second hop
Evaluation of Large Language Models for Peer Review in Transplantation Research: Algorithm Validation Study (2026)Evaluation of Large Language Models for P…The emergence of large language models as tools in literature reviews: a large language model-assisted systematic review (2025)The emergence of large langua…Where have all the reviewers gone? (2024)Where have all the reviewers …The strain on scientific publishing (2024)The strain on scientific publ…The Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on the External Review of Scientific Manuscripts and Editorial Peer Review Processes (2024)The Impact of Generative Arti…Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey (2024)Bias and Fairness in Large La…AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents (2024)AgentReview: Exploring Peer R…Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off (2023)Stop the peer-review treadmil…Sensitivity, specificity and avoidable workload of using a large language models for title and abstract screening in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2023)Sensitivity, specificity and …ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review (2023)ChatGPT identifies gender dis…Affiliation Bias in Peer Review of Abstracts by a Large Language Model (2023)Affiliation Bias in Peer Revi…The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)The limitations to our unders…Bibliometric analysis of the top-cited articles on islet transplantation (2017)Bibliometric analysis of the …Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance (2006)Effect of Blinded Peer Review…Effect of Institutional Prestige on Reviewers' Recommendations and Editorial Decisions (1994)Effect of Institutional Prest…The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial (1990)Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? (1998)Systematic review and meta-analysis (2017)Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review (2022)US and Non-US Submissions (1998)Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial (2011)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation (1972)Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses (2007)Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals (2009)Applying Gini coefficient to evaluate the author research domains associated with the ordering of author names (2018)Bibliometric analysis of research on the trends in autophagy (2019)The 100 top-cited articles on scrub typhus: a bibliometric analysis (2021)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)Bias in peer review (2012)The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly (2025)Publons' Global State Of Peer Review 2018 (2018)Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature (2020)A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review (2021)The future of academic publishing (2023)Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science (2024)The forced battle between peer-review and scientometric research assessment: Why the CoARA initiative is unsound (2024)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)Establishing best practices in large language model research: an application to repeat prompting (2024)Evaluating the potential risks of employing large language models in peer review (2025)Large language models in peer review: challenges and opportunities (2025)Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. (1998)HISTORIAE, History of Socio-Cultural Transformation as Linguistic Data Science. A Humanities Use Case (2019)Aion Framework: Dimensional Emergence of AI Consciousness, Observer-Induced Collapse, and Cosmological Portal Dynamics (2023)The life cycle of large language models in education: A framework for understanding sources of bias (2024)Towards trustworthy LLMs: a review on debiasing and dehallucinating in large language models (2024)A survey on LLM-as-a-judge (2026)The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor (2006)The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era (2015)A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2016)The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system (2025)Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators (2011)Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Critical Assessment of Large Language Models’ (ChatGPT) Performance in Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews: Exploratory Study (2025)Ethical and practical implications of AI in academic library research (2025)Large language models show promising performance for some systematic review tasks but call for cautious implementation: a systematic review (2026)Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey (2025)PaperEval: A universal, quantitative, and explainable paper evaluation method powered by a multi-agent system (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2024Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey741 cited
  • 2020The limitations to our understanding of peer review383 cited
  • 2024The strain on scientific publishing307 cited
  • 2006Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance250 cited
  • 2025The emergence of large language models as tools in literature reviews: a large language model-assisted systematic review154 cited
  • 1994Effect of Institutional Prestige on Reviewers' Recommendations and Editorial Decisions95 cited
  • 2023Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off71 cited
  • 2024AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents34 cited
  • 2023Affiliation Bias in Peer Review of Abstracts by a Large Language Model27 cited
  • 2017Bibliometric analysis of the top-cited articles on islet transplantation22 cited
  • 2024The Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on the External Review of Scientific Manuscripts and Editorial Peer Review Processes16 cited
  • 2023ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review16 cited
  • 2024Where have all the reviewers gone?15 cited
  • 2023Sensitivity, specificity and avoidable workload of using a large language models for title and abstract screening in systematic reviews and meta-analyses13 cited

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

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.