This article is included in the Science Policy gateway

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2019

• Venue

  Unknown venue

• Publication date

  Unknown publication date

• Fields of study

  Not labeled

• Identifiers

  No identifiers available.

• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review

  2017cited by this paper
• The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review

  2017cited by this paper
• Connecting the Persistent Identifier Ecosystem: Building the Technical and Human Infrastructure for Open Research

  2017cited by this paper
• A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science

  2017cited by this paper
• Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?

  2017cited by this paper
• arXiv e-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships

  2017cited by this paper
• THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND THE PREHISTORY OF PEER REVIEW, 1665–1965

  2017cited by this paper
• Gender bias in scholarly peer review

  2017cited by this paper
• Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution

  2017cited by this paper
• Peer Review: A System under Stress

  2017cited by this paper
• Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement

  2017influential reference
• Can editors protect peer review from bad reviewers

  2017cited by this paper
• Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers

  2017cited by this paper
• Promote scientific integrity via journal peer review data

  2017cited by this paper
• Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis

  2017cited by this paper
• Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon's “Sting” in science

  2017cited by this paper
• Science periodicals in the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries

  2016cited by this paper
• How open science helps researchers succeed

  2016cited by this paper
• Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias

  2016cited by this paper
• Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact

  2016cited by this paper
• The myopia of crowds: Cognitive load and collective evaluation of answers on Stack Exchange

  2016cited by this paper
• Peer review: The current landscape and future trends

  2016cited by this paper
• Academic perceptions of higher education assessment processes in neoliberal academia

  2016cited by this paper
• Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.

  2016cited by this paper
• Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals

  2016cited by this paper
• Data exchange standards to support and acknowledge peer‐review activity

  2015cited by this paper
• Centralizing content and distributing labor: a community model for curating the very long tail of microbial genomes

  2015cited by this paper
• Peer-Review Fraud--Hacking the Scientific Publication Process.

  2015cited by this paper
• Use of double‐blind peer review to increase author diversity

  2015cited by this paper
• Credibility, peer review, and Nature, 1945–1990

  2015cited by this paper
• Valuation : The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review

  2015cited by this paper
• A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology.

  2015cited by this paper
• Wikipedia vs Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions

  2014cited by this paper
• Badges of Friendship: Social Influence and Badge Acquisition on Stack Overflow

  2014cited by this paper
• EPISCIENCES – An overlay publication platform

  2014cited by this paper
• Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references

  2014cited by this paper
• Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping

  2014cited by this paper
• Registered Reports A Method to Increase the Credibility of Published Results

  2014cited by this paper
• Habitat and Habitus: Boxed-in versus Box-Breaking Research

  2014cited by this paper
• Bias in peer review

  2013cited by this paper
• Social Networking Meets Software Development: Perspectives from GitHub, MSDN, Stack Exchange, and TopCoder

  2013cited by this paper
• A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review

  2013cited by this paper
• Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers

  2013cited by this paper
• Scholarship: Beyond the paper

  2013cited by this paper
• Open and transparent: the review process of the Semantic Web journal

  2012cited by this paper
• Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review

  2012cited by this paper
• Peer Review: Publication’s Gold Standard

  2012cited by this paper
• An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing

  2012cited by this paper
• Peerage of Science: will it work?

  2012cited by this paper
• Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use?

  2012cited by this paper
• Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy

  2011cited by this paper
• The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science

  2011cited by this paper
• BioStar: An Online Question & Answer Resource for the Bioinformatics Community

  2011cited by this paper
• Decoupling the scholarly journal

  2011cited by this paper
• Extending ArXiv.org to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing

  2010cited by this paper
• Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications

  2010cited by this paper
• What Makes a Helpful Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon.com

  2010cited by this paper
• HOW TO CREATE A SMART MOB : UNDERSTANDING A SOCIAL NETWORK CAPITAL

  2010cited by this paper
• Reliability of reviewers' ratings when using public peer review: a case study

  2010cited by this paper
• Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web

  2010cited by this paper
• If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0

  2010cited by this paper
• The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index

  2010cited by this paper
• Peer Review and Legal Publishing: What Law Librarians Need to Know about Open, Single-Blind, and Double-Blind Reviewing

  2009cited by this paper
• The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal

  2009cited by this paper
• How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network

  2009cited by this paper
• Reputation Systems: A New Vision for Publishing and Peer Review

  2009cited by this paper
• 8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status

  2008cited by this paper
• Author Perception of Peer Review

  2008cited by this paper
• Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.

  2008cited by this paper
• Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.

  2008cited by this paper
• Quality, certification and peer review

  2008cited by this paper
• Why most published research findings are false: Ioannidis JP, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece

  2008cited by this paper
• Scientific Publishing in Developing Countries: Challenges for the Future.

  2008cited by this paper
• Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

  2008cited by this paper
• Measuring article quality in wikipedia: models and evaluation

  2007cited by this paper
• Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.

  2007influential reference
• The effect of "open access" on citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv's condensed matter section

  2007cited by this paper
• Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals

  2006cited by this paper
• The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews

  2006cited by this paper
• The case for open peer review

  2006cited by this paper
• Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.

  2006cited by this paper
• The convergence of digital libraries and the peer-review process

  2005cited by this paper
• Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial

  2004cited by this paper
• Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit.

  2002cited by this paper
• Measuring the quality of editorial peer review.

  2002cited by this paper
• Referees’ Attitudes toward Open Peer Review and Electronic Transmission of Papers

  2001cited by this paper
• Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 2

  1998cited by this paper
• Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.

  1998cited by this paper
• US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.

  1998cited by this paper
• Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.

  1998cited by this paper
• Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.

  1998cited by this paper
• Winners and Losers in the Global Research Village

  1997cited by this paper
• Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation

  1997cited by this paper
• Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

  1996cited by this paper
• Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.

  1996cited by this paper
• Priority, Rivalry, and Peer Review

  1995cited by this paper
• Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes.

  1994cited by this paper
• The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review

  1991cited by this paper
• Chauvinism

  1991cited by this paper
• When nonreliability of reviews indicates solid science

  1991cited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.