Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity
E. S. Darling
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY (2015)
被撤回的出版物: Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency (Retracted article. See vol. 511, pg. 112, 2014)
Haruko Obokata et al.
NATURE (2014)
Testing the Rebound Peer Review Concept
Stefan W. Ryter et al.
ANTIOXIDANTS & REDOX SIGNALING (2013)
Company offers portable peer review
Richard Van Noorden
NATURE (2013)
Rebound Peer Review: A Viable Recourse for Aggrieved Authors?
Chandan K. Sen
ANTIOXIDANTS & REDOX SIGNALING (2012)
Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure
Mikael Laakso et al.
BMC MEDICINE (2012)
Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review
Daniel M. Herron
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES (2012)
An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing
Nikolaus Kriegeskorte et al.
FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE (2012)
Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science
Nikolaus Kriegeskorte
FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE (2012)
Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation
Ulrich Poeschl
FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE (2012)
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
Leslie K. John et al.
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE (2012)
Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
Florian Prinz et al.
NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY (2011)
Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review A Randomized Controlled Trial
Gwendolyn B. Emerson et al.
ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE (2010)
Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?
Richard L. Kravitz et al.
PLOS ONE (2010)
Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial
Susan van Rooyen et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2010)
Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates
Juan Miguel Campanario
SCIENTOMETRICS (2009)
Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition
Lutz Bornmann et al.
RESEARCH EVALUATION (2009)
Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors
Amber E. Budden et al.
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION (2008)
Does double-blind review benefit female authors?
Thomas J. Webb et al.
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION (2008)
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
R Smith
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE (2006)
Why most published research findings are false
JPA Ioannidis
PLOS MEDICINE (2005)
Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial
S Schroter et al.
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2004)
Gender bias in the refereeing process?
T Tregenza
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION (2002)
The journal as an overlay on preprint databases
AP Smith
LEARNED PUBLISHING (2000)
Share Paper
