Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency
Holly O. Witteman et al.
LANCET (2019)
The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals
Giangiacomo Bravo et al.
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS (2019)
National scientific performance evolution patterns: Retrenchment, successful expansion, or overextension
Mike Thelwall et al.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2018)
Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada
Robyn Tamblyn et al.
CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL (2018)
Promote scientific integrity via journal peer review data
Carole J. Lee et al.
SCIENCE (2017)
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
Tony Ross-Hellauer et al.
PLOS ONE (2017)
Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers
Blanca Rodriguez-Bravo et al.
LEARNED PUBLISHING (2017)
Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal
Charles W. Fox et al.
FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY (2016)
Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production
Vincent Lariviere et al.
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE (2016)
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review
Richard D. Morey et al.
ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE (2016)
Does a research article's country of origin affect perception of its quality and relevance? A national trial of US public health researchers
M. Harris et al.
BMJ OPEN (2015)
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping
Kyle Siler et al.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2015)
Defining the role of cognitive distance in the peer review process with an explorative study of a grant scheme in infection biology
Qi Wang et al.
RESEARCH EVALUATION (2015)
The Scientific Impact of Nations: Journal Placement and Citation Performance
Matthew J. Smith et al.
PLOS ONE (2014)
Undemocracy: inequalities in science
Yu Xie
SCIENCE (2014)
Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?
Elizabeth C. Moylan et al.
BMC PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY (2014)
Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers
Adrian Mulligan et al.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2013)
Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures
Cassidy R. Sugimoto et al.
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS (2013)
Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science
Stephen J. Ceci et al.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2011)
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)
Improving the peer-review process for grant applications - Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability
Herbert W. Marsh et al.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST (2008)
Effects of editorial peer review - A systematic review
T Jefferson et al.
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (2002)
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial
E Walsh et al.
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY (2000)
Share Paper
