相关参考文献
注意：仅列出部分参考文献，下载原文获取全部文献信息。Rebound Peer Review: A Viable Recourse for Aggrieved Authors?
Chandan K. Sen
ANTIOXIDANTS & REDOX SIGNALING (2012)
Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices
Terttu Luukkonen
RESEARCH EVALUATION (2012)
Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study
M. Alam et al.
BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY (2011)
Gender balance in Cortex acceptance rates
Laura Valkonen et al.
CORTEX (2011)
Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average
S. Thurner et al.
EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B (2011)
The Gendered Construction of Scientific Excellence
Teresa Rees
INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE REVIEWS (2011)
A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication?
Lutz Bornmann et al.
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY (2011)
The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal
Jeffrey L. Jackson et al.
PLOS ONE (2011)
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)
Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing
Wendy L. Lipworth et al.
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE (2011)
Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model
Herbert W. Marsh et al.
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS (2011)
Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity
Carole J. Lee et al.
HYPATIA-A JOURNAL OF FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY (2011)
Extending ArXiv.org to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing
Axel Boldt
JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING (2011)
Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts
J. Britt Holbrook et al.
RESEARCH EVALUATION (2011)
REJECTION RATES FOR JOURNALS PUBLISHING IN THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
David M. Schultz
BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY (2010)
Differences in Editorial Board Reviewer Behavior Based on Gender
Deborah A. Wing et al.
JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH (2010)
No crisis in supply of peer reviewers
Tim Vines et al.
NATURE (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)
Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data
Daniele Fanelli
PLOS ONE (2010)
Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Lutz Bornmann et al.
PLOS ONE (2010)
A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants
Lutz Bornmann et al.
PLOS ONE (2010)
A content analysis of referees' comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?
Lutz Bornmann et al.
SCIENTOMETRICS (2010)
Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate
David M. Schultz
SCIENTOMETRICS (2010)
Editorial Judgments: A Praxeology of 'Voting' in Peer Review
Stefan Hirschauer
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE (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)
Reliability of reviewers' ratings when using public peer review: a case study
L. Bornmann et al.
LEARNED PUBLISHING (2010)
To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review
Robyn M. Borsuk et al.
BIOSCIENCE (2009)
The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal
S. J. Isenberg et al.
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY (2009)
Is There Gender Bias in the Peer Review Process at Journal of Neurophysiology?
John A. Lane et al.
JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY (2009)
Vernacular and Vehicular Language
Blaise Cronin
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2009)
The influence of the applicants' gender on the modeling of a peer review process by using latent Markov models
Lutz Bornmann et al.
SCIENTOMETRICS (2009)
Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences
Sergio Sismondo
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE (2009)
Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition
Lutz Bornmann et al.
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS (2009)
Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches
Herbert W. Marsh et al.
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (2009)
Fairness as Appropriateness Negotiating Epistemological Differences in Peer Review
Gregoire Mallard et al.
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES (2009)
The effectiveness of the peer review process: Inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte chemie
Lutz Bornmann et al.
ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION (2008)
Double-blind peer review and gender publication bias
Leif Engqvist et al.
ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR (2008)
Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals
Judith Gedney Baggs et al.
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING (2008)
Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review:: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere
Lutz Bornmann et al.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2008)
Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields
David Lane
NATURE (2008)
SOCIOLOGY The Gender Gap in NIH Grant Applications
Timothy J. Ley et al.
SCIENCE (2008)
Journal review and gender equality: a critical comment on Budden et al.
Robert J. Whittaker
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION (2008)
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)
How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study
Lutz Bornmann et al.
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS (2008)
Improving the peer-review process for grant applications - Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability
Herbert W. Marsh et al.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST (2008)
Persistent nepotism in peer-review
Ulf Sandstrom et al.
SCIENTOMETRICS (2008)
Publication bias in empirical sociological research - Do arbitrary significance levels distort published results?
Alan S. Gerber et al.
SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH (2008)
Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis
Lutz Bornmann et al.
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS (2007)
Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists
Juan Miguel Campanario et al.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2007)
Gatekeepers of science - Effects of external reviewers' attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications
Lutz Bornmann et al.
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS (2007)
Double anonymity in peer review within the chemistry periodicals community
Richard J. C. Brown
LEARNED PUBLISHING (2007)
Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: effects of university prestige and field of study
Lutz Bornmann et al.
RESEARCH EVALUATION (2006)
An examination of sources of peer-review bias
JL Blackburn et al.
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE (2006)
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance
JS Ross et al.
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (2006)
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
R Smith
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE (2006)
The automaticity of social life
JA Bargh et al.
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE (2006)
Who benefits from peer review?: An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
MPJ Loonen et al.
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY (2005)
Why most published research findings are false
JPA Ioannidis
PLOS MEDICINE (2005)
Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity
HD Daniel
LEARNED PUBLISHING (2005)
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials -: Comparison of Protocols to published articles
AW Chan et al.
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (2004)
A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings
UW Jayasinghe et al.
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY (2003)
The impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content
JA Smith et al.
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY (2002)
Gender bias in the refereeing process?
T Tregenza
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION (2002)
Publication bias in editorial decision making
CM Olson et al.
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (2002)
Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research
EJ Rinia et al.
RESEARCH POLICY (2001)
Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience - Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
PM Rothwell et al.
BRAIN (2000)
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial
E Walsh et al.
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY (2000)
分享论文
