BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Cited by in F6Publishing
For: Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:178-182. [PMID: 16574968 DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178] [Cited by in Crossref: 241] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 252] [Article Influence: 15.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
Number Citing Articles
1 Mavrogenis AF, Scarlat MM. The editor endeavours, aims and standards in a surgery journal: our experience with "International Orthopaedics" and the Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie publications. Int Orthop 2022. [PMID: 35551436 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05424-y] [Reference Citation Analysis]
2 Clase CM, Dicks E, Holden R, Sood MM, Levin A, Kalantar-zadeh K, Moore LW, Bartlett SJ, Bello AK, Bohm C, Bridgewater D, Bouchard J, Burger D, Carrero JJ, Donald M, Elliott M, Goldenberg MJ, Jardine M, Lam NN, Maddigan WJ, Madore F, Mavrakanas TA, Molnar AO, Prasad GVR, Rigatto C, Tennankore KK, Torban E, Trainor L, White CA, Hartwig S. Can Peer Review Be Kinder? Supportive Peer Review: A Re-Commitment to Kindness and a Call to Action. Can J Kidney Health Dis 2022;9:205435812210803. [DOI: 10.1177/20543581221080327] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
3 Marcoci A, Vercammen A, Bush M, Hamilton DG, Hanea A, Hemming V, Wintle BC, Burgman M, Fidler F. Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process. BMC Res Notes 2022;15:127. [PMID: 35382867 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06016-0] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
4 Houghton F. Keep calm and carry on: moral panic, predatory publishers, peer review, and the emperor's new clothes. J Med Libr Assoc 2022;110:233-9. [PMID: 35440900 DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1441] [Reference Citation Analysis]
5 O'Mathúna DP. Ivermectin and the Integrity of Healthcare Evidence During COVID-19. Front Public Health 2022;10:788972. [PMID: 35299698 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.788972] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
6 Woods HB, Brumberg J, Kaltenbrunner W, Pinfield S, Waltman L. Innovations in peer review in scholarly publishing: a meta-summary. Wellcome Open Res 2022;7:82. [DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17715.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
7 Ghosal T, Kumar S, Bharti PK, Ekbal A. Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews. PLoS One 2022;17:e0259238. [PMID: 35085252 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259238] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
8 Yarborough M. Moving towards less biased research. BMJ Open Sci 2021;5:e100116. [PMID: 35047699 DOI: 10.1136/bmjos-2020-100116] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
9 Parker L, Byrne JA, Goldwater M, Enfield N. Misinformation: an empirical study with scientists and communicators during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open Sci 2021;5:e100188. [PMID: 35047703 DOI: 10.1136/bmjos-2021-100188] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
10 Stojanovski J, Sanz-Casado E, Agnoloni T, Peruginelli G. Peer Review in Law Journals. Front Res Metr Anal 2021;6:787768. [PMID: 34957369 DOI: 10.3389/frma.2021.787768] [Reference Citation Analysis]
11 Hall RP 3rd. JID Innovations and Peer Review. JID Innov 2021;1:100056. [PMID: 34909739 DOI: 10.1016/j.xjidi.2021.100056] [Reference Citation Analysis]
12 Inêz TG, de Lacerda Brito BP, El-hani CN. A Model for Teaching About the Nature of Science in the Context of Biological Education. Sci & Educ. [DOI: 10.1007/s11191-021-00285-0] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
13 Arıbal S, İnce O, Kaya E, Önder H. Analysis of potential predatory journals in radiology. Diagn Interv Radiol 2020;26:498-503. [PMID: 32903194 DOI: 10.5152/dir.2020.20240] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
14 Deora H, Tripathi M, Chaurasia B, Grotenhuis JA. Predatory journals: temporary inconvenience or permanent disruption? Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2021;163:2393-4. [PMID: 33438063 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-020-04685-z] [Reference Citation Analysis]
15 Kichloo A, Albosta M, Koul H, Aljadah M, Wani F, Qadir R. Current challenges for researchers during the process of submission and publication. Postgrad Med J 2021:postgradmedj-2021-140861. [PMID: 34348989 DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2021-140861] [Reference Citation Analysis]
16 Ahmed S, Yessirkepov M. Peer Reviewers in Central Asia: Publons Based Analysis. J Korean Med Sci 2021;36:e169. [PMID: 34184435 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e169] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
17 Kovoor JG, Maddern GJ. One small step: starting a career in surgical research during COVID-19. ANZ J Surg 2021;91:1059-60. [PMID: 34121284 DOI: 10.1111/ans.16911] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
18 Baždarić K, Vrkić I, Arh E, Mavrinac M, Gligora Marković M, Bilić-Zulle L, Stojanovski J, Malički M. Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review-A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists. PLoS One 2021;16:e0244529. [PMID: 34153041 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244529] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
19 van Tulleken C. Covid-19: Sputnik vaccine rockets, thanks to Lancet boost. BMJ. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n1108] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
20 Shephard K, Thondhlana G, Wolff L, Belluigi DZ, Rieckmann M, Vega-marcote P. On the Nature of Quality in the Contexts of Academic Publication and Sustainability. Front Educ 2021;6:634473. [DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2021.634473] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
21 Emile SH. Interactive platform for peer review: A proposal to improve the current peer review system. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(6): 1247-1250 [PMID: 33644191 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i6.1247] [Cited by in CrossRef: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
22 Kwee TC, Adams HJA, Kwee RM. Peer review practices by medical imaging journals. Insights Imaging 2020;11:125. [PMID: 33245469 DOI: 10.1186/s13244-020-00921-3] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
23 Kawczak S, Mustafa S. Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit. BMJ Open 2020;10:e039687. [PMID: 33234636 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039687] [Reference Citation Analysis]
24 [DOI: 10.1109/isncc49221.2020.9297213] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
25 Allan A. Structuring the debate about research ethics in the psychology and law field: an international perspective. Psychiatr Psychol Law 2020;27:397-411. [PMID: 33071548 DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2020.1742243] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
26 Mahmić-kaknjo M, Utrobičić A, Marušić A. Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: A scoping review. Accountability in Research 2021;28:297-329. [DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1822170] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
27 Welsby PD. Peer reviews. A peer reviewer's view. Postgrad Med J 2020;96:725-7. [PMID: 32943475 DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138793] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
28 [DOI: 10.1109/ichms49158.2020.9209455] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
29 D'Eon M. Peer review: My article was rejected by the journal I edit. Can Med Educ J 2020;11:e1-4. [PMID: 32821297 DOI: 10.36834/cmej.70700] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
30 Horbach SPJM, Halffman W. Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work. Res Integr Peer Rev 2020;5:11. [PMID: 32774892 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-020-00097-w] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
31 Ginther DK, Heggeness ML. Administrative Discretion in Scientific Funding: Evidence from a Prestigious Postdoctoral Training Program. Res Policy 2020;49:103953. [PMID: 32675837 DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.103953] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
32 Superchi C, Hren D, Blanco D, Rius R, Recchioni A, Boutron I, González JA. Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. BMJ Open 2020;10:e035604. [PMID: 32518211 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035604] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
33 Wolfram D, Wang P, Hembree A, Park H. Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics 2020;125:1033-51. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4] [Cited by in Crossref: 22] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16] [Article Influence: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
34 Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 2020;5:6. [PMID: 32368354 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 32] [Article Influence: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
35 Elson M, Huff M, Utz S. Metascience on Peer Review: Testing the Effects of a Study’s Originality and Statistical Significance in a Field Experiment. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2020;3:53-65. [DOI: 10.1177/2515245919895419] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
36 Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM. The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Int Orthop 2020;44:413-5. [PMID: 32043195 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 25] [Article Influence: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
37 Yakhontova T. “The authors have wasted their time...”: Genre features and language of anonymous peer reviews. Topics in Linguistics 2019;20:67-89. [DOI: 10.2478/topling-2019-0010] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
38 Ajuwon AJ. The Relevance of Integrity in Research and Publication. Malawi Med J 2018;30:218. [PMID: 31798797 DOI: 10.4314/mmj.v30i4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
39 [DOI: 10.1109/icspcs47537.2019.9008695] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
40 Bishop DV. The psychology of experimental psychologists: Overcoming cognitive constraints to improve research: The 47th Sir Frederic Bartlett Lecture. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 2020;73:1-19. [PMID: 31724919 DOI: 10.1177/1747021819886519] [Cited by in Crossref: 14] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
41 Gravett K, Kinchin IM, Winstone NE, Balloo K, Heron M, Hosein A, Lygo-baker S, Medland E. The development of academics’ feedback literacy: experiences of learning from critical feedback via scholarly peer review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 2020;45:651-65. [DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1686749] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
42 Zawacki-richter O, Marín VI, Bond M, Gouverneur F. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? Int J Educ Technol High Educ 2019;16. [DOI: 10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0] [Cited by in Crossref: 94] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 113] [Article Influence: 31.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
43 Nugent F, Comyns T, Kearney P, Warrington G. Ultra-Short Race-Pace Training (USRPT) In Swimming: Current Perspectives. Open Access J Sports Med 2019;10:133-44. [PMID: 31632163 DOI: 10.2147/OAJSM.S180598] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
44 Jamieson KH, McNutt M, Kiermer V, Sever R. Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019;116:19231-6. [PMID: 31548409 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1913039116] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17] [Article Influence: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
45 Tennant JP. The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2018;365. [PMID: 30137294 DOI: 10.1093/femsle/fny204] [Cited by in Crossref: 30] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30] [Article Influence: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
46 Misra DP, Agarwal V. Open Access Publishing in India: Coverage, Relevance, and Future Perspectives. J Korean Med Sci 2019;34:e180. [PMID: 31293108 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e180] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
47 Mavrogenis AF, Sun J, Quaile A, Scarlat MM. How to evaluate reviewers - the international orthopedics reviewers score (INOR-RS). Int Orthop 2019;43:1773-7. [PMID: 31273429 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-019-04374-2] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
48 Shopovski J, Bolek C, Bolek M. Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers. Sci Eng Ethics 2020;26:709-26. [PMID: 31209769 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00118-y] [Reference Citation Analysis]
49 Vilaró M, Cortés J, Selva-O'Callaghan A, Urrutia A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Basagaña X, Elmore M, Vilardell M, Altman D, González JA, Cobo E. Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peer-review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:112. [PMID: 31151417 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0746-4] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13] [Article Influence: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
50 Hall JL, Hatcher W, Mcdonald BD, Shields P, Sowa JE. The art of peer reviewing: Toward an effective developmental process. Journal of Public Affairs Education 2018;25:296-313. [DOI: 10.1080/15236803.2019.1616657] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
51 Chung KJ. The peer review system of Archives of Plastic Surgery: Current status and plans for improvement. Arch Plast Surg 2019;46:187-8. [PMID: 31113181 DOI: 10.5999/aps.2019.00528] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
52 Ampollini I, Bucchi M. When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media. Sci Eng Ethics 2020;26:451-74. [PMID: 30945163 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00103-5] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
53 Superchi C, González JA, Solà I, Cobo E, Hren D, Boutron I. Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:48. [PMID: 30841850 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 23] [Article Influence: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
54 Murphy DD, Weiland PS. Independent Scientific Review under the Endangered Species Act. Bioscience 2019;69:198-208. [PMID: 30899123 DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biz001] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
55 Sarabipour S, Debat HJ, Emmott E, Burgess SJ, Schwessinger B, Hensel Z. On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLoS Biol 2019;17:e3000151. [PMID: 30789895 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151] [Cited by in Crossref: 43] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 46] [Article Influence: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
56 Santini A, Azamfirei L, Moldovan C. The Symbiotic Relationship between Authors, Medical Journals, Editors and the Peer Review System. J Crit Care Med (Targu Mures) 2019;5:3-5. [PMID: 30766917 DOI: 10.2478/jccm-2019-0005] [Reference Citation Analysis]
57 Schapira M, Harding RJ; Open Lab Notebook Consortium. Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists. F1000Res 2019;8:87. [PMID: 31448096 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.17710.2] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
58 Schapira M, Harding RJ; The Open Lab Notebook Consortium. Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists. F1000Res 2019;8:87. [DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.17710.1] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
59 Santini A. The Peer Review Process: Underwriting Manuscript Quality & Validity. J Crit Care Med (Targu Mures) 2018;4:111-3. [PMID: 30574562 DOI: 10.2478/jccm-2018-0020] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
60 Prager EM, Chambers KE, Plotkin JL, McArthur DL, Bandrowski AE, Bansal N, Martone ME, Bergstrom HC, Bespalov A, Graf C. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. J Neurosci Res 2019;97:377-90. [PMID: 30506706 DOI: 10.1002/jnr.24340] [Cited by in Crossref: 15] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
61 Prager EM, Chambers KE, Plotkin JL, McArthur DL, Bandrowski AE, Bansal N, Martone ME, Bergstrom HC, Bespalov A, Graf C. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. Cancer Rep (Hoboken) 2019;2:e1150. [PMID: 32721132 DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.1150] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
62 Prager EM, Chambers KE, Plotkin JL, McArthur DL, Bandrowski AE, Bansal N, Martone ME, Bergstrom HC, Bespalov A, Graf C. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. Brain Behav 2019;9:e01141. [PMID: 30506879 DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1141] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
63 Horbach SPJM, Halffman W. The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications. Scientometrics 2019;118:339-73. [PMID: 30930504 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22] [Article Influence: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
64 Joshi ND, Deshpande KS, Roehmer CW, Vyas D. A slight glance at peer review. World J Surg Proced 2018; 8(1): 1-5 [DOI: 10.5412/wjsp.v8.i1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
65 Goodman JH. Appreciation for Our Peer Reviewers. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 2018;24:480-1. [PMID: 30369304 DOI: 10.1177/1078390318805982] [Reference Citation Analysis]
66 Glonti K, Hren D. Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020568. [PMID: 30341111 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020568] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
67 Schimanski LA, Alperin JP. The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future. F1000Res 2018;7:1605. [PMID: 30647909 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.16493.1] [Cited by in Crossref: 74] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 81] [Article Influence: 18.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
68 Horbach SPJMS, Halffman WW. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 2018;3:8. [PMID: 30250752 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5] [Cited by in Crossref: 22] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 31] [Article Influence: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
69 Schroter S, Price A, Flemyng E, Demaine A, Elliot J, Harmston RR, Richards T, Staniszewska S, Stephens R. Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals. BMJ Open 2018;8:e023357. [PMID: 30185581 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023357] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
70 Brown AW, Kaiser KA, Allison DB. Issues with data and analyses: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018;115:2563-70. [PMID: 29531079 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708279115] [Cited by in Crossref: 43] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 53] [Article Influence: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
71 Viola M. Evaluation of Research(ers) and its Threat to Epistemic Pluralisms. EuJAP 2018;13:55-78. [DOI: 10.31820/ejap.13.2.4] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
72 Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X, Moylan EC. Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Res 2018;7:969. [PMID: 30135731 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.15334.1] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
73 Davis CH, Bass BL, Behrns KE, Lillemoe KD, Garden OJ, Roh MS, Lee JE, Balch CM, Aloia TA. Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals. Res Integr Peer Rev 2018;3:4. [PMID: 29850109 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-018-0048-0] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
74 Boulbes DR, Costello T, Baggerly K, Fan F, Wang R, Bhattacharya R, Ye X, Ellis LM. A Survey on Data Reproducibility and the Effect of Publication Process on the Ethical Reporting of Laboratory Research. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24:3447-55. [PMID: 29643062 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0227] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
75 Johansson MA, Reich NG, Meyers LA, Lipsitch M. Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science. PLoS Med 2018;15:e1002549. [PMID: 29614073 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002549] [Cited by in Crossref: 58] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 49] [Article Influence: 14.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
76 Grimaldo F, Marušić A, Squazzoni F. Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015). PLoS One 2018;13:e0193148. [PMID: 29466467 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193148] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
77 Barnett AG, Clarke P, Vaquette C, Graves N. Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study. Res Integr Peer Rev 2017;2:16. [PMID: 29451532 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
78 Patel J, Pierce M, Boughton SL, Baldeweg SE. Do peer review models affect clinicians' trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors. Res Integr Peer Rev 2017;2:11. [PMID: 29451550 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-017-0029-8] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
79 Goudra B, Gouda D, Gouda G, Singh A, Balu A, Gouda P. Possible Bias in the Publication Trends of High Impact Factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology Journals -An Analysis of 5 Years' Data. Anesth Essays Res 2018;12:611-7. [PMID: 30283164 DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_116_18] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
80 Praharaj SK, Ameen S. Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review. Indian J Psychol Med 2017;39:785-8. [PMID: 29284812 DOI: 10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_372_17] [Reference Citation Analysis]
81 Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, Elkhatib Y, B Collister L, Pikas CK, Crick T, Masuzzo P, Caravaggi A, Berg DR, Niemeyer KE, Ross-Hellauer T, Mannheimer S, Rigling L, Katz DS, Greshake Tzovaras B, Pacheco-Mendoza J, Fatima N, Poblet M, Isaakidis M, Irawan DE, Renaut S, Madan CR, Matthias L, Nørgaard Kjær J, O'Donnell DP, Neylon C, Kearns S, Selvaraju M, Colomb J. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Res 2017;6:1151. [PMID: 29188015 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3] [Cited by in Crossref: 33] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
82 Cameron P, Carley S, Weingart S, Atkinson P. CJEM Debate Series: #SocialMedia – Social media has created emergency medicine celebrities who now influence practice more than published evidence. CJEM 2017;19:471-4. [DOI: 10.1017/cem.2017.396] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
83 Kline RB. Comment on Locascio, Results Blind Science Publishing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2017;39:256-7. [DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2017.1355308] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
84 Hazelkorn E, Gibson A. Global science, national research, and the question of university rankings. Palgrave Commun 2017;3. [DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0011-6] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
85 Carroll HA, Toumpakari Z, Johnson L, Betts JA. The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias. PLoS One 2017;12:e0186472. [PMID: 29065125 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186472] [Cited by in Crossref: 24] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22] [Article Influence: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
86 Glonti K, Cauchi D, Cobo E, Boutron I, Moher D, Hren D. A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMJ Open 2017;7:e017468. [PMID: 29061619 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017468] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
87 Esarey J. Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process. APSC 2017;50:963-9. [DOI: 10.1017/s1049096517001081] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
88 Rodgers P. Decisions, decisions. Elife 2017;6:e32011. [PMID: 28959940 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.32011] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
89 Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers? Sci Eng Ethics 2019;25:293-321. [PMID: 28905258 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
90 Ferris LE, Winker MA. Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2017;27:279-84. [PMID: 28694719 DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.030] [Cited by in Crossref: 25] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26] [Article Influence: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
91 Wang P, You S, Manasa R, Wolfram D. Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers. Journal of Data and Information Science 2017;1:60-80. [DOI: 10.20309/jdis.201625] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
92 Cooke SJ, Birnie-Gauvin K, Lennox RJ, Taylor JJ, Rytwinski T, Rummer JL, Franklin CE, Bennett JR, Haddaway NR. How experimental biology and ecology can support evidence-based decision-making in conservation: avoiding pitfalls and enabling application. Conserv Physiol 2017;5:cox043. [PMID: 28835842 DOI: 10.1093/conphys/cox043] [Cited by in Crossref: 25] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
93 Collins H, Bartlett A, Reyes-galindo L. Demarcating Fringe Science for Policy. Perspectives on Science 2017;25:411-38. [DOI: 10.1162/posc_a_00248] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
94 Thicke M. Prediction Markets for Science: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease? Social Epistemology 2017;31:451-67. [DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2017.1346720] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
95 Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, Elkhatib Y, B Collister L, Pikas CK, Crick T, Masuzzo P, Caravaggi A, Berg DR, Niemeyer KE, Ross-Hellauer T, Mannheimer S, Rigling L, Katz DS, Greshake Tzovaras B, Pacheco-Mendoza J, Fatima N, Poblet M, Isaakidis M, Irawan DE, Renaut S, Madan CR, Matthias L, Nørgaard Kjær J, O'Donnell DP, Neylon C, Kearns S, Selvaraju M, Colomb J. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Res 2017;6:1151. [PMID: 29188015 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3] [Cited by in Crossref: 48] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 65] [Article Influence: 9.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
96 Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, Elkhatib Y, B Collister L, Pikas CK, Crick T, Masuzzo P, Caravaggi A, Berg DR, Niemeyer KE, Ross-Hellauer T, Mannheimer S, Rigling L, Katz DS, Greshake Tzovaras B, Pacheco-Mendoza J, Fatima N, Poblet M, Isaakidis M, Irawan DE, Renaut S, Madan CR, Matthias L, Nørgaard Kjær J, O'Donnell DP, Neylon C, Kearns S, Selvaraju M, Colomb J. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Res 2017;6:1151. [PMID: 29188015 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
97 Mattedi MA, Spiess MR. The evaluation of scientific productivity. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos 2017;24:623-43. [PMID: 29019600 DOI: 10.1590/S0104-59702017000300005] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
98 Chirico F. "Predatory Journals" or "Predatory Scholars?" The Essential Role of the Peer Review Process. Int J Occup Environ Med 2017;8:186-8. [PMID: 28689217 DOI: 10.15171/ijoem.2017.1082] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
99 Wyndham J. Peer Review in Controversial Topics—A Case Study of 9/11. Publications 2017;5:16. [DOI: 10.3390/publications5020016] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
100 Dambha-miller H, Jones R. An appealing prospect? A survey into the numbers, outcomes, and editorial policies for appeals of rejected biomedical manuscripts: A survey into appeals. Learned Publishing 2017;30:227-31. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1107] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
101 Wymer W. Improving the quality of empirical nonprofit research: the focal constructs and their measures. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark 2017;14:137-48. [DOI: 10.1007/s12208-016-0169-4] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
102 [DOI: 10.1109/jcdl.2017.7991572] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
103 Barnish MS, Turner S. The value of pragmatic and observational studies in health care and public health. Pragmat Obs Res 2017;8:49-55. [PMID: 28546780 DOI: 10.2147/POR.S137701] [Cited by in Crossref: 38] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 48] [Article Influence: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
104 Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res 2017;6:588. [PMID: 28580134 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2] [Cited by in Crossref: 64] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 46] [Article Influence: 12.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
105 Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res 2017;6:588. [PMID: 28580134 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2] [Cited by in Crossref: 49] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 60] [Article Influence: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
106 Fiala C, Diamandis EP. The emerging landscape of scientific publishing. Clin Biochem 2017;50:651-5. [PMID: 28434986 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.04.009] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
107 Harris JP. Rewarding reviewers, tracking our authors and selective electronic publication. ANZ J Surg 2017;87:217-8. [PMID: 28371034 DOI: 10.1111/ans.13927] [Reference Citation Analysis]
108 Knudson DV, Morrow JR Jr, Thomas JR. Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2014;85:127-135. [PMID: 25098008 DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2014.898117] [Cited by in Crossref: 16] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13] [Article Influence: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
109 Gould KA. To Our Peer Reviewers: With Gratitude and Respect. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2016;35:172. [PMID: 27043406 DOI: 10.1097/DCC.0000000000000182] [Reference Citation Analysis]
110 Talbott E, Maggin DM, Van Acker EY, Kumm S. Quality Indicators for Reviews of Research in Special Education. Exceptionality 2017;26:245-65. [DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2017.1283625] [Cited by in Crossref: 15] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 18] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
111 McLeod SD. Researchers, Reviewers, and Readers: The Ecosystem of Science in the Practice of Medicine. Ophthalmology 2017;124:278-9. [PMID: 28219496 DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.01.012] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
112 Docherty AB, Klein AA. The fate of manuscripts rejected from Anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2017;72:427-30. [DOI: 10.1111/anae.13829] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
113 Servaes J. Quantity=quality? At the start of volume 34. Telematics and Informatics 2017;34:v-vii. [DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2016.06.008] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
114 Doran M, Barnett A, Leach J, Lott W, Page K, Grant W. Can video improve grant review quality and lead to more reliable ranking? RIO 2017;3:e11931. [DOI: 10.3897/rio.3.e11931] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
115 Jukola S. A Social Epistemological Inquiry into Biases in Journal Peer Review. Perspectives on Science 2017;25:124-48. [DOI: 10.1162/posc_a_00237] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
116 Moustafa K. Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2016;17:331-2. [PMID: 28101258 DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1155] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
117 Sinclair PM, Levett-Jones T, Morris A, Carter B, Bennett PN, Kable A. High engagement, high quality: A guiding framework for developing empirically informed asynchronous e-learning programs for health professional educators. Nurs Health Sci 2017;19:126-37. [PMID: 28090732 DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12322] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
118 Chapman PM. How to review and edit scientific manuscripts. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:608-9. [PMID: 27640405 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1813] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
119 Gelman A, Geurts HM. The statistical crisis in science: how is it relevant to clinical neuropsychology? The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2017;31:1000-14. [DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2016.1277557] [Cited by in Crossref: 16] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 19] [Article Influence: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
120 Alverson BK, Shah SS, Wilson KM. Response to "literature pollution: a personal experience". Eur J Pediatr 2017;176:287-8. [PMID: 28062959 DOI: 10.1007/s00431-016-2841-4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
121 [DOI: 10.1145/3057148.3057154] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
122 Matthews PC. Fairness in scientific publishing. F1000Res 2016;5:2816. [PMID: 28163900 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.10318.2] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
123 Matthews PC. Fairness in scientific publishing. F1000Res 2016;5:2816. [PMID: 28163900 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.10318.2] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
124 Côté IM, Favaro C. The scientific value of scientific whaling. Marine Policy 2016;74:88-90. [DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.010] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
125 Paterson DJ. Challenges, Opportunities, and the Future of Physiological Publications in the Hype Cycle. Physiology (Bethesda) 2016;31:386-7. [PMID: 27708042 DOI: 10.1152/physiol.00024.2016] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
126 Cutler GC, Scott-dupree CD. Bee Ecotoxicology and Data Veracity: Appreciating the GLP Process. BioScience 2016;66:1066-9. [DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biw136] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
127 Bollen J, Crandall D, Junk D, Ding Y, Börner K. An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions. Scientometrics 2017;110:521-8. [PMID: 29795961 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3] [Cited by in Crossref: 20] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
128 Mcauliffe M. Migration moderate, ‘Master Weaver’ and inspirational team leader: reflecting on the lasting legacy of Graeme Hugo in three spheres of migration policy. Australian Geographer 2016;47:383-9. [DOI: 10.1080/00049182.2016.1220905] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
129 Buchberger B, Krabbe L, Lux B, Mattivi JT. Evidence mapping for decision making: feasibility versus accuracy - when to abandon high sensitivity in electronic searches. Ger Med Sci 2016;14:Doc09. [PMID: 27499726 DOI: 10.3205/000236] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
130 Caruso M, DiRoberto C, Howe J Jr, Baccei SJ. How to Effectively Implement a Peer Review Process for Interventional Radiology Procedures. J Am Coll Radiol 2016;13:1106-8. [PMID: 27461896 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.04.017] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
131 Cordero RJ, de León-Rodriguez CM, Alvarado-Torres JK, Rodriguez AR, Casadevall A. Life Science's Average Publishable Unit (APU) Has Increased over the Past Two Decades. PLoS One 2016;11:e0156983. [PMID: 27310929 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156983] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
132 Liu P, Chen B, Liu K, Xie H. Magnetic nanoparticles research: a scientometric analysis of development trends and research fronts. Scientometrics 2016;108:1591-602. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2017-z] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
133 Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2016;14:85. [PMID: 27287500 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5] [Cited by in Crossref: 58] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 69] [Article Influence: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
134 Masic I. Peer Review - Essential for Article and Journal Scientific Assessment and Validity. Med Arch 2016;70:168-71. [PMID: 27594739 DOI: 10.5455/medarh.2016.70.168-171] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
135 Louw Q, Grimmer K. Peer Review: Professionally Important and an Opportunity to Contribute. Physiother Res Int 2016;21:67-9. [PMID: 27160804 DOI: 10.1002/pri.1668] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
136 Cooper LB, Bellam N, Vaduganathan M. Educating the Next Generation of Peer Reviewers. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2016;67:2079-82. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.483] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
137 Menon V, Muraleedharan A. Credit and visibility for peer reviewing: An overlooked aspect of scholarly publication. J Neurosci Rural Pract 2016;7:330-1. [PMID: 27114682 DOI: 10.4103/0976-3147.176183] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
138 Moosa IA. Citations, journal ranking and multiple authorships: evidence based on the top 300 papers in economics. Applied Economics Letters 2016;24:175-81. [DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2016.1176104] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
139 Harris JP. How can I reduce the chances of my paper being rejected? ANZ J Surg 2016;86:325. [PMID: 27109295 DOI: 10.1111/ans.13547] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
140 Vercellini P, Buggio L, Viganò P, Somigliana E. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process. Eur J Intern Med 2016;31:15-9. [PMID: 27129625 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.04.014] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
141 Giordan M, Csikasz-Nagy A, Collings AM, Vaggi F. The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process. F1000Res 2016;5:683. [PMID: 27508056 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.8452.2] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
142 Giordan M, Csikasz-Nagy A, Collings AM, Vaggi F. The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process. F1000Res 2016;5:683. [PMID: 27508056 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.8452.2] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
143 Ryde U, Söderhjelm P. Ligand-Binding Affinity Estimates Supported by Quantum-Mechanical Methods. Chem Rev 2016;116:5520-66. [DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00630] [Cited by in Crossref: 155] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 148] [Article Influence: 25.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
144 Moosa IA. A Critique of the Bucket Classification of Journals: The ABDC List as an Example. Econ Rec 2016;92:448-63. [DOI: 10.1111/1475-4932.12258] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
145 Shyamsundar M, Smyth AR, McAuley DF. Thorax protocol review: working with trialists to improve trial quality. Thorax 2016;71:491-2. [PMID: 27048198 DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208331] [Reference Citation Analysis]
146 . ALSUntangled No. 34: GM604. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 2016;17:617-21. [PMID: 27043278 DOI: 10.3109/21678421.2016.1164940] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
147 Morgan B, Rutty GN. How does post-mortem imaging compare to autopsy, is this a relevant question? Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging 2016;4:2-6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jofri.2015.11.003] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
148 Schriger DL, Kadera SP, von Elm E. Are Reviewers’ Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2016;67:401-406.e6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.003] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
149 Cusick A. Peer review: Least-worst approach or the very best we can do? Aust Occup Ther J 2016;63:1-4. [PMID: 26856799 DOI: 10.1111/1440-1630.12281] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
150 Kimura H. Editorial. Rev adm contemp 2016;20. [DOI: 10.1590/1982-7849rac2016150328] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
151 Dickinson JE. ANZJOG in 2016: Passing the baton. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2016;56:7-8. [PMID: 26817522 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12435] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
152 Masic I, Begic E. Scientometric Dilemma: Is H-index Adequate for Scientific Validity of Academic's Work? Acta Inform Med 2016;24:228-32. [PMID: 27708482 DOI: 10.5455/aim.2016.24.228-232] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
153 Fisher D, Parisis N. Social influence and peer review: Why traditional peer review is no longer adapted, and how it should evolve. EMBO Rep 2015;16:1588-91. [PMID: 26559523 DOI: 10.15252/embr.201541256] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
154 Hufford DJ, Sprengel M, Ives JA, Jonas W. Barriers to the Entry of Biofield Healing Into "Mainstream" Healthcare. Glob Adv Health Med 2015;4:79-88. [PMID: 26665046 DOI: 10.7453/gahmj.2015.025.suppl] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
155 Sklar DP. What can I believe? Peer review, innovation, and 90 years of academic medicine. Acad Med 2015;90:999-1000. [PMID: 26218354 DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000789] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
156 Hanitzsch T. Celebrating 25 Years of Communication Theory : Growing Diversity Under Heavy Strain: Celebrating 25 Years of Communication Theory. Commun Theor 2015;25:349-55. [DOI: 10.1111/comt.12079] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
157 van Lent M, IntHout J, Out HJ. Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007961. [PMID: 26423849 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007961] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
158 Kowalczuk MK, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, Harriman SL, Patel J, Moylan EC. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008707. [PMID: 26423855 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
159 Bali M. A new scholar's perspective on open peer review. Teaching in Higher Education 2015;20:857-63. [DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1085857] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
160 Poynter M. Academic campaigning is hurting Australian forestry. Australian Forestry 2015;78:115-7. [DOI: 10.1080/00049158.2015.1082225] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
161 Anganes A, Pfaff MS, Drury JL, O'toole CM. The Heuristic Quality Scale. Interact Comput 2016;28:584-97. [DOI: 10.1093/iwc/iwv031] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
162 Cole GD, Nowbar AN, Mielewczik M, Shun-Shin MJ, Francis DP. Frequency of discrepancies in retracted clinical trial reports versus unretracted reports: blinded case-control study. BMJ 2015;351:h4708. [PMID: 26387520 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h4708] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
163 Kurdi MS. 'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woes. Indian J Anaesth 2015;59:465-70. [PMID: 26379288 DOI: 10.4103/0019-5049.162981] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
164 G.e. Gorman and Professor Jennifer Rowley P, Tattersall A. For what it’s worth – the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review 2015;39:649-63. [DOI: 10.1108/oir-06-2015-0182] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
165 Handley G, Frantz CM, Kocovsky PM, Devries DR, Cooke SJ, Claussen J. An Examination of Gender Differences in the American Fisheries Society Peer-Review Process. Fisheries 2015;40:442-51. [DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2015.1059824] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
166 Casadevall A, Shenk T. The Justification for the Academy Track in mBio. mBio 2015;6:e01222-15. [PMID: 26286695 DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01222-15] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
167 Lin M, Thoma B, Trueger NS, Ankel F, Sherbino J, Chan T. Quality indicators for blogs and podcasts used in medical education: modified Delphi consensus recommendations by an international cohort of health professions educators. Postgrad Med J 2015;91:546-50. [DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-133230] [Cited by in Crossref: 66] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 84] [Article Influence: 9.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
168 Nguyen VM, Haddaway NR, Gutowsky LF, Wilson AD, Gallagher AJ, Donaldson MR, Hammerschlag N, Cooke SJ. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PLoS One 2015;10:e0132557. [PMID: 26267491 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132557] [Cited by in Crossref: 28] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
169 Nguyen VM, Haddaway NR, Gutowsky LFG, Wilson ADM, Gallagher AJ, Donaldson MR, Hammerschlag N, Cooke SJ, Andrade-navarro MA. How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0132557. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132557] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
170 Wooding S, Van Leeuwen TN, Parks S, Kapur S, Grant J. UK Doubles Its "World-Leading" Research in Life Sciences and Medicine in Six Years: Testing the Claim? PLoS One 2015;10:e0132990. [PMID: 26204117 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132990] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
171 Berlin S. Paper-trail index: Can a metric that captures a paper's history of submission and rejection give insight into its value and encourage good authorship practices? EMBO Rep 2015;16:889-93. [PMID: 26160652 DOI: 10.15252/embr.201540463] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
172 Moustafa K. Is there bias in editorial choice? Yes. Scientometrics 2015;105:2249-51. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1617-3] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
173 Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Front Neurosci 2015;9:169. [PMID: 26074753 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169] [Cited by in Crossref: 66] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 59] [Article Influence: 9.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
174 Resnik DB. Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study. J Agric Environ Ethics 2015;28:621-33. [PMID: 26251636 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-015-9546-y] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
175 Ferreira C, Bastille-Rousseau G, Bennett AM, Ellington EH, Terwissen C, Austin C, Borlestean A, Boudreau MR, Chan K, Forsythe A, Hossie TJ, Landolt K, Longhi J, Otis JA, Peers MJ, Rae J, Seguin J, Watt C, Wehtje M, Murray DL. The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline? Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2016;91:597-610. [PMID: 25865035 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12185] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
176 von Wehrden H, Schultner J, Abson DJ. A call for statistical editors in ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 2015;30:293-4. [PMID: 25851947 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.03.013] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
177 Missimer T. Journal paper peer-review: a broken system? Ground Water 2015;53:347. [PMID: 25818833 DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12333] [Reference Citation Analysis]
178 Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci 2015;30:360-4. [PMID: 25829801 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360] [Cited by in Crossref: 33] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 36] [Article Influence: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
179 Fuster V. A praise for reviewers: how do we reward them? J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:212-3. [PMID: 25593063 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.002] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
180 Patrus R, Dantas DC, Shigaki HB. O produtivismo acadêmico e seus impactos na pós-graduação stricto sensu: uma ameaça à solidariedade entre pares? Cad EBAPE BR 2015;13:1-18. [DOI: 10.1590/1679-39518866] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
181 Saeidnia S, Abdollahi M. Peer review processes and related issues in scholarly journals. Daru 2015;23:21. [PMID: 25890255 DOI: 10.1186/s40199-015-0099-4] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
182 Allan A. Ethics in Psychology and Law: An International Perspective. Ethics & Behavior 2015;25:443-57. [DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2014.952006] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
183 Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors. Sci Eng Ethics 2016;22:169-88. [DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5] [Cited by in Crossref: 44] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 43] [Article Influence: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
184 Bartholomew RE. Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. J R Soc Med 2014;107:384-5. [PMID: 25271271 DOI: 10.1177/0141076814548526] [Cited by in Crossref: 72] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 71] [Article Influence: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
185 Walker R, Barros B, Conejo R, Neumann K, Telefont M. Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study. F1000Res 2015;4:21. [PMID: 26594326 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.6012.2] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
186 Roberts RG, Wynn-Jones J. Research and rural; EGPRN and EURIPA—finding common ground. October 2013, Malta. Eur J Gen Pract 2015;21:77-81. [PMID: 25410820 DOI: 10.3109/13814788.2014.936006] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
187 Macdonald S. Emperor’s New Clothes: The Reinvention of Peer Review as Myth. Journal of Management Inquiry 2015;24:264-79. [DOI: 10.1177/1056492614554773] [Cited by in Crossref: 27] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 19] [Article Influence: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
188 Barroga EF. Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review. J Korean Med Sci 2014;29:1450-2. [PMID: 25408573 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1450] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
189 Leopold SS. Editorial: peer review and the editorial process--a look behind the curtain. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473:1-3. [PMID: 25352264 DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-4031-x] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
190 Suter GW, Cormier SM. The Problem of Biased Data and Potential Solutions for Health and Environmental Assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 2014;21:1736-52. [DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2014.974499] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
191 Pasternak J, Glina S. Paying reviewers for scientific papers and ethical committees. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 2014;12:vii-ix. [PMID: 25295443 DOI: 10.1590/s1679-45082014ed3259] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
192 Craft S, Barnhurst KG, Brennen B, Glasser TL, Hanitzsch T, Singer JB. Trajectories. Journalism Studies 2014;15:689-710. [DOI: 10.1080/1461670x.2014.952971] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
193 Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med 2014;12:179. [PMID: 25270270 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1] [Cited by in Crossref: 55] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 52] [Article Influence: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
194 Pontille D, Torny D. From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review. Hum Stud 2015;38:57-79. [DOI: 10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z] [Cited by in Crossref: 37] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 25] [Article Influence: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
195 Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med 2014;12:128. [PMID: 25285376 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z] [Cited by in Crossref: 32] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 37] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
196 Bankaitis VA. Peer review: rigor? Or rigor mortis? EMBO Rep 2014;15:818-9. [PMID: 25006184 DOI: 10.15252/embr.201439204] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
197 Nobarany S, Booth KS. Use of politeness strategies in signed open peer review: Use of Politeness Strategies in Signed Open Peer Review. J Assn Inf Sci Tec 2015;66:1048-64. [DOI: 10.1002/asi.23229] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
198 Reed DD. Determining How, When, and Whether You Should Publish Outside the Box: Sober Advice for Early Career Behavior Analysts. Behav Anal 2014;37:83-6. [PMID: 27274962 DOI: 10.1007/s40614-014-0012-3] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
199 Doran MR, Lott WB, Doran SE. Multimedia: a necessary step in the evolution of research funding applications. Trends Biochem Sci 2014;39:151-3. [PMID: 24703407 DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2014.01.004] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
200 Grimaldo F, Paolucci M. A SIMULATION OF DISAGREEMENT FOR CONTROL OF RATIONAL CHEATING IN PEER REVIEW. Advs Complex Syst 2014;16:1350004. [DOI: 10.1142/s0219525913500045] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
201 Allen TW. Conducting Proper Peer Review for a Journal. Bariatric Surgical Practice and Patient Care 2014;9:18-20. [DOI: 10.1089/bari.2014.9967] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
202 Paolucci M, Grimaldo F. Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism. Scientometrics 2014;99:663-88. [PMID: 24829514 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1239-1] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 12] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
203 Hames I. Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century. Sci Ed 2014;1:4-8. [DOI: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.4] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
204 Resnik DB, Elliott KC. Taking financial relationships into account when assessing research. Account Res. 2013;20:184-205. [PMID: 23672544 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2013.788383] [Cited by in Crossref: 32] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
205 Nickson CP, Cadogan MD. Free Open Access Medical education (FOAM) for the emergency physician: Education and Training. Emerg Med Australas 2014;26:76-83. [DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.12191] [Cited by in Crossref: 117] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 123] [Article Influence: 14.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
206 Ziegler R, Schnell O, Kulzer B, Gilbart J, Heinemann L. Freedom of Science - Can Industry Influence What Scientists Publish? Eur Endocrinol 2014;10:10-3. [PMID: 29872457 DOI: 10.17925/EE.2014.10.01.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
207 Lu Y. Experienced journal reviewers' perceptions of and engagement with the task of reviewing: an Australian perspective. Higher Education Research & Development 2013;32:946-59. [DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2013.806441] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
208 Sun JY, Wang GG. How is HRD doing in research and publications? An assessment of journals by AHRD (2005-2011). Euro J of Training and Dev 2013;37:696-712. [DOI: 10.1108/ejtd-03-2013-0031] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
209 Eisen JA, Maccallum CJ, Neylon C. Expert failure: re-evaluating research assessment. PLoS Biol 2013;11:e1001677. [PMID: 24115910 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001677] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
210 Raff H, Brown D. Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals. Adv Physiol Educ 2013;37:211-2. [PMID: 24022765 DOI: 10.1152/advan.00046.2013] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
211 Cals JW, Mallen CD, Glynn LG, Kotz D. Should authors submit previous peer-review reports when submitting research papers? Views of general medical journal editors. Ann Fam Med 2013;11:179-81. [PMID: 23508606 DOI: 10.1370/afm.1448] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
212 Raff H, Brown D. Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2013;305:C239-40. [PMID: 23677798 DOI: 10.1152/ajpcell.00135.2013] [Reference Citation Analysis]
213 Raff H, Brown D. Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals. Physiological Genomics 2013;45:629-30. [DOI: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00080.2013] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
214 Raff H, Brown D. Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2013;305:E315-6. [PMID: 23673160 DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00261.2013] [Reference Citation Analysis]
215 Raff H, Brown D. Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals. Journal of Applied Physiology 2013;115:295-6. [DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00565.2013] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
216 Raff H, Brown D. Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2013;305:G205-6. [PMID: 23703653 DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.00154.2013] [Reference Citation Analysis]
217 Cabezas-Clavijo A, Robinson-García N, Escabias M, Jiménez-Contreras E. Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals? PLoS One 2013;8:e68258. [PMID: 23840840 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068258] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
218 Raff H, Brown D. Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2013;305:L203-4. [PMID: 23686853 DOI: 10.1152/ajplung.00119.2013] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
219 Gleicher N. Avoiding currently unavoidable conflicts of interest in medical publishing by transparent peer review. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2013;26:411-5. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.01.015] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
220 Jasper M, Vaismoradi M, Bondas T, Turunen H. Validity and reliability of the scientific review process in nursing journals - time for a rethink? Nurs Inq 2014;21:92-100. [DOI: 10.1111/nin.12030] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
221 Ragone A, Mirylenka K, Casati F, Marchese M. On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement. Scientometrics 2013;97:317-56. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z] [Cited by in Crossref: 15] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
222 Foley JA. Peer Review, Citation Ratings and Other Fetishes. Springer Science Reviews 2013;1:5-7. [DOI: 10.1007/s40362-013-0003-x] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
223 Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Ann Rev Info Sci Tech 2011;45:197-245. [DOI: 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112] [Cited by in Crossref: 235] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 175] [Article Influence: 26.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
224 Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2013;64:2-17. [DOI: 10.1002/asi.22784] [Cited by in Crossref: 379] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 237] [Article Influence: 37.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
225 Kriegeskorte N. Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:79. [PMID: 23087639 DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00079] [Cited by in Crossref: 29] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 31] [Article Influence: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
226 Yarkoni T. Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:72. [PMID: 23060783 DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00072] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
227 Shirey MR. Giving and receiving feedback. J Contin Educ Nurs 2012;43:243-4. [PMID: 22656430 DOI: 10.3928/00220124-20120523-31] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
228 Florian RV. Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:31. [PMID: 22661941 DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00031] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
229 Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS One 2012;7:e35621. [PMID: 22558178 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035621] [Cited by in Crossref: 103] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 114] [Article Influence: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
230 Ghosh SS, Klein A, Avants B, Millman KJ. Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:18. [PMID: 22529798 DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00018] [Cited by in Crossref: 17] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
231 Wicherts JM, Kievit RA, Bakker M, Borsboom D. Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:20. [PMID: 22536180 DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00020] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
232 Squazzoni F, Gandelli C. Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure. Journal of Informetrics 2012;6:265-75. [DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.12.005] [Cited by in Crossref: 30] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
233 Yearley S, Mercer D, Pitman A, Oreskes N, Conway E. Perspectives on global warming: Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway: Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2010, 368pp, $ 27.00 HB. Metascience 2012;21:531-59. [DOI: 10.1007/s11016-011-9639-9] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
234 Jenal S, Vituri DW, Ezaías GM, Silva LAD, Caliri MHL. O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura. Acta paul enferm 2012;25:802-8. [DOI: 10.1590/s0103-21002012000500024] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
235 Fisher CG, Vaccaro AR. Evidence-based medicine and the peer review process: complementary or at odds? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E1-2. [PMID: 22179321 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823dcce2] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
236 Birukou A, Wakeling JR, Bartolini C, Casati F, Marchese M, Mirylenka K, Osman N, Ragone A, Sierra C, Wassef A. Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. Front Comput Neurosci 2011;5:56. [PMID: 22174702 DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00056] [Cited by in Crossref: 26] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 31] [Article Influence: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
237 Li H. Anonymous review as strategic ritual: examining the rise of anonymous review among mainland Chinese communication journals. Asian Journal of Communication 2011;21:595-612. [DOI: 10.1080/01292986.2011.609599] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
238 Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res 2010;12 Suppl 4:S13. [PMID: 21172075 DOI: 10.1186/bcr2742] [Cited by in Crossref: 63] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 57] [Article Influence: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
239 Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PLoS One 2010;5:e14331. [PMID: 21179459 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014331] [Cited by in Crossref: 84] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 81] [Article Influence: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
240 Martin MR, Kopstein A, Janice JM. An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH. PLoS One 2010;5:e13526. [PMID: 21103331 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013526] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
241 Gambrill E. Evidence-Informed Practice: Antidote to Propaganda in the Helping Professions? Research on Social Work Practice 2010;20:302-20. [DOI: 10.1177/1049731509347879] [Cited by in Crossref: 46] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 33] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
242 Höppner M, Aguillo I. Measuring the institution's footprint in the web. Library Hi Tech 2009;27:540-56. [DOI: 10.1108/073788309] [Cited by in Crossref: 36] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
243 Casadevall A, Fang FC. Is peer review censorship? Infect Immun 2009;77:1273-4. [PMID: 19223484 DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00018-09] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
244 Boden LI, Ozonoff D. Litigation-generated science: why should we care? Environ Health Perspect 2008;116:117-22. [PMID: 18197310 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9987] [Cited by in Crossref: 14] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
245 Black EW. Wikipedia and academic peer review: Wikipedia as a recognised medium for scholarly publication? Online Information Review 2008;32:73-88. [DOI: 10.1108/14684520810865994] [Cited by in Crossref: 43] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 23] [Article Influence: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
246 Roses AD. Genome-wide screening for drug discovery and companion diagnostics. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 2007;2:489-501. [DOI: 10.1517/17460441.2.4.489] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
247 Alpert JS. Peer Review: The Best of the Blemished? The American Journal of Medicine 2007;120:287-8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.02.013] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
248 Dellavalle RP. Cultivating peer review. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006;55:1113-5. [PMID: 17097410 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.05.015] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
249 Carpenter RH. Peer review. Peerless review. J R Soc Med 2006;99:384-5. [PMID: 16893928 DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.8.384-a] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
250 Smith R. Lapses at the new England journal of medicine. J R Soc Med 2006;99:380-2. [PMID: 16893926 DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.8.380] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
251 Lush B. Peer review. Unreliable reviewers. J R Soc Med 2006;99:385. [PMID: 16893932 DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.8.385] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
252 Szklo M. Quality of scientific articles. Rev Saúde Pública 2006;40:30-5. [DOI: 10.1590/s0034-89102006000400005] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
253 Gay JM. Theriogenology and developments in epidemiology: future opportunities? Theriogenology 2006;66:526-33. [DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.05.014] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
254 Yarkoni T. Designing Next-Generation Platforms for Evaluating Scientific Output: What Scientists Can Learn from the Social Web. SSRN Journal. [DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1915313] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
255 [DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.18.045963] [Cited by in Crossref: 25] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Reference Citation Analysis]