about
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeepingHow peer-review constrains cognition: on the frontline in the knowledge sectorThe quality of methods reporting in parasitology experimentsCoping with the Conflict-of-Interest Pandemic by Listening to and Doubting Everyone, Including YourselfPeer review and the publication processThe Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding ApplicationsBias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small UniversitiesAttitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysisA multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer reviewMenage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers.Scientific Reproducibility, Human Error, and Public Policy.Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection.Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.Article-level assessment of influence and translation in biomedical research.Editorial behaviors in peer review.Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics.Scientific Eminence: Where Are the Women?Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians.A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology.The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias.The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor.Social behavioural epistemology and the scientific community.Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?'Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?': observations on how peer review panels function.THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND THE PREHISTORY OF PEER REVIEW, 1665–1965Does "Decision Fatigue" Impact Manuscript Acceptance? An Analysis of Editorial Decisions by the American Journal of Gastroenterology.What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaborationFrom Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer ReviewStudent peer review: enhancing formative feedback with a rebuttalPeer review: The experience and views of early career researchers“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journalsData journals: A surveyThe reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer reviewWhat influences the regional diversity of reviewers: A study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals
P2860
Q21686060-137D4D7B-D939-4B47-B6D3-1F2D8219DE87Q24273320-23071DB9-EFDC-4BF5-A17A-35EA71B82581Q24288682-A4CBE926-DCC2-4DB8-96FC-0E9A2F21BB6FQ24289482-32338E17-7746-4DE7-B27D-D15080E10B11Q28076160-342C1188-42E0-427A-AA47-71110CA6638EQ28109661-444CA606-D265-4863-8D5F-26B08D470F6BQ28601731-DE6F60DB-26D5-466D-93AD-0FA2BAA035AEQ30980817-328F971F-E693-4EC1-9E80-11DE190F1F16Q33269085-C53473B7-175A-414D-8BE9-F72EBDC1CD57Q35591706-BA13F675-3B2A-41F7-8A42-AB91E2795CF2Q36647281-435D5E2D-CECC-4826-8B34-72A8A358B709Q38237401-702575F6-85BB-4924-93D4-391A2B4DCA46Q38343222-A0CABF0B-B8E5-4E06-9DAE-E135570488F4Q38546308-0892080E-0B38-4ED0-B50D-F85D20B65ECAQ38755573-B77D981F-EB34-4E8E-843D-C2FBE68AD2C8Q38888604-E9EE6766-8FCD-4B5E-8210-0899E9D3D1B6Q38982634-90CFD5E9-A5BC-44C9-B496-460AD0235936Q39011265-34A366DA-0755-4CBB-AAF5-390F8D2D7872Q39061153-ABCF16B2-005E-454B-8D6D-1358F48771BAQ39144358-39FCE141-7BD6-410B-9848-27B9E7107EC2Q42708376-E3FAC7F6-4F53-4D04-B85D-794981B259D2Q42938056-7219E022-8D96-4D2B-8955-CB24DFC9BCD7Q46275850-5A97EE38-9F95-4FC9-91BA-BE8F6C21C4B4Q47114629-33B0F008-3C01-4051-9D0C-38E72C3A7A9AQ47312291-022F3998-6DA8-4D63-AEC5-88F78FA9DB0DQ47401891-D2420020-6CFD-4CD9-A37F-75B40CEB86DEQ47759884-78576B99-1B85-4519-999C-2C3415C159B8Q49052109-CFC95445-0E8E-4F76-973E-B377ECAEF787Q49932276-54D5C4E4-62B9-4A3D-A093-4F1686C9F0E7Q51534586-030EC33D-D935-4642-9339-8D5E789EFA33Q53133549-186723E6-CEA5-4956-901C-2D5241404CECQ53282277-A1003E7C-1C2D-4226-BB0B-EF4B6D425615Q56220079-D7135440-0E35-4747-BD78-DF8552FE5B6BQ56854653-CB8D844C-7642-4906-B64F-FF9A03CE2C7AQ57520000-003EFCCA-B783-4851-A652-6CBAA24BB82EQ57561210-EC89CD73-BEA4-4408-A5D2-0809DFF8D40FQ57589866-F57ACB02-B236-4B82-B837-131A3F3F0A24Q57616872-BAC482C3-0213-4943-8295-F89F88A2E6BAQ57768431-A99C857F-6C87-42FD-BFAD-56AD85284B98Q57778217-2606D868-4E7A-463D-AE83-23A19D06ADD4
P2860
description
article
@en
im Dezember 2012 veröffentlichter wissenschaftlicher Artikel
@de
wetenschappelijk artikel
@nl
наукова стаття, опублікована в грудні 2012
@uk
ലേഖനം
@ml
name
Bias in peer review
@en
Bias in peer review
@nl
type
label
Bias in peer review
@en
Bias in peer review
@nl
prefLabel
Bias in peer review
@en
Bias in peer review
@nl
P356
P1476
Bias in peer review
@en
P2093
Carole J. Lee
P356
10.1002/ASI.22784
P577
2012-12-10T00:00:00Z