Albert, A. Y., Gow, J. L., Cobra, A., & Vines, T. H. (2016). Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(1), 14.
Baveye, P. C., & Trevors, J. T. (2011). How can we encourage peer-reviewing? Water, Air, and Soil pollution, 214, 1–3.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2010a). A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PLoS ONE, 5(12), e14331.
Bornmann, L., Weymuth, C., & Daniel, H. D. (2010b). 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? Scientometrics, 83(2), 493–506.
Breuning, M., Backstrom, J., Brannon, J., Gross, B. I., & Widmeier, M. (2015). Reviewer fatigue? Why scholars decline to review their peers’ work. PS: Political Science and Politics, 48(04), 595–600.
Campos-Arceiz, A., Primack, R. B., & Koh, L. P. (2015). Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? Biological Conservation, 186, 22–27.
Fiske, D. W., & Fogg, L. F. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 45(5), 591.
Fox, C. W., Albert, A. Y., & Vines, T. H. (2017a). Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2(1), 3.
Fox, C. W., & Burns, C. S. (2015). The relationship between manuscript title structure and success: Editorial decisions and citation performance for an ecological journal. Ecology and Evolution, 5(10), 1970–1980.
Fox, C. W., Burns, C. S., & Meyer, J. A. (2016a). Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 30(1), 140–153.
Fox, C. W., Burns, C. S., Muncy, A. D., & Meyer, J. A. (2016b). Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 30(1), 126–139.
Fox, C. W., Burns, C. S., Muncy, A. D., & Meyer, J. A. (2017b). Author-suggested reviewers: Gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 31(1), 270–280.
Goldman, H. V. (2015) The scarce peer reviewer and challenges journal editors face. http://www.editage.com/insights/the-scarce-peer-reviewer-and-challenges-journal-editors-face. Accessed 2 May 2017.
Kallmes, K. M., Brinjikji, W., Ahmed, A. T., & Kallmes, D. F. (2017). Difficulty in finding manuscript reviewers is not associated with manuscript acceptance rates: a study of the peer-review process at the journal Radiology. Scientometrics, 111, 971–978. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2331-0.
Lajtha, K., & Baveye, P. C. (2010). How should we deal with the growing peer-review problem? Biogeochemistry, 101, 1–3.
Mingers, J., & Xu, F. (2010). The drivers of citations in management science journals. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(2), 422–430.
Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2016). On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(2), 412–431.
Perneger, T. V. (2004). Relation between online “hit counts” and subsequent citations: Prospective study of research papers in the BMJ. BMJ, 329(7465), 546–547.
Sattler, D. N., McKnight, P. E., Naney, L., & Mathis, R. (2015). Grant peer review: improving inter-rater reliability with training. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0130450.
Sense About Science (2009). Peer Review Survey 2009. http://archive.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html. Accessed 2 May 2017.
Stamm, T., Meyer, U., Wiesmann, H. P., Kleinheinz, J., Cehreli, M., & Cehreli, Z. C. (2007). A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine. Head and Face Medicine, 3(1), 27.
Stremersch, S., Verniers, I., & Verhoef, P. C. (2007). The quest for citations: Drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 171–193.
Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841.
Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(1), 9–12.
Vaughan, L., Tang, J., & Yang, R. (2017). Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1533–1545.
Vines, T., Rieseberg, L., & Smith, H. (2010). No crisis in supply of peer reviewers. Nature, 468(7327), 1041.
Ware, M., & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer Review in scholarly journals: An international study into the perspective of the scholarly community. Bristol: Mark Ware Consulting.
Willis, M. (2016). Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 5–7.
Zaharie, M. A., & Osoian, C. L. (2016). Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach. European Management Journal, 34(1), 69–79.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4