Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://link.springer.com/doi/10.1007/s11192-009-0011-4 below:

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?

• Abelson, P. H. (1980). Scientific communication. Science, 209(4452), 60–62.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Abelson, P. (1990). Mechanisms for evaluating scientific information and the role of peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(3), 216–222.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Adam, D., & Knight, J. (2002). Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned. Nature, 419(6909), 772–776.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Alberts, B., Hanson, B., & Kelner, K. L. (2008). Reviewing peer review. Science, 321(5885), 15.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. (1989). Mixed messages: referees’ comments on the manuscripts they review. Sociological Quarterly, 30(4), 639–654.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008a). The effectiveness of the peer review process: inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 47(38), 7173–7178.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008b). 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. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1841–1852.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 117–125.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bornmann, L., Nast, I., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics, 77(3), 415–432.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Campanario, J. M. (1998). Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 1. Science Communication, 19(3), 181–211.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Daniel, H.-D. (1993/2004), Guardians of science. Fairness and reliability of peer review. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH. Published online 16 July 2004, Wiley Interscience, doi: 10.1002/3527602208.

• Dickersin, K., Ssemanda, E., Mansell, C., Rennie, D. (2007), What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 44.

  Google Scholar 

• Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’ functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87–101.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management of scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Hemlin, S. (1996). Research on research evaluations. Social Epistemology, 10(2), 209–250.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

  Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Judge, T., Cable, D., Colbert, A., & Rynes, S. (2007). What causes a management article to be cited - article, author, or journal? The Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), 50(3), 491–506.

  Google Scholar 

• Kupfersmid, J. (1988). Improving what is published—A model in search of an editor. American Psychologist, 43(8), 635–642.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• LaFollette, M. C. (1992). Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX, USA: Stata Press, Stata Corporation.

  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Marchionini, G. (2008). Rating reviewers. Science, 319(5868), 1335–1336.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Everitt, B. (2004). A handbook of statistical analyses using Stata. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Shashok, K. (2008). Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing? BMC Medical Research Methods, 8(3).

• Silberzweig, J. E., & Khorsandi, A. S. (2008). Outcomes of rejected Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology manuscripts. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 19(11), 1620–1623.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• StataCorp. (2007). Stata statistical software: release 10. College Station, TX, USA: Stata Corporation.

  Google Scholar 

• Sternberg, R. J., Hojjat, M., Brigockas, M. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Getting in: Criteria for acceptance of manuscripts in Psychological Bulletin, 1993–1996. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 321–323.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Turcotte, C., Drolet, P., & Girard, M. (2004). Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia [Journal Canadien D Anesthesie], 51(6), 549–556.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Weller, A. C. (2002). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ, USA: Information Today, Inc.

  Google Scholar 

• Ziman, J. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar 

Download references

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