Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing

, , , &
Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (1) (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Add categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,122

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Open data, open review and open dialogue in making social sciences plausible.Quan-Hoang Vuong - 2017 - Nature: Scientific Data Updates 2017.
Response to Müller.Annemarie Bridy - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (9):W8-W8.
Research Integrity and Peer Review—past highlights and future directions.Elizabeth C. Moylan, Elizabeth Wager, Joerg J. Meerpohl, Maria K. Kowalczuk & Stephanie L. Boughton - 2018 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 3 (1).
Do peer review models affect clinicians’ trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors.Stephanie E. Baldeweg, Stephanie L. Boughton, Mary Pierce & Jigisha Patel - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
Response-Able Reviewing Matters in Higher Education: A Manifesto.Vivienne Bozalek, Michalinos Zembylas & Tamara Shefer - 2019 - In Carol A. Taylor & Annouchka Bayley (eds.), Posthumanism and Higher Education: Reimagining Pedagogy, Practice and Research. Springer Verlag. pp. 349-357.
Generic open theism and some varieties thereof.Alan R. Rhoda - 2008 - Religious Studies 44 (2):225-234.
Per Una scienza aperta.Pietro Greco - 2017 - Scienza E Filosofia 18 (18):255-263.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “'Doctor, Would You Prescribe a Pill to Help Me…?'A National Survey of Physicians on Using Medicine for Human Enhancement”.Timothy D. Hotze, Kavita Shah, Emily E. Anderson & Matthew K. Wynia - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (1):W1 - W3.
Open data, open review and open dialogue in making social sciences plausible.Quan-Hoang Vuong - 2017 - Scientific Data 4.
Ethics of open access to biomedical research: Just a special case of ethics of open access to research.Stevan Harnad - 2007 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2:31.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “An Open Letter to Institutional Review Boards Considering Northfield Laboratories' PolyHeme® Trial”: The Emergency Exception and Unproven/unsatisfactory Treatment.Ken Kipnis, Nancy M. P. King & Robert M. Nelson - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W49-W50.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “An Open Letter to Institutional Review Boards Considering Northfield Laboratories' PolyHeme® Trial ”: The Emergency Exception and Unproven/Unsatisfactory Treatment.Ken Kipnis, Nancy M. P. King & Robert M. Nelson - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W49-W50.
Renewing and New Types of Innovation.Imre Hronszky & Ágnes Fésüs - 2008 - Teorie Vědy / Theory of Science 30 (1):31-49.
Open(ing) Education: Theory and Practice.Dianne Conrad & Paul Prinsloo (eds.) - 2020 - Brill | Sense.
Peer-to-peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority.Kathleen Fitzpatrick - 2010 - Social Epistemology 24 (3):161-179.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-27

Downloads
4 (#1,517,814)

6 months
2 (#1,015,942)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.

Add more references