SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Cited in:

CrossRef

This article has been cited by:

  1. 1
    Wiltrud Kuhlisch, Magnus Roos, Jörg Rothe, Joachim Rudolph, Björn Scheuermann, Dietrich Stoyan, A statistical approach to calibrating the scores of biased reviewers of scientific papers, Metrika, 2015,

    CrossRef

  2. 2
    Lutz Bornmann, Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66, 8
  3. 3
    Elizabeth S. Vieira, José A.S. Cabral, José A.N.F. Gomes, Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65, 3
  4. 4
    Elizabeth S. Vieira, José A.S. Cabral, José A.N.F. Gomes, How good is a model based on bibliometric indicators in predicting the final decisions made by peers?, Journal of Informetrics, 2014, 8, 2, 390

    CrossRef

  5. 5
    Malhar N. Kumar, Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review, Journal of Academic Ethics, 2014, 12, 4, 333

    CrossRef

  6. 6
    Prometheus Assessed?, 2012,

    CrossRef

  7. 7
    Herbert W. Marsh, Upali W. Jayasinghe, Nigel W. Bond, Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model, Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5, 1, 167

    CrossRef

  8. 8
    Lutz Bornmann, Scientific peer review, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2011, 45, 1
  9. 9
    David Coniam, Systematising System: One reviewer’s analysis of the review process, System, 2011, 39, 4, 539

    CrossRef

  10. 10
    Michal Jasienski, Garfield’s demon and “surprising” or “unexpected” results in science, Scientometrics, 2009, 78, 2, 347

    CrossRef