SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Cited in:

CrossRef

This article has been cited by:

  1. 1
    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
  2. 2
    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

  3. 3
    Mario Paolucci, Francisco Grimaldo, Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism, Scientometrics, 2014, 99, 3, 663

    CrossRef

  4. 4
    Rüdiger Mutz, Lutz Bornmann, Hans-Dieter Daniel, Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions: A multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex-ante and ex-post peer evaluation data from the Austrian science fund, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65, 11
  5. 5
    FRANCISCO GRIMALDO, MARIO PAOLUCCI, A SIMULATION OF DISAGREEMENT FOR CONTROL OF RATIONAL CHEATING IN PEER REVIEW, Advances in Complex Systems, 2013, 16, 07, 1350004

    CrossRef

  6. 6
    Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, Blaise Cronin, Bias in peer review, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64, 1
  7. 7
    Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Blaise Cronin, Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review, Scientometrics, 2013, 95, 3, 851

    CrossRef

  8. 8
    Andrea Romei, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Discrimination discovery in scientific project evaluation: A case study, Expert Systems with Applications, 2013, 40, 15, 6064

    CrossRef

  9. 9
    S. Guo, K. A. Bollen, Research Using Longitudinal Ratings Collected by Multiple Raters: One Methodological Problem and Approaches to Its Solution, Social Work Research, 2013, 37, 2, 85

    CrossRef

  10. 10
    Carole J. Lee, A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review, Philosophy of Science, 2012, 79, 5, 859

    CrossRef

  11. 11
    Brian D. Johnson, Cross-Classified Multilevel Models: An Application to the Criminal Case Processing of Indicted Terrorists, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2012, 28, 1, 163

    CrossRef

  12. 12
    Rüdiger Mutz, Lutz Bornmann, Hans-Dieter Daniel, Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?, Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 2012, 220, 2, 121

    CrossRef

  13. 13
    Pleun van Arensbergen, Peter van den Besselaar, The Selection of Scientific Talent in the Allocation of Research Grants1, Higher Education Policy, 2012, 25, 3, 381

    CrossRef

  14. You have free access to this content14
    Lutz Bornmann, Rüdiger Mutz, Werner Marx, Hermann Schier, Hans-Dieter Daniel, A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication?, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 2011, 174, 4
  15. 15
    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

  16. 16
    Lutz Bornmann, Scientific peer review, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2011, 45, 1
  17. 17
    David Coniam, Systematising System: One reviewer’s analysis of the review process, System, 2011, 39, 4, 539

    CrossRef

  18. 18
    Lutz Bornmann, Rüdiger Mutz, Hans-Dieter Daniel, How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study, Journal of Informetrics, 2008, 2, 4, 280

    CrossRef

  19. 19
    MARCO R. STEENBERGEN, GARY MARKS, Evaluating expert judgments, European Journal of Political Research, 2007, 46, 3
  20. 20
    HERBERT W. MARSH, NIGEL W. BOND, UPALI W. JAYASINGHE, Peer review process: Assessments by applicant-nominated referees are biased, inflated, unreliable and invalid, Australian Psychologist, 2007, 42, 1