Systematic Variation in Reviewer Practice According to Country and Gender in the Field of Ecology and Evolution
暂无分享,去创建一个
Amber E. Budden | Christopher J. Lortie | Julia Koricheva | Tom Tregenza | Roosa Leimu | Lonnie W. Aarssen | T. Tregenza | L. Aarssen | C. Lortie | A. Budden | J. Koricheva | R. Leimu | Olyana N. Grod | Roosa Leimu
[1] Amy M. Hightower,et al. Science and Engineering Indicators , 1993 .
[2] Amber E. Budden,et al. Publication bias and merit in ecology , 2007 .
[3] Jerome P. Kassirer,et al. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. , 1994, JAMA.
[4] J Smith,et al. What do peer reviewers do? , 1990, JAMA.
[5] E Frank,et al. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal. , 1996, Preventive medicine.
[6] J. Kassirer,et al. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. , 1994, JAMA.
[7] R. Sokal,et al. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research (2nd ed.). , 1982 .
[8] T. Tregenza,et al. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.
[9] D. Benos,et al. The ups and downs of peer review. , 2007, Advances in physiology education.
[10] Perry J Pickhardt,et al. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[11] Margaret E. Lloyd,et al. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. , 1990, Journal of applied behavior analysis.
[12] Maurice B. Line,et al. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses , 2002 .
[13] PHILLIP CASSEY,et al. Publication and Rejection among Successful Ecologists , 2004 .
[14] Tom Tregenza,et al. Gender bias in the refereeing process , 2002 .
[15] A. Weller. Editorial peer review : its strengths and weaknesses , 2001 .
[16] F. James Rohlf,et al. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , 1969 .
[17] James M Provenzale,et al. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[18] J. R. Gilbert,et al. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? , 1994, JAMA.
[19] J. Olden,et al. Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? , 2006 .
[20] Nancy Jennings,et al. REVIEW: Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice , 2005 .
[21] E. Lawson,et al. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. , 1994, JAMA.
[22] A. Yankauer,et al. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? , 1990, JAMA.
[23] D. Millett. Training the Reviewer? , 2006, Journal of orthodontics.
[24] M Nylenna,et al. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. , 1994, JAMA.
[25] A. Møller,et al. Testing and adjusting for publication bias , 2001 .