1 |
Wilkinson, J. & Down, P. (2018). Publons: releasing the untapped power of peer review for universities. Insights, 31, 20. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.407
DOI
|
2 |
Zong, Q., Fan, L., Xie, Y., & Huang, J. (2020). The relationship of polarity of post-publication peer review to citation count: evidence from publons. Online Information Review, 44(3), 583-602. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2019-0027
DOI
|
3 |
Black, N., Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., & Evans, S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 231-233.
DOI
|
4 |
Evans, A. T., McNutt, R. A., Fletcher, S. W., & Fletcher, R. H. (1993). The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8(8), 422-428.
DOI
|
5 |
Yankauer, A. (1990). Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1338-1340.
DOI
|
6 |
Sato, S. (2016). Peer review problems and countermeasures. Information Science and Technology, 66(3), 115-121.
|
7 |
Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H. D. (2008). 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.
DOI
|
8 |
Clarivate Analytics (2020). Publons Reviewer Connect - ScholarOne. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/576fcda2e4fcb5ab5152b4d8/t/5e7dceb25ae8b93895717126/1585303221283/Reviewer+Connect+in+ScholarOne+QRG_Final.pdf
|
9 |
cOAlition S (2019). Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S. Available: https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/271118_cOAlitionS_Guidanc e_annotated.pdf
|
10 |
Clarivate (2018, February 26). It's not the size that matters. Available: https://clarivate.com/blog/its-not-the-size-that-matters/
|
11 |
Falkenberg, L. J. & Soranno, P. A. (2018). Reviewing reviews: an evaluation of peer reviews of journal article submissions, Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin, 27(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.10217
DOI
|
12 |
Glonti, K., Boutron, I., Moher, D., & Hren, D. (2019). Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study, BMJ Open, 9(11), e033421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033421
DOI
|
13 |
Ortega, J. L. (2017). Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? a scientometric analysis of publons. Scientometrics, 112, 947-962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2399-6
DOI
|
14 |
Wiechert, K., Chapman, J. R., & Wang, J. C. (2018). Recognizing our experts: global spine journal partners with publons to establish reviewers' platform. Global Spine Journal, 8(3), 217. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568218773367
DOI
|
15 |
Dunne, M. (2019). Computer Generated Papers as a New Challenge to Peer Review. Master of Science in Technical Communication, Montana Tech. Available: https://digitalcommons.mtech.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=grad_rsch
|
16 |
Ortega, J. L. (2019). Exploratory analysis of publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(1), 124-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2018-0153
DOI
|
17 |
Gasparyan, A. Y. & Kitas, G. D. (2012). Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals, Croatian Medical Journal, 53(4), 386-389.
DOI
|
18 |
Kliewer, M. A., Freed, K. S., DeLong, D. M., Pickhardt, P. J., & Provenzale, J. M. (2005). Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American journal of roentgenology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 184(6), 1731-1735.
DOI
|
19 |
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020). Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons?. International Orthopaedics (SICOT), 44, 2193-2194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04587-w
DOI
|
20 |
Ule, J. (2020). Open access, open data and peer review. Genome Biol, 21, 86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02005-3
DOI
|
21 |
Wolfram, D., Wang, P., Hembree, A., & Park, H. (2020). Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics, 125, 1033-1051. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.407
DOI
|
22 |
Thomas, P. R. & Watkins, D. S. (1998). Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review: a comparative case study with policy implications. Scientometrics, 41(3), 335-355.
DOI
|
23 |
Goldstein, S. (2019). Publons peer evaluation metrics are not reliable measures of quality or impact. Evidence Based Library And Information Practice, 14(3), 153-155. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29579
DOI
|
24 |
Patterson, M. & Harris, S. (2009). The relationship between reviewers' quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003-2005. Scientometrics, 80(2), 343-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2064-1
DOI
|
25 |
Pautasso, M. & Schafer, H. (2009). Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics, 84(2), 307-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0105-z
DOI
|
26 |
Reilly, L. (2021). What are Scored Publications?. Publons. Availabe: https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000081238-what-are-scoredpublications
|
27 |
Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE 12(12), e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
DOI
|
28 |
Schriger, D. L., Kadera, S. P., & Von Elm, E. (2016). Are reviewers' scores influenced by citations to their own work? an analysis of submitted manuscripts and peer reviewer reports. Annuals of Emergency Medicine, 67(3), 401-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.003
DOI
|
29 |
Swiontkowski, M. (2019). Publons: the next step in reviewer recognition. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 101(13), 1137. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.19.00481
DOI
|
30 |
Sato, S. (2014). New issues concerning peer review. Current Awareness, 321. https://current.ndl.go.jp/ca1829
|