Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
Published 2022 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
Authors
Keywords
Peer review, Machine learning, Natural language processing, Neural networks, Antigen-presenting cells, Forecasting, Statistical models, Learning
Journal
PLoS One
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages e0259238
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Online
2022-01-28
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0259238
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- High-profile coronavirus retractions raise concerns about data oversight
- (2020) Heidi Ledford et al. NATURE
- The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals
- (2019) Giangiacomo Bravo et al. Nature Communications
- Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review
- (2019) Cecilia Superchi et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review — The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- (2019) Ann T. Gregory et al. Heart Lung and Circulation
- Understanding Quality in Research: Avoiding Predatory Journals
- (2019) Genae Strong JOURNAL OF HUMAN LACTATION
- Meta-research: Why research on research matters
- (2018) John P. A. Ioannidis PLOS BIOLOGY
- Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency
- (2018) Timothy H. Parker et al. Nature Ecology & Evolution
- How to write a thorough peer review
- (2018) Mathew Stiller-Reeve NATURE
- Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data
- (2017) Flaminio Squazzoni et al. NATURE
- Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?
- (2017) Rafael D’Andrea et al. PLoS One
- Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review
- (2017) Andrew Tomkins et al. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective
- (2017) Janine Huisman et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- (2016) Rachel Bruce et al. BMC Medicine
- Let’s make peer review scientific
- (2016) Drummond Rennie NATURE
- Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals
- (2016) Antoni Margalida et al. PeerJ
- Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals
- (2016) Jelte M. Wicherts PLoS One
- The arbitrariness of reviews, and advice for school administrators
- (2015) John Langford et al. COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
- Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review
- (2013) In-Uck Park et al. NATURE
- Bias in peer review
- (2012) Carole J. Lee et al. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
- Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial
- (2012) Debra Houry et al. BMC Medical Education
- Authors’ and Editors’ Perspectives on Peer Review Quality in Three Scholarly Nursing Journals
- (2010) Mona M. Shattell et al. JOURNAL OF NURSING SCHOLARSHIP
Find Funding. Review Successful Grants.
Explore over 25,000 new funding opportunities and over 6,000,000 successful grants.
ExploreCreate your own webinar
Interested in hosting your own webinar? Check the schedule and propose your idea to the Peeref Content Team.
Create Now