최소 단어 이상 선택하여야 합니다.
최대 10 단어까지만 선택 가능합니다.
다음과 같은 기능을 한번의 로그인으로 사용 할 수 있습니다.
NTIS 바로가기한국비블리아학회지 = Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, v.33 no.1, 2022년, pp.5 - 24
As a new academic publication model is attempted to improve the transparency, efficiency, and speed of scientific knowledge production and distribution, the open peer review platform for verification and openness of peer review history is also activated. Publons is a global platform for tracking, va...
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.
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.
Clarivate (2018, February 26). It's not the size that matters. Available: https://clarivate.com/blog/its-not-the-size-that-matters/
Clarivate Analytics (2020). Publons Reviewer Connect - ScholarOne. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/576fcda2e4fcb5ab5152b4d8/t/5e7dceb25ae8b93895717126/1585303221283/Reviewer+Connect+in+ScholarOne+QRG_Final.pdf
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
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?article1205&contextgrad_rsch
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Reilly, L. (2021). What are Scored Publications?. Publons. Availabe: https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000081238-what-are-scoredpublications
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
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
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
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
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.
Ule, J. (2020). Open access, open data and peer review. Genome Biol, 21, 86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02005-3
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
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
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
Yankauer, A. (1990). Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1338-1340.
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
Sato, S. (2014). New issues concerning peer review. Current Awareness, 321. https://current.ndl.go.jp/ca1829
Sato, S. (2016). Peer review problems and countermeasures. Information Science and Technology, 66(3), 115-121.
*원문 PDF 파일 및 링크정보가 존재하지 않을 경우 KISTI DDS 시스템에서 제공하는 원문복사서비스를 사용할 수 있습니다.
오픈액세스 학술지에 출판된 논문
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.