Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry

By D. Shatz. 2004

116 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis (2007, background): “According to the study of Wennerås and Wold (1997) the differences are not the result of differences in scientific productivity before applying for a grant (see also Bornmann & Daniel, 2005).”
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? (2011, background): “or the best applications (see here Järvelin and Persson (2008) and Pendlebury (2008)).”
Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers (2013, background): “Both Weller (2001) and Shatz (2004) provide the most comprehensive overviews of editorial peer review.”
Bias in peer review (2013, unknown): “Although some challenge the suggestion that conservativism is epistemically problematic (Shatz, 2004), most argue that conservativism threatens scientific progress by stifling the funding and public articulation of alternative and revolutionary scientific theories (Stanford, 2012).”