Analysis of Peer Review data from WoS Data Distributions Citations - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Peer Review from WoS V. Batagelj, A. Ferligoj Analysis of Peer Review data from WoS Data Distributions Citations Collaboration Vladimir Batagelj and Anu ska Ferligoj To do References University of Ljubljana, IMFM Ljubljana and IAM UP
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Journal of Irreproducible Results, 32(1988)2, 24
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
PT J AU Dipple, H Evans, B TI The Leicestershire Huntington’s disease support group: a social network analysis SO HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE IN THE COMMUNITY LA English DT Article C1 Rehabil Serv, Troon Way Business Ctr, Leicester LE4 9HA, Leics, England. RP Dipple, H, Rehabil Serv, Troon Way Business Ctr, Sandringham Suite,Humberstone Lane, Leicester LE4 9HA, Leics, England. CR BORGATTI SP, 1992, UCINET 4 VERSION 1 0 FOLSTEIN S, 1989, HUNTINGTONS DIS DISO SCOTT J, 1991, SOCIAL NETWORK ANAL NR 3 TC 3 PU BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD PI OXFORD PA P O BOX 88, OSNEY MEAD, OXFORD OX2 0NE, OXON, ENGLAND SN 0966-0410 J9 HEALTH SOC CARE COMMUNITY JI Health Soc. Care Community PD JUL PY 1998 VL 6 IS 4 BP 286 EP 289 PG 4 SC Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Social Work GA 105UP UT ISI:000075092200008 ER
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
>>> End of processing of WoS file number of works = 580263 number of authors = 248725 number of journals = 33210 number of keywords = 30627 number of records = 17219 number of duplicates = 15 works + titles : titles.csv works index file: vtxIndex.txt *** FILES: year of publication partition: C:/Users/batagelj/work/Python/WoS/peere\Year.clu described / cited only partition: C:/Users/batagelj/work/Python/WoS/peere\DC.clu number of pages vector: C:/Users/batagelj/work/Python/WoS/peere\NP.vec citation network: C:/Users/batagelj/work/Python/WoS/peere\Cite.net works X journals network: C:/Users/batagelj/work/Python/WoS/peere\WJ.net works X keywords network: C:/Users/batagelj/work/Python/WoS/peere\WK.net works X authors network: C:/Users/batagelj/work/Python/WoS/peere\WA.net finished: Sun May 31 12:12:57 2015
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
2 5 10 20 50 100 1 3 7 20 65
indeg distribution
deg freq
5 10 50 100 500 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 500
deg freq
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
rank node freq work title 2 8038 136 PETERS_D(1982)5:187 Peer-review practices of psychological journals - the fate of accepted, published articles, submitted again 3 11484 130 STROUP_D(2000)283:2008 Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting 5 2474 121 DERSIMON_R(1986)7:177 Metaanalysis in clinical-trials 6 11441 116 EGGER_M(1997)315:629 Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test 8 2324 111 CICCHETT_D(1991)14:119 The reliability of peer-review for manuscript and grant submissions - A cross-disciplinary investigation 9 11589 106 EASTERBR_P(1991)337:867 Publication bias in clinical research 10 16564 103 HORROBIN_D(1990)263:1438 The philosophical basis of peer-review and the suppression of innovation 11 28831 101 VANROOYE_S(1999)318:23 Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial 14 14524 98 HIRSCH_J(2005)102:16569 An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output 15 12 98 MCNUTT_R(1990)263:1371 The effects of blinding on the quality of peer-review - A randomized trial 16 8035 97 ZUCKERMA_H(1971)9:66 Patterns of evaluation in science - Institutionalisation, structure and functions of referee system 17 27745 97 GODLEE_F(1998)280:237 Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports - A randomized controlled trial 18 22 97 JADAD_A(1996)17:1 Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? 19 39712 96 HIGGINS_J(2003)327:557 Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses 20 28825 93 JUSTICE_A(1998)280:240 Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? - A randomized controlled trial 21 20285 92 LOCK_S(1985): A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine 22 8725 92 COLE_S(1981)214:881 Chance and consensus in peer-review 23 4801 91 MOHER_D(1999)354:1896 Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement 24 8005 90 MAHONEY_M(1977)1:161 Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system 25 7052 88 LANDIS_J(1977)33:159 Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data 26 28829 87 VANROOYE_S(1998)280:234 Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review - A randomized trial 28 28823 85 BLACK_N(1998)280:231 What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? 29 12555 84 GOODMAN_S(1994)121:11 Manuscript quality before and after peer-review and editing at annals of internal-medicine 30 11603 83 SCHERER_R(1994)272:158 Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts - A metaanalysis 31 75648 82 MOHER_D(2009)6:1000097 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 32 208162 80 HIGGINS_J(2011): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 33 25019 78 CHUBIN_D(1990): Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy 34 33410 77 KRONICK_D(1990)263:1321 Peer-review in 18th-century scientific journalism
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
name author title journal year GLASER_B(1967): Glaser, BG The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research book 1967 MERTON_R(1968)159:56 MERTON, RK MATTHEW EFFECT IN SCIENCE SCIENCE 1968 ZUCKERMA_H(1971)9:66 ZUCKERMA.H PATTERNS OF EVALUATION IN SCIENCE - INSTITUTIONALISATION, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF REFEREE SYSTEM MINERVA 1971 MERTON_R(1973): Merton, RK The Sociology of Science book 1973 INGELFIN_F(1974)56:686 INGELFIN.FJ PEER REVIEW IN BIOMEDICAL PUBLICATION AM J MED 1974 LANDIS_J(1977)33:159 LANDIS, JR MEASUREMENT OF OBSERVER AGREEMENT FOR CATEGORICAL DATA BIOMETRICS 1977 MAHONEY_M(1977)1:161 Mahoney, MJ Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system Cognitive Therapy and Researc 1977 WILSON_J(1978)61:1697 WILSON, JD 70TH ANNUAL-MEETING OF AMERICAN-SOCIETY-FOR-CLINICAL-INVESTIGATION, SAN-FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, 30 APRIL 1978 - PRESI J CLIN INVEST 1978 ROSENTHA_R(1979)86:638 ROSENTHAL, R THE FILE DRAWER PROBLEM AND TOLERANCE FOR NULL RESULTS PSYCHOL BULL 1979 GOLDMAN_L(1980)303:255 GOLDMAN, L FATE OF CARDIOLOGY RESEARCH ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN ABSTRACT FORM NEW ENGL J MED 1980 COLE_S(1981)214:881 COLE, S CHANCE AND CONSENSUS IN PEER-REVIEW SCIENCE 1981 PETERS_D(1982)5:187 PETERS, DP PEER-REVIEW PRACTICES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNALS - THE FATE OF ACCEPTED, PUBLISHED ARTICLES, SUBMITTED AGAIN BEHAV BRAIN SCI 1982 HEDGES_L(1985): Hedges, LV Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis book 1985 BAILAR_J(1985)312:654 BAILAR, JC JOURNAL PEER-REVIEW - THE NEED FOR A RESEARCH AGENDA NEW ENGL J MED 1985 LOCK_S(1985): Lock, S A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine book 1985 DERSIMON_R(1986)7:177 DERSIMONIAN, R METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS CONTROL CLIN TRIALS 1986 COHEN_J(1988): Cohen, J Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences book 1988 MCNUTT_R(1990)263:1371 MCNUTT, RA THE EFFECTS OF BLINDING ON THE QUALITY OF PEER-REVIEW - A RANDOMIZED TRIAL JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1990 DICKERSI_K(1990)263:1385 DICKERSIN, K THE EXISTENCE OF PUBLICATION BIAS AND RISK-FACTORS FOR ITS OCCURRENCE JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1990 HORROBIN_D(1990)263:1438 HORROBIN, DF THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF PEER-REVIEW AND THE SUPPRESSION OF INNOVATION JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1990 CHUBIN_D(1990): Chubin, DE Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy book 1990 KRONICK_D(1990)263:1321 KRONICK, DA PEER-REVIEW IN 18TH-CENTURY SCIENTIFIC JOURNALISM JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1990 BOYER_E(1990): Boyer, EL Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate book 1990 BURNHAM_J(1990)263:1323 BURNHAM, JC THE EVOLUTION OF EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1990 BRENNAN_T(1991)324:370 BRENNAN, TA INCIDENCE OF ADVERSE EVENTS AND NEGLIGENCE IN HOSPITALIZED-PATIENTS - RESULTS OF THE HARVARD MEDICAL-PRACTICE STUD NEW ENGL J MED 1991 CICCHETT_D(1991)14:119 CICCHETTI, DV THE RELIABILITY OF PEER-REVIEW FOR MANUSCRIPT AND GRANT SUBMISSIONS - A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION BEHAV BRAIN SCI 1991 EASTERBR_P(1991)337:867 EASTERBROOK, PJ PUBLICATION BIAS IN CLINICAL RESEARCH LANCET 1991 DICKERSI_K(1992)267:374 DICKERSIN, K FACTORS INFLUENCING PUBLICATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS - FOLLOW-UP OF APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO 2 INSTITUTIONAL REVIE JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1992 GOLDMAN_R(1992)267:958 GOLDMAN, RL THE RELIABILITY OF PEER ASSESSMENTS OF QUALITY OF CARE JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1992 COHEN_J(1992)112:155 COHEN, J A POWER PRIMER PSYCHOL BULL 1992 EVANS_A(1993)8:422 EVANS, AT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PEER REVIEWERS WHO PRODUCE GOOD-QUALITY REVIEWS J GEN INTERN MED 1993 DANIEL_H(1993): Daniel, HD Guardians of Science - Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review book 1993 FISHER_M(1994)272:143 FISHER, M THE EFFECTS OF BLINDING ON ACCEPTANCE OF RESEARCH PAPERS BY PEER-REVIEW JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1994 KASSIRER_J(1994)272:96 KASSIRER, JP PEER-REVIEW - CRUDE AND UNDERSTUDIED, BUT INDISPENSABLE JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1994 BEGG_C(1994)50:1088 BEGG, CB OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF A BANK CORRELATION TEST FOR PUBLICATION BIAS BIOMETRICS 1994 SCHERER_R(1994)272:158 SCHERER, RW FULL PUBLICATION OF RESULTS INITIALLY PRESENTED IN ABSTRACTS - A METAANALYSIS JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1994 GOODMAN_S(1994)121:11 GOODMAN, SN MANUSCRIPT QUALITY BEFORE AND AFTER PEER-REVIEW AND EDITING AT ANNALS OF INTERNAL-MEDICINE ANN INTERN MED 1994 NYLENNA_M(1994)272:149 NYLENNA, M MULTIPLE BLINDED REVIEWS OF THE 2 MANUSCRIPTS - EFFECTS OF REFEREE CHARACTERISTICS AND PUBLICATION LANGUAGE JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1994 SCHULZ_K(1995)273:408 SCHULZ, KF EMPIRICAL-EVIDENCE OF BIAS - DIMENSIONS OF METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY ASSOCIATED WITH ESTIMATES OF TREATMENT EFFECTS JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1995 JADAD_A(1996)17:1 Jadad, AR Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? CONTROL CLIN TRIALS 1996 BEGG_C(1996)276:637 Begg, C Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1996 SACKETT_D(1996)312:71 Sackett, DL Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't - It's about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidenc BRIT MED J 1996 GOLD_M(1996): Gold, MR Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine book 1996 WENNERAS_C(1997)387:341 Wenneras, C Nepotism and sexism in peer-review NATURE 1997 EGGER_M(1997)315:629 Egger, M Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test BRIT MED J 1997 SEGLEN_P(1997)314:498 Seglen, PO Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research BRIT MED J 1997 DOWNS_S(1998)52:377 Downs, SH The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studi J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H 1998 WEBER_E(1998)280:257 Weber, EJ Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting - Why investigators fail to publish JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1998 GODLEE_F(1998)280:237 Godlee, F Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports - A randomized controlled trial JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1998 BLACK_N(1998)280:231 Black, N What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1998 JUSTICE_A(1998)280:240 Justice, AC Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? - A randomized controlled trial JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1998 VANROOYE_S(1998)280:234 van Rooyen, S Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review - A randomized trial JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1998 CAMPANAR_J(1998)19:181 Campanario, JM Peer review for journals as it stands today - Part 1 SCI COMMUN 1998 CALLAHAM_M(1998)280:229 Callaham, ML Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1998 JUNI_P(1999)282:1054 Juni, P The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1999 VANROOYE_S(1999)318:23 van Rooyen, S Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial BRIT MED J 1999 VANROOYE_S(1999)52:625 van Rooyen, S Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts J CLIN EPIDEMIOL 1999 SMITH_R(1999)318:4 Smith, R Opening up BMJ peer review - A beginning that should lead to complete transparency BRIT MED J 1999 STROUP_D(2000)283:2008 Stroup, DF Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 2000 WALSH_E(2000)176:47 Walsh, E Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial BRIT J PSYCHIAT 2000 ROTHWELL_P(2000)123:1964 Rothwell, PM Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience - Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chan BRAIN 2000 HARRIS_R(2001)20:21 Harris, RP Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force - A review of the process AM J PREV MED 2001 ALTMAN_D(2001)134:663 Altman, DG The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration ANN INTERN MED 2001 WELLER_A(2001): Weller, AC Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses book 2001 HIGGINS_J(2002)21:1539 Higgins, JPT Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis STAT MED 2002 JEFFERSO_T(2002)287:2786 Jefferson, T Measuring the quality of editorial peer review JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 2002 JEFFERSO_T(2002)287:2784 Jefferson, T Effects of editorial peer review - A systematic review JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 2002 GODLEE_F(2002)287:2762 Godlee, F Making reviewers visible - Openness, accountability, and credit JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 2002 BEKELMAN_J(2003)289:454 Bekelman, JE Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research - A systematic review JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 2003 HIGGINS_J(2003)327:557 Higgins, JPT Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses BRIT MED J 2003 SPRAGUE_S(2003)85A:158 Sprague, S Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings J BONE JOINT SURG AM 2003 CHAN_A(2004)291:2457 Chan, AW Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials - Comparison of Protocols to published articles JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 2004 SCHROTER_S(2004)328:673 Schroter, S Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial BRIT MED J 2004 HIRSCH_J(2005)102:16569 Hirsch, JE An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output P NATL ACAD SCI USA 2005 SMITH_R(2006)99:178 Smith, R Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals J ROY SOC MED 2006 BENOS_D(2007)31:145 Benos, DJ The ups and downs of peer review ADV PHYSIOL EDUC 2007 SCHERER_R(2007):pub3 SCHERER, RW Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYST 2007 HIGGINS_J(2008): Higgins, JPT Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions book 2008 MOHER_D(2009)151:264 Moher, D Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement ANN INTERN MED 2009 LIBERATI_A(2009)6:1000100 Liberati, A The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Expl PLOS MED 2009 MOHER_D(2009)6:1000097 Moher, D Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement PLOS MED 2009 HIGGINS_J(2011): Higgins, JPT Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions book 2011
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
rank node
work title 1 290441 2306 GOLDSTEI_R(2010)53:4343 Heat transfer-A review of 2004 literature 2 175921 2127 GOLDSTEI_R(2010)53:4397 Heat transfer-A review of 2005 literature 3 5541 1259 HILLIS_L(2011)58:E123 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery 4 6068 872 LEVINE_G(2011)58:E44 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention 5 144032 837 DELEON_G(2007):1 Trematode parasites (Platyhelminthes) of wildlife vertebrates in Mexico 6 1585 747 ADAMS_H(2007)38:1655 Guidelines for the early management of adults with ischemic stroke - A guideline from the American Heart Association 7 4415 729 GOLDSTEI_L(2011)42:517 Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association 8 525591 711 WILLHITE_C(2014)44:1 Systematic review of potential health risks posed by pharmaceutical, occupational and consumer exposures to metallic and nanoscale aluminum, … 9 132542 710 SMITH_J(2012)17:510 Single-Case Experimental Designs: A Systematic Review of Published Research and Current Standards 10 211490 671 AKSULU_A(2010)11:576 A Comprehensive Review and Synthesis of Open Source Research 11 492189 651 MILLER_C(1990)62:700 Groundwater - A review of the 1989 literature 12 3943 586 GOLDSTEI_L(2006)37:1583 Primary prevention of ischemic stroke - A guideline from the American Heart Association 13 313264 577 FLEGAL_A(2013)43:1869 All the Lead in China 14 15310 569 GOLDSTEI_L(2006)113:E873 Primary prevention of ischemic stroke - A guideline from the American heart Association 15 199315 538 EVANS_E(2004)19:775 Atomic spectrometry update. Advances in atomic emission, absorption and fluorescence spectrometry and related techniques 16 4714 533 ROACH_E(2008)39:2644 Management of stroke in infants and children - A scientific statement from a special writing group of the American Heart Association 17 23743 517 SANTEN_R(2010)95:S7 Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement 18 6565 505 GORELICK_P(2011)42:2672 Vascular Contributions to Cognitive Impairment and Dementia A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association 19 285306 493 HILLIS_L(2011)58:2584 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation 20 115699 492 HILLIS_L(2012)143:4 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Executive summary
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 5000 10000 20000 30000 y freq
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
T U R N E R _ R { 1 9 9 8 } 3 5 2 : 8 5 4 T U R N E R _ R { 1 9 9 8 } 3 5 2 : 8 3 7 M O H E R _ D { 2 1 } 2 8 5 : 1 9 8 7 L I B E R A T I _ A { 2 9 } 6 : 1 1 B L A C K _ N { 1 9 9 8 } 2 8 : 2 3 1 V A N R O O Y E _ S { 1 9 9 8 } 2 8 : 2 3 4 A L T M A N _ D { 2 1 } 1 3 4 : 6 6 3 J E F F E R S O _ T { 2 2 } 2 8 7 : 2 7 8 6 J E F F E R S O _ T { 2 2 } 2 8 7 : 2 7 8 4 E I S E N H A R _ M { 2 2 } 3 2 : 2 4 1 M O H E R _ D { 2 9 } 6 : 1 9 7 L A R O C H E L _ M { 2 2 } 3 2 : 1 8 1 R O T H _ W { 2 2 } 3 2 : 2 1 5 V A L U C K _ R { 2 } 6 1 : 5 5 3 F U L D A _ T { 2 } 6 1 : 5 4 D A L L _ T { 2 9 } 2 3 : 4 2 3 D A L L _ T { 2 9 } 2 3 : 4 1 2 R O S E N B E R _ G { 2 5 } 4 1 : 3 5 H O L D E N _ G { 2 5 } 4 1 : 6 7 O S S E N B L O _ T { 2 1 2 } 2 1 : 2 8 E N G E L S _ T { 2 1 2 } 9 3 : 3 7 3 L A W N _ J { 2 1 3 } 1 : S 5 B L E N C O W E _ H { 2 1 3 } 1 : S 2 R E Y E S _ H { 2 7 } 1 3 5 : 5 2 9 R E Y E S _ H { 2 7 } 1 3 5 : 4 1 5 S C H O N B A C _ C { 2 1 } 1 1 : S 1 R A N G A N A T _ S { 2 1 } 1 1 : S 1 C A P L A N _ A { 2 1 2 } 3 1 : 2 2 3 6 E P S T E I N _ R { 2 1 2 } 3 1 : 2 2 2 5 M A Z E R O L L _ S { 2 1 1 } 4 6 : 5 3 3 M A Z E R O L L _ S { 2 1 1 } 4 6 : 5 2 3
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
M C N U T T _ R { 1 9 9 } 2 6 3 : 1 3 7 1 J E F F E R S O _ T { 1 9 9 5 } 4 : 3 8 3 D R U M M O N D _ M { 1 9 9 6 } 3 1 3 : 2 7 5 C I C C H E T T _ D { 1 9 8 } 3 5 : 3 G O T T F R E D _ S { 1 9 7 8 } 3 3 : 9 2 P E T E R S _ D { 1 9 8 2 } 5 : 1 8 7 B A I L A R _ J { 1 9 8 5 } 3 1 2 : 6 5 4 R E N N I E _ D { 1 9 8 6 } 2 5 6 : 2 3 9 1 R O B I N _ E { 1 9 8 7 } 9 1 : 2 5 2 J E F F E R S O _ T { 1 9 9 8 } 2 8 : 2 7 5 R E N N I E _ D { 1 9 9 4 } 2 7 2 : 9 1 W A L S H _ E { 2 } 1 7 6 : 4 7 J E F F E R S O _ T { 2 2 } 2 8 7 : 2 7 8 4 G A R F I E L D _ E { 1 9 5 5 } 1 2 2 : 1 8 M A R G O L I S _ J { 1 9 6 7 } 1 5 5 : 1 2 1 3 C O L E _ S { 1 9 6 7 } 3 2 : 3 7 7 W E I N B E R G _ A { 1 9 6 3 } 1 : 1 5 9 S M I T H _ R { 1 9 9 4 } 3 9 : 1 4 3 R E N N I E _ D { 1 9 9 3 } 2 7 : 2 8 5 6 G A R F I E L D _ E { 1 9 7 2 } 1 7 8 : 4 7 1 S M I T H _ R { 1 9 9 9 } 3 1 8 : 4 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 7 } 1 : 8 3 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 7 } 7 3 : 1 3 9 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 6 } 6 8 : 4 2 7 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 5 } 1 4 : 1 5 G O L D B E C K _ S { 1 9 9 9 } 3 1 8 : 4 4 R E N N I E _ D { 1 9 9 8 } 2 8 : 2 1 4 D A N I E L _ H { 2 5 } 1 8 : 1 4 3 G R O S S _ P { 1 9 2 7 } 6 6 : 3 8 5 G A R F I E L D _ E { 1 9 6 4 } 1 4 4 : 6 4 9 R E N N I E _ D { 1 9 9 2 } 1 3 : 4 4 3 R E N N I E _ D { 2 2 } 2 8 7 : 2 7 5 9 L O W R Y _ O { 1 9 5 1 } 1 9 3 : 2 6 5 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 1 } 3 2 : 5 C O L E _ J { 1 9 7 1 } 6 : 2 3 O P T H O F _ T { 2 2 } 5 6 : 3 3 9 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 9 } 8 1 : 4 7 H A G S T R O M _ W { 1 9 7 1 } 4 4 : 3 7 5 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 8 } 2 : 2 1 7 C O L E _ S { 1 9 7 } 7 6 : 2 8 6 P R I C E _ D { 1 9 6 5 } 1 4 9 : 5 1 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 1 } 6 4 : 7 2 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 1 2 } 9 1 : 8 4 3 S U G I M O T O _ C { 2 1 3 } 9 5 : 8 5 1 N A L I M O V _ V { 1 9 6 9 } : N O B A R A N Y _ S { 2 1 5 } 6 6 : 1 4 8 M Y E R S _ C { 1 9 7 } 2 5 : 1 4 1 = J E F F E R S O _ T { 2 2 } 2 8 7 : 2 7 8 6 M C N U T T _ R { 1 9 9 } 2 6 3 : 1 3 7 1 J E F F E R S O _ T { 1 9 9 5 } 4 : 3 8 3 D R U M M O N D _ M { 1 9 9 6 } 3 1 3 : 2 7 5 C I C C H E T T _ D { 1 9 8 } 3 5 : 3 I N G E L F I N _ F { 1 9 7 4 } 5 6 : 6 8 6 Y O T O P O U L _ P { 1 9 6 1 } 5 1 : 6 6 5 Z U C K E R M A _ H { 1 9 7 1 } 9 : 6 6 P E T E R S _ D { 1 9 8 2 } 5 : 1 8 7 B A I L A R _ J { 1 9 8 5 } 3 1 2 : 6 5 4 C R A N E _ D { 1 9 6 7 } 2 : 1 9 5 G O O D R I C H _ D { 1 9 4 5 } 1 : 7 1 6 R E N N I E _ D { 1 9 8 6 } 2 5 6 : 2 3 9 1 R O B I N _ E { 1 9 8 7 } 9 1 : 2 5 2 J E F F E R S O _ T { 1 9 9 8 } 2 8 : 2 7 5 R E N N I E _ D { 1 9 9 4 } 2 7 2 : 9 1 W A L S H _ E { 2 } 1 7 6 : 4 7 J E F F E R S O _ T { 2 2 } 2 8 7 : 2 7 8 4 B A Y E R _ A { 1 9 6 6 } 3 9 : 3 8 1 C O L E _ S { 1 9 6 7 } 3 2 : 3 7 7 S M I T H _ R { 1 9 9 4 } 3 9 : 1 4 3 R E N N I E _ D { 1 9 9 3 } 2 7 : 2 8 5 6 S M I T H _ R { 1 9 9 9 } 3 1 8 : 4 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 7 } 1 : 2 4 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 9 } 2 2 : 1 1 7 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 8 } 5 9 : 1 8 4 1 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 6 } 6 8 : 4 2 7 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 5 } 1 4 : 1 5 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 1 1 } 4 5 : 1 9 9 G O L D B E C K _ S { 1 9 9 9 } 3 1 8 : 4 4 R E N N I E _ D { 1 9 9 8 } 2 8 : 2 1 4 D A N I E L _ H { 2 5 } 1 8 : 1 4 3 C R A N E _ D { 1 9 6 5 } 3 : 6 9 9 R E N N I E _ D { 1 9 9 2 } 1 3 : 4 4 3 R E N N I E _ D { 2 2 } 2 8 7 : 2 7 5 9 B O R N M A N N _ L { 2 1 1 } 1 7 4 : 8 5 7 O P T H O F _ T { 2 2 } 5 6 : 3 3 9 L E E _ C { 2 1 3 } 6 4 : 2 K N U D S O N _ D { 2 1 4 } 8 5 : 1 2 7 F I S C H M A N _ M { 2 1 4 } 8 5 : 4 4 9 = J E F F E R S O _ T { 2 2 } 2 8 7 : 2 7 8 6
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
name author title journal year GROSS_P(1927)66:385 Gross, P College Libraries and Chemical Education SCIENCE 1927 LOWRY_O(1951)193:265 Lowry, OH Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent J BIOL CHEM 1951 GARFIELD_E(1955)122:108 GARFIELD, E CITATION INDEXES FOR SCIENCE - NEW DIMENSION IN DOCUMENTATION THROUGH ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS SCIENCE 1955 WEINBERG_A(1963)1:159 Weinberg, AM Criteria for scientific choice MINERVA 1963 GARFIELD_E(1964)144:649 GARFIELD, E Science Citation Index, A New Dimension in Indexing SCIENCE 1964 PRICE_D(1965)149:510 de Solla Price, DJ Networks of Scientific Papers SCIENCE 1965 MARGOLIS_J(1967)155:1213 Margolis, J Citation indexing and evaluation of scientific papers SCIENCE 1967 COLE_S(1967)32:377 Cole, S Scientific Output and Recognition AM SOC REV 1967 NALIMOV_V(1969): Nalimov, V Naukometriia book 1969 COLE_S(1970)76:286 Cole, S Professional standing and the reception of scientific discoveries AM J SOC 1970 MYERS_C(1970)25:1041 Myers, C Journal citations and scientific eminence in contemporary psychology AM PSYCHOL 1970 COLE_J(1971)6:23 Cole, J Measuring the quality of sociological research: Problems in the use of the Citation Index AM SOCIOL 1971 HAGSTROM_W(1971)44:375 Hagstrom, W Inputs, Outputs and the Prestige of University Science Departments SOC EDUC 1971 GARFIELD_E(1972)178:471 GARFIELD, E CITATION ANALYSIS AS A TOOL IN JOURNAL EVALUATION - JOURNALS CAN BE RANKED BY FREQUENCY AND IMPACT OF CITATIONS FOR SC SCIENCE 1972 GOTTFRED_S(1978)33:920 GOTTFREDSON, SD EVALUATING PSYCHOLOGICAL-RESEARCH REPORTS - DIMENSIONS, RELIABILITY, AND CORRELATES OF QUALITY JUDGMENTS AM PSYCHOL 1978 CICCHETT_D(1980)35:300 CICCHETTI, DV RELIABILITY OF REVIEWS FOR THE AMERICAN-PSYCHOLOGIST - A BIOSTATISTICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DATA AM PSYCHOL 1980 PETERS_D(1982)5:187 PETERS, DP PEER-REVIEW PRACTICES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNALS - THE FATE OF ACCEPTED, PUBLISHED ARTICLES, SUBMITTED AGAIN BEHAV BRAIN SCI 1982 BAILAR_J(1985)312:654 BAILAR, JC JOURNAL PEER-REVIEW - THE NEED FOR A RESEARCH AGENDA NEW ENGL J MED 1985 RENNIE_D(1986)256:2391 RENNIE, D GUARDING THE GUARDIANS - A CONFERENCE ON EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1986 ROBIN_E(1987)91:252 ROBIN, ED PEER-REVIEW IN MEDICAL JOURNALS CHEST 1987 MCNUTT_R(1990)263:1371 MCNUTT, RA THE EFFECTS OF BLINDING ON THE QUALITY OF PEER-REVIEW - A RANDOMIZED TRIAL JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1990 RENNIE_D(1992)13:443 RENNIE, D SUSPENDED JUDGMENT - EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW - LET US PUT IT ON TRIAL CONTROL CLIN TRIALS 1992 RENNIE_D(1993)270:2856 RENNIE, D MORE PEERING INTO EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1993 RENNIE_D(1994)272:91 RENNIE, D THE 2ND INTERNATIONAL-CONGRESS ON PEER-REVIEW IN BIOMEDICAL PUBLICATION JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1994 SMITH_R(1994)309:143 SMITH, R PROMOTING RESEARCH INTO PEER-REVIEW BRIT MED J 1994 JEFFERSO_T(1995)4:383 JEFFERSON, T ARE GUIDELINES FOR PEER-REVIEWING ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS NECESSARY - A SURVEY OF CURRENT EDITORIAL PRACTICE HEALTH ECON 1995 DRUMMOND_M(1996)313:275 Drummond, MF Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ BRIT MED J 1996 JEFFERSO_T(1998)280:275 Jefferson, T Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions - Prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1998 RENNIE_D(1998)280:214 Rennie, D Peer review in Prague JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 1998 SMITH_R(1999)318:4 Smith, R Opening up BMJ peer review - A beginning that should lead to complete transparency BRIT MED J 1999 GOLDBECK_S(1999)318:44 Goldbeck-Wood, S Evidence on peer review - scientific quality control or smokescreen? BRIT MED J 1999 WALSH_E(2000)176:47 Walsh, E Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial BRIT J PSYCHIAT 2000 JEFFERSO_T(2002)287:2784 Jefferson, T Effects of editorial peer review - A systematic review JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 2002 RENNIE_D(2002)287:2759 Rennie, D Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 2002 OPTHOF_T(2002)56:339 Opthof, T The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of CARDIOVASC RES 2002 JEFFERSO_T(2002)287:2786 Jefferson, T Measuring the quality of editorial peer review JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 2002 BORNMANN_L(2005)14:15 Bornmann, L Committee peer review at an international research foundation: predictive validity and fairness of selection decisions on post-graduate fel RES EVALUAT 2005 DANIEL_H(2005)18:143 Daniel, HD Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity LEARN PUBL 2005 BORNMANN_L(2006)68:427 Bornmann, L Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review - A citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejec SCIENTOMETRICS 2006 BORNMANN_L(2007)1:83 Bornmann, L Gatekeepers of science - Effects of external reviewers' attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications J INFORMETR 2007 BORNMANN_L(2007)73:139 Bornmann, L Row-column (RC) association model applied to grant peer review SCIENTOMETRICS 2007 BORNMANN_L(2008)2:217 Bornmann, L Latent Markov modeling applied to grant peer review J INFORMETR 2008 BORNMANN_L(2009)81:407 Bornmann, L The influence of the applicants' gender on the modeling of a peer review process by using latent Markov models SCIENTOMETRICS 2009 BORNMANN_L(2010)32:5 Bornmann, L The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review LIBR INFORM SCI RES 2010 BORNMANN_L(2010)64:72 Bornmann, L How Long is the Peer Review Process for Journal Manuscripts? A Case Study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition CHIMIA 2010 BORNMANN_L(2012)91:843 Bornmann, L Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use? SCIENTOMETRICS 2012 SUGIMOTO_C(2013)95:851 Sugimoto, C Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review SCIENTOMETRICS 2013 NOBARANY_S(2015)66:1048 Nobarany, S Use of Politeness Strategies in Signed Open Peer Review J ASSOC INF SCI TECH 2015 name author title journal year GOODRICH_D(1945)10:716 Goodrich, DW An analysis of manuscripts received by the editors of the American sociological review from May 1, 1944 to September 1, 1945 AM SOC REV 1945 YOTOPOUL_P(1961)51:665 Yotopoulos, P Institutional Affiliation of the Contributors to Three Professional Journals AM ECON REV 1961 CRANE_D(1965)30:699 Crane, D Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition AM SOC REV 1965 BAYER_A(1966)39:381 Bayer, A Some Correlates of a Citation Measure of Productivity in Science SOC EDUC 1966 CRANE_D(1967)2:195 CRANE, D GATEKEEPERS OF SCIENCE - SOME FACTORS AFFECTING SELECTION OF ARTICLES FOR SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AM SOCIOL 1967 COLE_S(1967)32:377 Cole, S Scientific Output and Recognition AM SOC REV 1967 ZUCKERMA_H(1971)9:66 ZUCKERMA.H PATTERNS OF EVALUATION IN SCIENCE - INSTITUTIONALISATION, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF REFEREE SYSTEM MINERVA 1971 INGELFIN_F(1974)56:686 INGELFIN.FJ PEER REVIEW IN BIOMEDICAL PUBLICATION AM J MED 1974 CICCHETT_D(1980)35:300 CICCHETTI, DV RELIABILITY OF REVIEWS FOR THE AMERICAN-PSYCHOLOGIST - A BIOSTATISTICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DATA AM PSYCHOL 1980 PETERS_D(1982)5:187 PETERS, DP PEER-REVIEW PRACTICES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNALS - THE FATE OF ACCEPTED, PUBLISHED ARTICLES, SUBMITTED AGAIN BEHAV BRAIN SCI 1982 BAILAR_J(1985)312:654 BAILAR, JC JOURNAL PEER-REVIEW - THE NEED FOR A RESEARCH AGENDA NEW ENGL J MED 1985 RENNIE_D(1986)256:2391 RENNIE, D GUARDING THE GUARDIANS - A CONFERENCE ON EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW JAMA-J AM MED ASSO 1986 ROBIN_E(1987)91:252 ROBIN, ED PEER-REVIEW IN MEDICAL JOURNALS CHEST 1987 MCNUTT_R(1990)263:1371 MCNUTT, RA THE EFFECTS OF BLINDING ON THE QUALITY OF PEER-REVIEW - A RANDOMIZED TRIAL JAMA-J AM MED ASSO 1990 RENNIE_D(1992)13:443 RENNIE, D SUSPENDED JUDGMENT - EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW - LET US PUT IT ON TRIAL CONTROL CLIN TRIALS 1992 RENNIE_D(1993)270:2856 RENNIE, D MORE PEERING INTO EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW JAMA-J AM MED ASSO 1993 RENNIE_D(1994)272:91 RENNIE, D THE 2ND INTERNATIONAL-CONGRESS ON PEER-REVIEW IN BIOMEDICAL PUBLICATION JAMA-J AM MED ASSO 1994 SMITH_R(1994)309:143 SMITH, R PROMOTING RESEARCH INTO PEER-REVIEW BRIT MED J 1994 JEFFERSO_T(1995)4:383 JEFFERSON, T ARE GUIDELINES FOR PEER-REVIEWING ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS NECESSARY - A SURVEY OF CURRENT EDITORIAL PRACTICE HEALTH ECON 1995 DRUMMOND_M(1996)313:275 Drummond, MF Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ BRIT MED J 1996 JEFFERSO_T(1998)280:275 Jefferson, T Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions - Prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet JAMA-J AM MED ASSO 1998 RENNIE_D(1998)280:214 Rennie, D Peer review in Prague JAMA-J AM MED ASSO 1998 SMITH_R(1999)318:4 Smith, R Opening up BMJ peer review - A beginning that should lead to complete transparency BRIT MED J 1999 GOLDBECK_S(1999)318:44 Goldbeck-Wood, S Evidence on peer review - scientific quality control or smokescreen? BRIT MED J 1999 WALSH_E(2000)176:47 Walsh, E Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial BRIT J PSYCHIAT 2000 JEFFERSO_T(2002)287:2784 Jefferson, T Effects of editorial peer review - A systematic review JAMA-J AM MED ASSO 2002 RENNIE_D(2002)287:2759 Rennie, D Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication JAMA-J AM MED ASSO 2002 OPTHOF_T(2002)56:339 Opthof, T The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citat CARDIOVASC RES 2002 JEFFERSO_T(2002)287:2786 Jefferson, T Measuring the quality of editorial peer review JAMA-J AM MED ASSO 2002 BORNMANN_L(2005)14:15 Bornmann, L Committee peer review at an international research foundation: predictive validity and fairness of selection decisions on post-graduate fellowshi RES EVALUAT 2005 DANIEL_H(2005)18:143 Daniel, HD Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity LEARN PUBL 2005 BORNMANN_L(2006)68:427 Bornmann, L Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review - A citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejectio SCIENTOMETRICS 2006 BORNMANN_L(2007)1:204 Bornmann, L Convergent validation of peer review decisions using the h index - Extent of and reasons for type I and type II errors J INFORMETR 2007 BORNMANN_L(2008)59:1841 Bornmann, L Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewand J AM SOC INF SCI TEC 2008 BORNMANN_L(2009)22:117 Bornmann, L The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews LEARN PUBL 2009 BORNMANN_L(2011)45:199 Bornmann, L Scientific Peer Review ANNU REV INFORM SC 2011 BORNMANN_L(2011)174:857 Bornmann, L A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high profile journal select man J R STAT SOC A STAT 2011 LEE_C(2013)64:2 Lee, CJ Bias in peer review J AM SOC INF SCI TEC 2013 KNUDSON_D(2014)85:127 Knudson, DV Advancing Kinesiology Through Improved Peer Review RES Q EXERCISE SPORT 2014 FISCHMAN_M(2014)85:449 Fischman, MG The Importance of Peer Review: Thoughts on Knudson, Morrow, and Thomas (2014) RES Q EXERCISE SPORT 2014
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
u∈C w(v, u), w(v, u) is the weight of link (v, u)
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
CLARK_P{1997}37:441 STRAUSS_A{1990}: GLASER_B{1967}: PATTON_M{1990}: LINCOLN_Y{1985}: CRESWELL_J{1998}: MAXWELL_J{1996}: STRAUSS_A{1998}2ND: WILENSKY_H{1964}70:137 BECKER_H{1961}: BALOGUN_J{2002}31:131 HENDRIX_A{2000}35:139 MALASARN_R{2002}37:55 PITNEY_W{2002}37:63 PITNEY_W{2006}41:189 MERRIAM_S{1988}: STROOT_S{1993}12:337 TIERNEY_W{1996}: MAZEROLL_S{2011}46:194 GOODMAN_A{2010}45:287 KLOSSNER_J{2008}43:379 MAZEROLL_S{2012}47:679 MAZEROLL_S{2012}47:694 MAZEROLL_S{2013}48:668 MAZEROLL_S{2013}48:678 MAZEROLL_S{2015}50:82 EASON_C{2014}49:532 GOODMAN_A{2015}50:89 MAZEROLL_S{2015}50:71 MAZEROLL_S{2014}49:75
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
M O H E R _ D S C H U L Z _ K D E A N G E L I _ C R E N N I E _ D A L T M A N _ D B R O W N _ D K R A V I T Z _ R S Q U I R E S _ B S O L O M O N _ D F L E T C H E R _ R P E H _ W B O R N M A N N _ L F L A N A G I N _ A F O N T A N A R _ P B O N D _ N M A R S H _ H F E L D M A N _ M F L E T C H E R _ S D A N I E L _ H B O N O V A S _ S F I L I O U S S _ K C U R T I S _ K M E N O N _ D N G _ K S I T A R A S _ N J A Y A S I N G _ U M A Y E R _ A K A I S E R _ M G U S T A F S O _ K M U M M A N E N _ P S A P E R _ C B J O R K _ B A N D E R S O N _ P K A U F F M A N _ R R E Y E S _ H D ’ A N G E L O _ C A B R A M O _ G J O H N S T O N _ T S T A F I N S K _ T S T E E N L A N _ M T E P P E R _ N M U T Z _ R R E S N I C K _ D R Y K E N _ T M A T Z _ P H O L L Y _ L G R O F F _ M H E A R Y _ R C H O U D H R I _ T V R E S I L O V _ E F E R R I S _ L Z A P A T A _ L M A R C H B A N _ P M A U N S E L L _ J P A L M A _ J A N D R E S E N _ M E L M S L I E _ T R O S E I _ F R A F F _ H
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
A N D E R S O N _ D S M I T H _ R B U R T O N _ L W I L S O N _ J C H E N _ J R E N N I E _ D C I C C H E T T _ D B O W M A N _ T J O N E S _ A B R O W N _ D M O R A L E S _ A G A R F I E L D _ E M E R T O N _ R S C O T T _ W D I C K E R S I _ K M I T C H E L L _ M H E L T O N _ J B A L L _ S V A N R A A N _ A B O R N M A N N _ L F L A N A G I N _ A W A T S O N _ R H O R R O B I N _ D G O D L E E _ F G O L D B E C K _ S B O N D _ N L Y N C H _ W M U R P H Y _ L B A I L A R _ J H A R G E N S _ L M A R S H _ H M A R T Y N _ C S T A R B U C K _ W K E E N E Y _ R D A N I E L _ H H I R S C H A U _ S K R O N I C K _ D C A M P A N A R _ J V O N W I N T E _ D S C H N A U D I _ S G R O S C H E L _ K P I L G R A M _ S K A S T R U P _ A S E G L E N _ P J A Y A S I N G _ U W E S S E L Y _ S L Y N C H _ T G O O D M A N _ A D E S A I _ A A L T H O F _ S C H E W _ F R I E C K E R _ A S C H U L Z _ J E R N E M A N N _ U E I S E N H A R _ M P E N D L E B U _ D P O S C H L _ U W E L L E R _ A D O D G E _ T G A R G _ N K A R A G I O R _ N P I S I M I S I _ G S O H A L _ D L O N G O _ G J O H A N N I N _ J P I P I N O S _ I L A N G F E L D _ L M A R X _ W P E T E R S O N _ K R I E D E L _ J B A A S E _ C H Y M E L _ P B R O C K _ G H E L L S T R O _ W D ’ A N G E L O _ C A B R A M O _ G J O W _ H F R E N C H _ K B E L L A _ A S A D E G H I
H D O N A T U C C _ C S T A U F A C K _ M S H I N D E L _ A M U T Z _ R V A N D E N B E _ P B R U N E R O _ S S T E I N
A _ J D E Y O U N G _ L A L
U M I _ M S C H I E R _ H C H A R L T O N _ B M A N D A V I L _ A P I T N E Y _ W I L S L E Y _ P R I N T A L A _ J R O S Q V I S T _ T T U O M I N E N _ R A Z Z O U N I _ F A B U S A M R A _ K E A S O N _ C F O O _ J L A R S O N _ K T A B O R S K Y _ M M A Z E R O L L _ S C A S A _ D P A G N O T T A _ K M E N S C H _ J J A Y _ M F R I T Z _ S G U R K A N _ L O O M M E N _ M K E R E N
A _ G B A R
O S E _ Y M A T Z K I N _ H W E I S S _ A S Q U A Z Z O N _ F H I L L I E R _ D F E W E L L _ F C A N N _ W S H E P H A R D _ V E I D _ J B A S A B I L V _ G M A R I E T T A _ M K L O S S N E R _ J C A S I L L A S _ M T U R B I _ C G A V I N _ K R A F F _ H B O R L A N D _ J B E K E L I S _ K M O S E S _ Z M I S S I O S _ S L A B R O P O U _ N K O Z A K _ M C O T R U F O _ R
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS
Peer Review from WoS
Data Distributions Citations Collaboration To do References
Peer Review from WoS