Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data

Anna Severin(Swiss National Science Foundation), Tiago Barros(QB3), Michaela Strinzel(Swiss National Science Foundation), Matthias Egger(University of Zurich), Marc Domingo

BMJ Open

July 1, 2021

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050270

Cited by 27

Related Papers

Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of 21 Antidepressant Drugs for the Acute Treatment of Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

|The Lancet|2018|3.5k

CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis

|PLoS Medicine|2020|1.7k

Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German

|The Lancet|1997|1k

Histopathological regression after neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine in patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4-AIO): results from the phase 2 part of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2/3 trial

|The Lancet Oncology|2016|738

Predatory journals: no definition, no defence

|Nature|2019|723