Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.
References
Hope AA, Munro CL. Criticism and Judgment: A Critical Look at Scientific Peer Review.Am J Crit Care. 2019;28:242–5. [DOI] [PubMed]
Roberts WC. Quantification of an Editorship of a Major Cardiovascular Journal.Am J Cardiol. 2021;156:138–9. [DOI] [PubMed]
Baumeister RF. Of humour, music, anger, speed, and excuses: reflections of an editorial team after one year in office.Cardiovasc Res. 1992;26:1161–3. [PubMed]
Opthof T, Coronel R, Janse MJ. The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias.Cardiovasc Res. 2002;56:339–46. [DOI] [PubMed]
Picano E. Who is the author: genuine, honorary, ghost, gold, and fake authors?Explor Cardiol. 2024;2:88–96. [DOI]
Costantini M. Chapter 12.In: Il rientro dell’impulso. Lupo editore; 2008. p. 75.
