Typed states for the displayed outbound observations.
Source: paper_references, paper_reference_links, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.217172Z
Paper Citation Record · LEDGER
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review
As of 16 August 2026, this Paper Citation Record lists 17 of 17 outbound references and 0 inbound Pith citation observations for arXiv:1908.02598.
A citation records a reference. It does not transfer a finding from one paper to another.
Coverage vector
One-hop event checks from named stored sources.
Source: scholarly_work_events, retraction_status_cache, observed 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00
Pith citing papers itemized under the disclosed page cap.
Source: paper_references, paper_reference_links
A source-named dated measurement, never combined with another source.
Source: cited_works
Reference resolution
17 of 17 outbound references displayed
- verified exact0
- verified fuzzy15
- unresolved2
- parse uncertain0
- malformed identifier0
- metadata mismatch0
External citation measurements
No source-named external measurement is stored.
Outbound references
Observation aa6d0d6d-9d0c-49fa-a2b9-1a314334e1f2 · outbound
This paper cites Data given as number and percentage of total studies included (N = 12).
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review Data given as number and percentage of total studies included (N = 12)
Reference 1
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.373023Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 86fffab3-8fa3-4cd1-86c1-183ab1dd2693 · outbound
This paper cites Evaluated entities identified in the qualitative content analysis are displayed in boxes and regular type.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review Evaluated entities identified in the qualitative content analysis are displayed in boxes and regular type
Reference 4
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.323013Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 5cef2464-16f8-41b7-8fbb-58566ca36203 · outbound
This paper cites The coders then compared and discussed their codes and agreed on common codes.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review The coders then compared and discussed their codes and agreed on common codes
Reference 8
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.350681Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation b8f43a69-03df-4c5f-a909-ee208b781a0a · outbound
This paper cites For example, Moed (2005) und Harnad (2008,.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review For example, Moed (2005) und Harnad (2008,
Reference 11
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.287824Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 04c81d7a-1567-4b90-bfb7-e2c4936f3a13 · outbound
This paper cites Cronin and Sugimoto 2015, Harnad 2008, Marsh et al.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review Cronin and Sugimoto 2015, Harnad 2008, Marsh et al
Reference 13
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.272388Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 757fe8e7-7455-4e4a-9108-0bcc44b1b5c7 · outbound
This paper cites an unresolved cited work.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review Unresolved cited work
Reference 15
- Resolution
- unresolved
- no resolver link, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.210594Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.
Observation 5339ae39-add1-4731-ba80-f6d71e77b879 · outbound
This paper cites Weight of Evidence.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review Weight of Evidence
Reference 219
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.357496Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 89b1bb51-bb3a-4f5e-8156-c6eeea2b95a6 · outbound
This paper cites The fairness doctrine resembles the ideal of impartiality, which implicitly underlies quantitative research on bias in peer review (Lee et al.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review The fairness doctrine resembles the ideal of impartiality, which implicitly underlies quantitative research on bias in peer review (Lee et al
Reference 252
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.306427Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation fe8ab301-bcc7-4951-a046-4cab6e8448c1 · outbound
This paper cites quality, poor – good, weak – strong).
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review quality, poor – good, weak – strong)
Reference 279
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.332868Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 022ec76d-f3ff-4f0d-af50-285cfc463a3f · outbound
This paper cites Most studies analyzed criteria of individual reviews (n = 7), while only few studies focused on criteria used in panels (n = 3).
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review Most studies analyzed criteria of individual reviews (n = 7), while only few studies focused on criteria used in panels (n = 3)
Reference 639
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.365421Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 0e92cccf-c4d1-4c98-b9d8-d982d3433bdd · outbound
This paper cites research proposal*.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review research proposal*
Reference 2005
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.240845Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 8a4e9a16-d00c-4ce1-9cd3-52d2bec4f7e3 · outbound
This paper cites Prescriptive criteria of funding agencies, as summarized by Abdoul et al.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review Prescriptive criteria of funding agencies, as summarized by Abdoul et al
Reference 2006
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.314216Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation bf9321cf-24d2-4b6f-a5bd-a7d7f88b2e28 · outbound
This paper cites the criterion variable).
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review the criterion variable)
Reference 2009
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.280022Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 1b013593-cf30-4a78-95da-63124b4fac74 · outbound
This paper cites an unresolved cited work.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review Unresolved cited work
Reference 2014
- Resolution
- unresolved
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.264314Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 514d5645-7fdf-4eaf-bbb8-eb8f02cb2e00 · outbound
This paper cites American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 70(1): 161–164.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 70(1): 161–164
Reference 2015
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.250744Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 88d2c69e-af35-4389-bfc1-83249d8c5313 · outbound
This paper cites Drawing on Douglas (2016) and Elliott (2017), the following questions may guide the development of new normative models for peer review.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review Drawing on Douglas (2016) and Elliott (2017), the following questions may guide the development of new normative models for peer review
Reference 2017
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.296935Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Observation 8381809c-3eab-4c4c-9dd0-004c73cc436a · outbound
This paper cites Alpha was calculated for each of these variables and the coefficients of the 15 criteria variables were then averaged to provide a single reliability index for the coded criteria.
Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review Alpha was calculated for each of these variables and the coefficients of the 15 criteria variables were then averaged to provide a single reliability index for the coded criteria
Reference 2019
- Resolution
- verified fuzzy
- raw_fallback, observed 2026-08-14T15:19:32.341208Z
Source-reported events for the cited work
No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.
Pith citing papers
No inbound Pith citation observations are available.