Cited by 84LGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyGender Diversity and InequalityGender and Feminist Studies

Strategies for Coping with LGBT Discrimination at Work: a Systematic Literature Review

Open access
Mara, Liviu-Catalin, Ginieis, Matías, Brunet-Icart, Ignasi·2021·Sexuality Research and Social Policy

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13178-020-00462-w

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mara, L.-C., Ginieis, M., & Brunet-Icart, I.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Extremadura (ES)
  • Universitat Rovira i Virgili (ES)
Corresponding author
Mara, Liviu-Catalin
Venue
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Published
2020-06-22
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
339-354
ISSN
  • 1553-6610 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-9884
OpenAlex
W3036376726
Cited by
84
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 4
FWCI
1.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sexuality Research and Social Policy (publishedVersion)
  • Rovira & Virgili repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
LGBT discrimination, employment discrimination, coping strategies, reactive coping, proactive coping, LGBT employees, organizational policy, workers' rights, workplace inclusion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review