Bias, peer review, and publishing

Ferric C Fang, Anthony Bowen, Arturo Casadevall. NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. eLife. 2016;5:e13323. doi:10.7554/eLife.13323

J K Tijdink, K Schipper, L M Bouter, P Maclaine Pont, J de Jonge, Y M Smulders. How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e008681. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681

Paul E. Smaldino, Richard McElreath. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science. 2016;3(9):160384. doi:10.1098/rsos.160384

Pavel V. Ovseiko, Trisha Greenhalgh, Paula Adam, et al. A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2016;14(1):50. doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0126-z

Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Alan D. Kaye, Mark V. Boswell, Joshua A. Hirsch. Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):E1-E14. doi:10.36076/ppj/2015.18.E1

Jue Wang, Philip Shapira. Is There a Relationship between Research Sponsorship and Publication Impact? An Analysis of Funding Acknowledgments in Nanotechnology Papers. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(2):e0117727. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117727

Diana Hicks, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, Ismael Rafols. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015;520(7548):429-431. doi:10.1038/520429a

Seema Rawat, Sanjay Meena. Publish or perish: Where are we heading?. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2014;19(2):87. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3999612/.

Valentina Tartari, Markus Perkmann, Ammon Salter. In good company: The influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. Research Policy. 2014;43(7):1189-1203. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.003

Daniele Fanelli. Positive results receive more citations, but only in some disciplines. Scientometrics. 2013;94:701-709. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0757-y