Natalie Parletta. How to respond to difficult or negative peer-reviewer feedback. Nature Index. 2021. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/how-to-respond-difficult-negative-peer-reviewer-feedback.
Tamarinde Haven, Joeri Tijdink, Brian Martinson, Lex Bouter, Frans Oort. Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2021;6:7. doi:10.1186/s41073-021-00110-w
Latin American Forum for Research Assessment. Evaluating Scientific Research Assessment. https://www.clacso.org/en/evaluating-scientific-research-assessment/. Published 2021.
Michael S. Lauer, Jamie Doyle, Joy Wang, Deepshikha Roychowdhury. Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health. eLife. 2021;10:e67173. doi:10.7554/eLife.67173
Alison Mudditt. Reforming Research Assessment: A Tough Nut to Crack. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/02/18/reforming-research-assessment-a-tough-nut-to-crack/. Published 2020.
Mike Thelwall, Liz Allen, Eleanor-Rose Papas, Zena Nyakoojo, Verena Weigert. Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model. Journal of Information Science. 2020;47(6):809-820. doi:10.1177/0165551520938678
A Hatch, R Schmidt. Rethinking Research Assessment: Unintended Cognitive and System Biases.; 2020. https://sfdora.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/DORA_UnintendendedCognitiveSystemBiases.pdf.
Simon Lohse, Martin S. Wasmer, Thomas A. C. Reydon. Integrating Philosophy of Science into Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in the Life Sciences. Perspectives on Science. 2020;28(6):700-736. doi:10.1162/posc_a_00357