Stijn Conix, Andreas De Block, Krist Vaesen. Grant Writing and Grant Peer Review As Questionable Research Practices.; 2021. doi:10.12688/f1000research.73893.2
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
Kristijan Armeni, Loek Brinkman, Rickard Carlsson, et al. Towards wide-scale adoption of open science practices: The role of open science communities. Science and Public Policy. 2021;48(5):605-611. doi:10.1093/scipol/scab039
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.
Dietmar Wolfram, Peiling Wang, Adam Hembree, Hyoungjoo Park. Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics. 2020;125(2):1033-1051. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4
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