Bias, peer review, and publishing

Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, William D. Heavlin. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114(48):12708-12713. doi:10.1073/pnas.1707323114

Danielle Li. Expertise versus Bias in Evaluation: Evidence from the NIH. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 2017;9(2):60-92. doi:10.1257/app.20150421

Markus Helmer, Manuel Schottdorf, Andreas Neef, Demian Battaglia. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife. 2017;6:e21718. doi:10.7554/eLife.21718

Tony Ross-Hellauer. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research. 2017;6:588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

Björn Hammarfelt. Recognition and reward in the academy: Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history. Aslib Journal of Information Management. 2017;69(5):607-623. doi:10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0006

Stephen Heard, Timothée Poisot. Early career researchers make great peer reviewers. How can we get more of them?. https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/early-career-researchers-make-great-peer-reviewers-how-can-we-get-more-of-them/. Published 2017.

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

Rachel Bruce, Anthony Chauvin, Ludovic Trinquart, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine. 2016;14:85. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5

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