1.
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
Bias, peer review, and publishing
1.
Markus Helmer, Manuel Schottdorf, Andreas Neef, Demian Battaglia. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife. 2017;6:e21718. doi:10.7554/eLife.21718
1.
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
1.
Tony Ross-Hellauer. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research. 2017;6:588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
1.
John Coveney, Danielle L. Herbert, Kathy Hill, Karen E. Mow, Nicholas Graves, Adrian Barnett. ‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels function. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2017;2(1):19. doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0043-x
1.
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.
1.
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
1.
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
1.
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
1.
Paul E. Smaldino, Richard McElreath. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science. 2016;3(9):160384. doi:10.1098/rsos.160384