peer review

Stefanie Schneider, Cat Morgan, Clayton Magill, Marion Hersh, Katherine Sang, Robert MacIntosh. Evidence Review: Peer Review Bias in the Funding Process: Main Themes and Interventions. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University; 2024. https://doi.org/10.17861/YDDH-B137.

Catharine E. Krebs, Kathrin Herrmann. Confronting the bias towards animal experimentation (animal methods bias). Frontiers in Drug Discovery. 2024;4. doi:10.3389/fddsv.2024.1347798

Olivia M. Smith, Kayla L. Davis, Robin Waterman, et al. Journals must expand access to peer review data. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2024;39(4):311-314. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2024.02.003

Stephen A. Gallo, Michael Pearce, Carole J. Lee, Elena A. Erosheva. A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2023;8:10. doi:10.1186/s41073-023-00131-7

Catharine E. Krebs, Celean Camp, Helder Constantino, et al. Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing. Advanced Science. 2023;10(30):2303226. doi:10.1002/advs.202303226

Karen B. Schmaling, Stephen A. Gallo. Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2023;8:2. doi:10.1186/s41073-023-00127-3

Nature. Nature is trialling transparent peer review — the early results are encouraging. Nature. 2022;603:8-8. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00493-w

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

Natalie Shoham, Alexandra Pitman. Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?. BJPsych Advances. 2021;27(4):247-254. doi:10.1192/bja.2020.61

Flaminio Squazzoni, Petra Ahrweiler, Tiago Barros, et al. Unlock ways to share data on peer review. Nature. 2020;578:512-514. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00500-y