peer review

Tony Ross-Hellauer, Edit Görögh. Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2019;4:4. doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9

Nyssa J. Silbiger, Amber D. Stubler. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ. 2019;7:e8247. doi:10.7717/peerj.8247

Susan Guthrie, Daniela Rodriguez Rincon, Gordon McInroy, Becky Ioppolo, Salil Gunashekar. Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes. F1000Research. 2019;8:851. doi:10.12688/f1000research.19156.1

Giangiacomo Bravo, Francisco Grimaldo, Emilia López-Iñesta, Bahar Mehmani, Flaminio Squazzoni. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications. 2019;10(1):322. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2

Susan Guthrie, Ioana Ghiga, Steven Wooding. What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?. F1000Research. 2018;6:1335. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11917.2

Stephen Gallo, Lisa Thompson, Karen Schmaling, Scott Glisson. Risk evaluation in peer review of grant applications. Environment Systems and Decisions. 2018;38:216-229. doi:10.1007/s10669-018-9677-6

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

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

Monya Baker. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 2016;533:452-454. https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a.

Liv Langfeldt, Svein Kyvik. Researchers as evaluators: tasks, tensions and politics. Higher Education. 2011;62:199-212. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9382-y