peer review

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

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

Stijn Conix, Andreas De Block, Krist Vaesen. Grant Writing and Grant Peer Review As Questionable Research Practices.; 2021. doi:10.12688/f1000research.73893.2

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

Stephen A. Gallo, Karen B. Schmaling, Lisa A. Thompson, Scott R. Glisson. Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2020;5(1):7. doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00093-0

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

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

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

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

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