1.
Lack of reviewers threatens robustness of neuroscience literature. https://www.thetransmitter.org/publishing/lack-of-reviewers-threatens-robustness-of-neuroscience-literature/. Published 2026.
Bias, peer review, and publishing
1.
Noemi Felisi, Riccardo Vecchio, Anna Odone. When peer review drags on: the harm to early career researchers. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. 2026;11. doi:10.3389/frma.2026.1740381
1.
Maryam Sayab, Lisa M. DeTora, Muhammad Sarwar. Publication Pressure vs Research Integrity: Global Insights from an Asian Council of Science Editors Survey. Science Editor. 2025;48(2). doi:10.36591/SE-4803-05
1.
B. H. Lim, C. D’Ippoliti, M. Dominik, et al. Regional and institutional trends in assessment for academic promotion. Nature. 2025:1-10. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08422-9
1.
Ryan Hill, Yian Yin, Carolyn Stein, Xizhao Wang, Dashun Wang, Benjamin F. Jones. The pivot penalty in research. Nature. 2025;642(8069):999-1006. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09048-1
1.
Pierre Azoulay, Wesley H. Greenblatt. Does Peer Review Penalize Scientific Risk Taking? Evidence from NIH Grant Renewals.; 2025. doi:10.3386/w33495
1.
Finn Luebber, Sören Krach, Frieder M. Paulus, Lena Rademacher, Rima-Maria Rahal. Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line. Nature Communications. 2025;16(1):9824. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65660-9
1.
Helen Peterson, Liisa Husu. Peer review across borders: benefits and challenges of international review panels in research funding organizations. Research Evaluation. 2025;34:rvaf030. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvaf030
1.
Florencia Fiorentin, Diana Suarez. Gender gaps in the peer review process. Different sources in the evaluation process for the allocation of grants in Argentina. Research Evaluation. 2025;34:rvaf048. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvaf048
1.
NIH Center for Scientific Review. CSR Initiatives to Address Bias in Peer Review. https://public.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/Address-Bias-in-Peer-Review. Published 2025.