Bias, peer review, and publishing

Joshua Frank. Technological lock-in, positive institutional feedback, and research on laboratory animals. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 2005;16(4):557-575. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2004.11.001

Liv Langfeldt. Expert panels evaluating research: decision-making and sources of bias. Research Evaluation. 2004;13(1):51-62. doi:10.3152/147154404781776536

Fiona Godlee. Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2762-2765. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2762

Alan Baddeley. So Where Should We Publish?*. Cortex. 2001;37(4):598-599. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70604-X

Simon Wessely. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?. The Lancet. 1998;352(9124):301-305. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11129-1

John P. A. Ioannidis. Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials. JAMA. 1998;279(4):281-286. doi:10.1001/jama.279.4.281

Kay Dickersin, Yuan-I Min. Publication Bias: The Problem That Won’t Go Away. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1993;703(1):135-148. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x

G.D.L. Travis, Harold Maurice Collins. New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1991;16(3):322-341. doi:10.1177/016224399101600303

Kay Dickersin. The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1385-1389. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100097014

David F. Horrobin. The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1438-1441. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100162024