Sara Schroter, Trish Groves, Liselotte Højgaard. Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations’ and grant reviewers’ perspectives. BMC Medicine. 2010;8:62. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-62
Michael R. Donaldson, Kyle C. Hanson, Caleb T. Hasler, Timothy D. Clark, Scott G. Hinch, Steven J. Cooke. Injecting youth into peer-review to increase its sustainability: a case study of ecology journals. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution. 2010;3. https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/IEE/article/view/2346.
Lawrence D. Berg, Jani Vuolteenaho, eds. Critical Toponymies: The Contested Politics of Place Naming. London: Routledge; 2009:306. https://www.routledge.com/Critical-Toponymies-The-Contested-Politics-of-Place-Naming/Berg-Vuolteenaho/p/book/9781138267756.
Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos, Martha M. Sorenson, Jacqueline Leta. A new input indicator for the assessment of science & technology research?. Scientometrics. 2009;80:217-230. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2082-z
Herbert W. Marsh, Upali W. Jayasinghe, Nigel W. Bond. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist. 2008;63(3):160-168. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160
Erick H. Turner, Annette M. Matthews, Eftihia Linardatos, Robert A. Tell, Robert Rosenthal. Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;358(3):252-260. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa065779
David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford, Shyamal Peddada. Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2008;14(3):305-310. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4
Liv Langfeldt. The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation. 2006;15(1):31-41. doi:10.3152/147154406781776039