W. Brian Arthur. Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events. The Economic Journal. 1989;99(394):116-131. doi:10.2307/2234208
Douglas P. Peters, Stephen J. Ceci. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1982;5(2):187-195. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00011183
INORMS Research Evaluation Group. The SCOPE Framework: A Five-Stage Process for Evaluating Research Responsibly. Kanazawa; :19. https://inorms.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/21655-scope-guide-v10.pdf.
Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. Brussels; :23. https://coara.eu/app/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf.
Eva Forsberg, Lars Geschwind, Sara Levander, Wieland Wermke, eds. Peer Review in an Era of Evaluation: Understanding the Practice of Gatekeeping in Academia. 1st ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan Cham; :XIX, 402. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75263-7.
Ellen Driessen, Steven D. Hollon, Claudi L. H. Bockting, Pim Cuijpers, Erick H. Turner. Does Publication Bias Inflate the Apparent Efficacy of Psychological Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of US National Institutes of Health-Funded Trials. PLOS ONE. 10(9):e0137864. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137864
Harriet A. Carroll, Zoi Toumpakari, Laura Johnson, James A. Betts. The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias. PLOS ONE. 12(10):e0186472. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186472