1.
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
Bias, peer review, and publishing
1.
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
1.
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
1.
Mary Lee Smith. Publication bias and meta-analysis. Evaluation in Education. 1980;4:22-24. doi:10.1016/0191-765X(80)90004-X
1.
Robert K. Merton. The Matthew Effect in Science. Science. 1968;159(3810):56-63. doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56
1.
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.
1.
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.
1.
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.
1.
Jay Bhattacharya, Mikko Packalen. Encouraging Edge Science through NIH Funding Practices. Stanford: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research; :4. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/encouraging-edge-science-through-nih-funding-practices.
1.
Liv Langfeldt, Lina Ingeborgrud, Ingvild Reymert, Silje Marie Svartefoss, Siri Brorstad Borlaug. Evaluation of the Spark Pilot: Identifying Novel and Unconventional Research by Doubleblinded Peer Review. Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2995910.