Bias, peer review, and publishing

David Moher, Lex Bouter, Sabine Kleinert, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology. 18(7):e3000737. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737

Anne Gärtner, Daniel Leising, Felix D. Schönbrodt. Towards responsible research assessment: How to reward research quality. PLOS Biology. 22(2):e3002553. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002553

Ivan Stelmakh, Charvi Rastogi, Ryan Liu, Shuchi Chawla, Federico Echenique, Nihar B. Shah. Cite-seeing and reviewing: A study on citation bias in peer review. PLOS ONE. 18(7):e0283980. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283980

Kelly D. Cobey, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Matthew J. Page, et al. Biomedical researchers’ perspectives on the reproducibility of research. PLOS Biology. 22(11):e3002870. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002870

Hendy Abdoul, Christophe Perrey, Florence Tubach, Philippe Amiel, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski, Corinne Alberti. Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France. PLOS ONE. 7(4):e35247. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035247

Olivia Olivares. Impact factors: What they are, where to find them, how to use them: Introduction to impact factors. https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/c.php?g=1277431&p=9373712.

Carl T. Bergstrom, Kevin Gross. Screening, sorting, and the feedback cycles that imperil peer review. PLOS Biology. 24(2):e3003650. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003650

Peter Kolarz. The time has come for big changes to improve research funding. PLOS Biology. 24(4):e3003754. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003754

Hendy Abdoul, Christophe Perrey, Philippe Amiel, et al. Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices. PLOS ONE. 7(9):e46054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046054

Laurissa Gann. What is considered a good impact factor? - Ask the Research Medical Library. https://mdanderson.libanswers.com/faq/26159.