Simon Lohse, Martin S. Wasmer, Thomas A. C. Reydon. Integrating Philosophy of Science into Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in the Life Sciences. Perspectives on Science. 2020;28(6):700-736. doi:10.1162/posc_a_00357
Dietmar Wolfram, Peiling Wang, Adam Hembree, Hyoungjoo Park. Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics. 2020;125(2):1033-1051. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4
A Hatch, R Schmidt. Rethinking Research Assessment: Unintended Cognitive and System Biases.; 2020. https://sfdora.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/DORA_UnintendendedCognitiveSystemBiases.pdf.
Mike Thelwall, Liz Allen, Eleanor-Rose Papas, Zena Nyakoojo, Verena Weigert. Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model. Journal of Information Science. 2020;47(6):809-820. doi:10.1177/0165551520938678
Stephen A. Gallo, Karen B. Schmaling, Lisa A. Thompson, Scott R. Glisson. Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2020;5(1):7. doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00093-0
Nyssa J. Silbiger, Amber D. Stubler. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ. 2019;7:e8247. doi:10.7717/peerj.8247
Erin C McKiernan, Lesley A Schimanski, Carol Muñoz Nieves, Lisa Matthias, Meredith T Niles, Juan P Alperin. Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. Emma Pewsey, Peter Rodgers, Björn Brembs, eds. eLife. 2019;8:e47338. doi:10.7554/eLife.47338
Sandra Bendiscioli. The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding: Funders need to experiment with versions of peer review and decision‐making. EMBO reports. 2019;20:e49472. doi:10.15252/embr.201949472