Bias, peer review, and publishing

Stephen Gallo, Lisa Thompson, Karen Schmaling, Scott Glisson. Risk evaluation in peer review of grant applications. Environment Systems and Decisions. 2018;38:216-229. doi:10.1007/s10669-018-9677-6

Jeffrey Beck, Kathryn Funk, Melissa Harrison, et al. Publishing peer review materials. F1000Research. 2018;7:1655. doi:10.12688/f1000research.16460.1

Delphine R. Boulbes, Tracy Costello, Keith Baggerly, et al. A survey on data reproducibility and the effect of publication process on the ethical reporting of laboratory research. Clinical Cancer Research. 2018;24(14):3447-3455. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0227

Rajat Bhattacharya, Lee M. Ellis. It is Time to Re-evaluate the Peer Review Process for Preclinical Research. BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology. 2018;40(1):10.1002/bies.201700185. doi:10.1002/bies.201700185

Stephen Heard, Timothée Poisot. Early career researchers make great peer reviewers. How can we get more of them? https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/early-career-researchers-make-great-peer-reviewers-how-can-we-get-more-of-them/. Published 2017.

Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, William D. Heavlin. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114(48):12708-12713. doi:10.1073/pnas.1707323114

Tony Ross-Hellauer. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research. 2017;6:588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

Danielle Li. Expertise versus Bias in Evaluation: Evidence from the NIH. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 2017;9(2):60-92. doi:10.1257/app.20150421

Markus Helmer, Manuel Schottdorf, Andreas Neef, Demian Battaglia. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife. 2017;6:e21718. doi:10.7554/eLife.21718

Björn Hammarfelt. Recognition and reward in the academy: Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history. Aslib Journal of Information Management. 2017;69(5):607-623. doi:10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0006