Bias, peer review, and publishing

Pierre Azoulay, Wesley H. Greenblatt. Does Peer Review Penalize Scientific Risk Taking? Evidence from NIH Grant Renewals.; 2025. doi:10.3386/w33495

Florencia Fiorentin, Diana Suarez. Gender gaps in the peer review process. Different sources in the evaluation process for the allocation of grants in Argentina. Research Evaluation. 2025;34:rvaf048. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvaf048

Olivia M. Smith, Kayla L. Davis, Robin Waterman, et al. Journals must expand access to peer review data. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2024;39(4):311-314. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2024.02.003

Tony Ross-Hellauer, Serge P J M Horbach. Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. Research Evaluation. 2024:rvae004. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvae004

David Johann, Jörg Neufeld, Kathrin Thomas, Justus Rathmann, Heiko Rauhut. The impact of researchers’ perceived pressure on their publication strategies. Research Evaluation. 2024:rvae011. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvae011

NIH Center for Scientific Review. CSR Initiatives to Address Bias in Peer Review. https://public.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/Address-Bias-in-Peer-Review. Published 2024.

Declaration on Research Assessment. Signers. https://sfdora.org/signers/. Published 2024.

Xi Cheng, Haoran Wang, Li Tang, Weiyan Jiang, Maotian Zhou, Guoyan Wang. Open peer review correlates with altmetrics but not with citations: Evidence from <i>Nature Communications</i> and <i>PLoS One</i> Journal of Informetrics. 2024;18(3):101540. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2024.101540

Paul Whaley, Robyn B Blain, Derek Draper, et al. Identifying assessment criteria for in vitro studies: a method and item bank. Toxicological Sciences. 2024;201(2):240-253. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfae083

Nicki Lisa Cole, Eva Kormann, Thomas Klebel, Simon Apartis, Tony Ross-Hellauer. The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review. Royal Society Open Science. 2024;11(6):240286. doi:10.1098/rsos.240286