Bias, peer review, and publishing

Paul E. Smaldino, Richard McElreath. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science. 2016;3(9):160384. doi:10.1098/rsos.160384

Pavel V. Ovseiko, Trisha Greenhalgh, Paula Adam, et al. A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2016;14(1):50. doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0126-z

Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Alan D. Kaye, Mark V. Boswell, Joshua A. Hirsch. Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):E1-E14. doi:10.36076/ppj/2015.18.E1

Jue Wang, Philip Shapira. Is There a Relationship between Research Sponsorship and Publication Impact? An Analysis of Funding Acknowledgments in Nanotechnology Papers. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(2):e0117727. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117727

Diana Hicks, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, Ismael Rafols. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015;520(7548):429-431. doi:10.1038/520429a

Qi Wang, Ulf Sandström. Defining the role of cognitive distance in the peer review process with an explorative study of a grant scheme in infection biology. Research Evaluation. 2015;24(3):271-281. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv009

Seema Rawat, Sanjay Meena. Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2014;19(2):87. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3999612/.

Valentina Tartari, Markus Perkmann, Ammon Salter. In good company: The influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. Research Policy. 2014;43(7):1189-1203. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.003

Daniele Fanelli. Positive results receive more citations, but only in some disciplines. Scientometrics. 2013;94:701-709. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0757-y

Declaration on Research Assessment. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.; 2012. https://sfdora.org/read/.