Bias, peer review, and publishing

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

John Coveney, Danielle L. Herbert, Kathy Hill, Karen E. Mow, Nicholas Graves, Adrian Barnett. ‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels function. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2017;2(1):19. doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0043-x

Maite Solans-Domènech, Imma Guillamón, Aida Ribera, et al. Blinding applicants in a first-stage peer-review process of biomedical research grants: An observational study. Research Evaluation. 2017;26(3):181-189. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvx021

Elizabeth L. Pier, Joshua Raclaw, Anna Kaatz, et al. ‘Your comments are meaner than your score’: score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review. Research Evaluation. 2017;26(1):1-14. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvw025

David Moher, James Galipeau, Sabina Alam, et al. Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement. BMC Medicine. 2017;15(1):167. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0927-0