Bias, peer review, and publishing

Anthony Chauvin, Philippe Ravaud, Gabriel Baron, Caroline Barnes, Isabelle Boutron. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC medicine. 2015;13:158. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0395-3

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

Adrian Mulligan, Louise Hall, Ellen Raphael. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013;64(1):132-161. doi:10.1002/asi.22798

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

Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, Blaise Cronin. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012;64(1):2-17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784

Bradley P. Larson, Kevin C. Chung. A systematic review of peer review for scientific manuscripts. Hand (New York, N.Y.). 2012;7(1):37-44. doi:10.1007/s11552-012-9392-6

Kenny Smith. Learning bias, cultural evolution of language, and the biological evolution of the language faculty. Human Biology. 2011;83(2):261-278. doi:10.3378/027.083.0207

J. Rogers Hollingsworth. Doing institutional analysis: implications for the study of innovations. Review of International Political Economy. 2011;7(4):595-644. doi:10.1080/096922900750034563