Bias, peer review, and publishing

Liv Langfeldt. The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation. 2006;15(1):31-41. doi:10.3152/147154406781776039

Joshua Frank. Technological lock-in, positive institutional feedback, and research on laboratory animals. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 2005;16(4):557-575. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2004.11.001

Liv Langfeldt. Expert panels evaluating research: decision-making and sources of bias. Research Evaluation. 2004;13(1):51-62. doi:10.3152/147154404781776536

Fiona Godlee. Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2762-2765. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2762

Alan Baddeley. So Where Should We Publish?*. Cortex. 2001;37(4):598-599. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70604-X

Jesús Rey-Rocha, M. José Martín-Sempere, Jesús Martínez-Frías, Fernando López-Vera. Some Misuses of Journal Impact Factor in Research Evaluation. Cortex. 2001;37(4):595-597. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70603-8

John P. A. Ioannidis. Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials. JAMA. 1998;279(4):281-286. doi:10.1001/jama.279.4.281

Simon Wessely. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? The Lancet. 1998;352(9124):301-305. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11129-1

S. N. Goodman, J. Berlin, S. W. Fletcher, R. H. Fletcher. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1994;121(1):11-21. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003

Kay Dickersin, Yuan-I Min. Publication Bias: The Problem That Won’t Go Away. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1993;703(1):135-148. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x