Bias, peer review, and publishing

Carl T. Bergstrom, Kevin Gross. Screening, sorting, and the feedback cycles that imperil peer review. PLOS Biology. 24(2):e3003650. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003650

Peter Kolarz. The time has come for big changes to improve research funding. PLOS Biology. 24(4):e3003754. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003754

Hendy Abdoul, Christophe Perrey, Philippe Amiel, et al. Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices. PLOS ONE. 7(9):e46054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046054

Laurissa Gann. What is considered a good impact factor? - Ask the Research Medical Library. https://mdanderson.libanswers.com/faq/26159.

Brendan Nyhan. A Checklist Manifesto for Peer Review. https://polmeth.org/blog/checklist-manifesto-peer-review.

Cecilia A. Sánchez, Collin J. Schwantes, Shannon Ball, et al. Gendered male and high-income country authors dominate publication at a One Health research organization. PLOS ONE. 21(6):e0352401. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0352401

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. Minimizing Unconscious Bias in Peer Revew. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Minimizing-Unconscous-Bias.pdf.

Tania Henriquez. Open peer review, pros and cons from the perspective of an early career researcher. mBio. 14(5):e01948-23. doi:10.1128/mbio.01948-23

What Is a Good Impact Factor for an Academic Journal? https://akjournals.com/page/222.

Item - Applicants as Reviewers: Evaluating the Risks, Benefits, and Potential of Distributed Peer Review for Grant Funding Allocations  (RoRI Working Paper No. 17) - Research on Research Institute - Figshare. https://rori.figshare.com/articles/preprint/_b_Applicants_as_Reviewers_Evaluating_the_Risks_Benefits_and_Potential_of_Distributed_Peer_Review_for_Grant_Funding_Allocations_b_b_b_RoRI_Working_Paper_No_17_/29994841/3?file=61607221.