Rebecca Abma-Schouten, Joey Gijbels, Wendy Reijmerink, Ingeborg Meijer. Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments? Science and Public Policy. 2023;50(4):619-632. doi:10.1093/scipol/scad009
Sara Khan, Faraz Eshaghi, Aruba Sohail, et al. A 10 Year Analysis of Gender Distribution in National Institutes of Health Funding for Non-Malignant Hematology. Blood. 2023;142(S1):5113. doi:10.1182/blood-2023-180317
Eva Barlösius, Laura Paruschke, Axel Philipps. Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany. Research Evaluation. 2023;32(4):623-634. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvad032
Mytien Nguyen, Sarwat I. Chaudhry, Mayur M. Desai, Kafui Dzirasa, Jose E. Cavazos, Dowin Boatright. Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Inequities in Receipt of Multiple National Institutes of Health Research Project Grants. JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(2):e230855. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0855
Cory J. Clark, Lee Jussim, Komi Frey, et al. Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2023;120(48):e2301642120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2301642120
Liv Langfeldt, Ingvild Reymert, Silje Marie Svartefoss. Distrust in grant peer review—reasons and remedies. Science and Public Policy. 2023;51(1):28-41. doi:10.1093/scipol/scad051
Richard Van Noorden. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record. Nature. 2023;624:479-481. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8.
Dana Strauss, Sophia Gran-Ruaz, Muna Osman, Monnica T. Williams, Sonya C. Faber. Racism and censorship in the editorial and peer review process. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023;14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1120938
Jessie V. Willis, Kelly D. Cobey, Janina Ramos, et al. Limited online training opportunities exist for scholarly peer reviewers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2023;161:65-73. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.06.023