Bias, peer review, and publishing

Natalie Parletta. How to respond to difficult or negative peer-reviewer feedback. Nature Index. 2021. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/how-to-respond-difficult-negative-peer-reviewer-feedback.

Natalie Shoham, Alexandra Pitman. Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency? BJPsych Advances. 2021;27(4):247-254. doi:10.1192/bja.2020.61

Latin American Forum for Research Assessment. Evaluating Scientific Research Assessment. https://www.clacso.org/en/evaluating-scientific-research-assessment/. Published 2021.

Laura Cruz-Castro, Luis Sanz-Menendez. What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion. Journal of Informetrics. 2021;15(3):101196. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2021.101196

Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle, Thiago Dias Sarti. Attitudes toward open peer review among stakeholders of a scholar-led journal in Brazil. Transinformação. 2021;33:e200072. doi:10.1590/2318-0889202133e200072

Tamarinde Haven, Joeri Tijdink, Brian Martinson, Lex Bouter, Frans Oort. Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2021;6:7. doi:10.1186/s41073-021-00110-w

Stijn Conix, Andreas De Block, Krist Vaesen. Grant Writing and Grant Peer Review As Questionable Research Practices.; 2021. doi:10.12688/f1000research.73893.2

Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Michael Rera, Edwin H. Wintermute, et al. Empowering grassroots innovation to accelerate biomedical research. PLOS Biology. 2021;19(8):e3001349. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001349

Kristijan Armeni, Loek Brinkman, Rickard Carlsson, et al. Towards wide-scale adoption of open science practices: The role of open science communities. Science and Public Policy. 2021;48(5):605-611. doi:10.1093/scipol/scab039

Committee on Publication Ethics. Bias in peer review. https://publicationethics.org/resources/forum-discussions/bias-peer-review. Published 2021.