1.
David Moher, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond. Publisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: Not so much. Accountability in Research. 2025;32(5):832-837. doi:10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451
Peer Review, Research
1.
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
1.
Michael S. Lauer, Jamie Doyle, Joy Wang, Deepshikha Roychowdhury. Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health. eLife. 2021;10:e67173. doi:10.7554/eLife.67173
1.
Mario Gaudino, N. Bryce Robinson, Antonino Di Franco, et al. Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2021;10(15):e019903. doi:10.1161/JAHA.120.019903
1.
Samir Haffar, Fateh Bazerbachi, M. Hassan Murad. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2019;94(4):670-676. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004
1.
James Galipeau, David Moher, Craig Campbell, et al. A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015;68(3):257-265. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.024
1.
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
1.
Donna K. Ginther, Walter T. Schaffer, Joshua Schnell, et al. Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science. 2011;333(6045):1015-1019. doi:10.1126/science.1196783
1.
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