peer review

Catharine E. Krebs, Celean Camp, Helder Constantino, et al. Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing. Advanced Science. 2023;10(30):2303226. doi:10.1002/advs.202303226

Nature. Nature is trialling transparent peer review — the early results are encouraging. Nature. 2022;603:8-8. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00493-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

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

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

Flaminio Squazzoni, Petra Ahrweiler, Tiago Barros, et al. Unlock ways to share data on peer review. Nature. 2020;578:512-514. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00500-y

Stephen A. Gallo, Karen B. Schmaling, Lisa A. Thompson, Scott R. Glisson. Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2020;5(1):7. doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00093-0

Tony Ross-Hellauer, Edit Görögh. Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2019;4:4. doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9

Giangiacomo Bravo, Francisco Grimaldo, Emilia López-Iñesta, Bahar Mehmani, Flaminio Squazzoni. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications. 2019;10(1):322. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2

Susan Guthrie, Daniela Rodriguez Rincon, Gordon McInroy, Becky Ioppolo, Salil Gunashekar. Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes. F1000Research. 2019;8:851. doi:10.12688/f1000research.19156.1