peer review

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

Stephen A. Gallo, Michael Pearce, Carole J. Lee, Elena A. Erosheva. A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2023;8:10. doi:10.1186/s41073-023-00131-7

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

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

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

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

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