1.
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
peer review
1.
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
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.
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.
Karen B. Schmaling, Stephen A. Gallo. Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2023;8:2. doi:10.1186/s41073-023-00127-3
1.
Nature. Nature is trialling transparent peer review — the early results are encouraging. Nature. 2022;603:8-8. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00493-w
1.
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
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.
Stijn Conix, Andreas De Block, Krist Vaesen. Grant Writing and Grant Peer Review As Questionable Research Practices.; 2021. doi:10.12688/f1000research.73893.2
1.
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