peer review

Nyssa J. Silbiger, Amber D. Stubler. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ. 2019;7:e8247. doi:10.7717/peerj.8247

Susan Guthrie, Ioana Ghiga, Steven Wooding. What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? F1000Research. 2018;6:1335. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11917.2

Stephen Gallo, Lisa Thompson, Karen Schmaling, Scott Glisson. Risk evaluation in peer review of grant applications. Environment Systems and Decisions. 2018;38:216-229. doi:10.1007/s10669-018-9677-6

Björn Hammarfelt. Recognition and reward in the academy: Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history. Aslib Journal of Information Management. 2017;69(5):607-623. doi:10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0006

Ferric C Fang, Anthony Bowen, Arturo Casadevall. NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. eLife. 2016;5:e13323. doi:10.7554/eLife.13323

Monya Baker. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 2016;533:452-454. https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a.

Hidde Ploegh. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments. Nature. 2011;472(7344):391-391. doi:10.1038/472391a

Liv Langfeldt, Svein Kyvik. Researchers as evaluators: tasks, tensions and politics. Higher Education. 2011;62:199-212. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9382-y

Hendy Abdoul, Christophe Perrey, Florence Tubach, Philippe Amiel, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski, Corinne Alberti. Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France. PLOS ONE. 7(4):e35247. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035247

Kerry Dwan, Carrol Gamble, Paula R. Williamson, Jamie J. Kirkham. Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review. PLOS ONE. 8(7):e66844. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066844