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
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
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
Stijn Conix, Andreas De Block, Krist Vaesen. Grant Writing and Grant Peer Review As Questionable Research Practices.; 2021. doi:10.12688/f1000research.73893.2
Travis G. Gerwing, Alyssa M. Allen Gerwing, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Chi-Yeung Choi, Jeff C. Clements, Joshua A. Rash. Quantifying professionalism in peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2020;5:9. doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00096-x
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