peer review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Moher, Lex Bouter, Sabine Kleinert, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology. 18(7):e3000737. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737

Ivan Stelmakh, Charvi Rastogi, Ryan Liu, Shuchi Chawla, Federico Echenique, Nihar B. Shah. Cite-seeing and reviewing: A study on citation bias in peer review. PLOS ONE. 18(7):e0283980. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283980

Kelly D. Cobey, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Matthew J. Page, et al. Biomedical researchers’ perspectives on the reproducibility of research. PLOS Biology. 22(11):e3002870. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002870