Scholarly peer review (English Wikipedia)

"AAUP Membership Benefits and Eligibility". Association of American University Presses. Archived from the original on August 20, 2016. Retrieved August 3, 2016.

advances.in

"Advances.in". October 9, 2022.

agronomy.org

Sims Gerald K. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (PDF). Journal of Agronomic Education. 18 (2): 105–108. doi:10.2134/jae1989.0105. The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals

agu.org

"Policy on Referencing Data in and Archiving Data for AGU Publications". American Geophysical Union. 2012. Retrieved September 8, 2012. The following policy has been adopted for AGU publications in order to ensure that they can effectively and efficiently perform an expanded role in making the underlying data for articles available to researchers now and in the future.

archives-ouvertes.fr

hal.archives-ouvertes.fr

Pontille D, Torny D (2014). "From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: the changing technologies of journal peer review". Human Studies. 38: 57–79. doi:10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z. S2CID 53387591.

halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr

Torny D (2018). "Pubpeer: vigilante science, journal club or alarm raiser? The controversies over anonymity in post-publication peer review".

arstechnica.com

A case of peer review fraud in Tumor Biology papers (Retrieved April 25, 2017)

arxiv.org

Reaves ML, Sinha S, Rabinowitz JD, Kruglyak L, Redfield RJ (July 2012). "Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells". Science. 337 (6093): 470–473. arXiv:1201.6643. Bibcode:2012Sci...337..470R. doi:10.1126/science.1219861. PMC 3845625. PMID 22773140.

asapbio.org

"Biology preprints over time | ASAPbio". asapbio.org. Retrieved May 19, 2018.

biomedcentral.com

blogs.biomedcentral.com

"Inappropriate manipulation of peer review". BioMed Central blog. March 26, 2015.

biotechniques.com

Blow NS (January 2015). "Benefits and Burdens of Peer-Review". BioTechniques. 58 (1): 5. doi:10.2144/000114242.

bitss.org

"Read it, understand it, believe it, use it: Principles and proposals for a more credible research publication", Green et al 2013, citing "Protocol Review"

bmartin.cc

Martin B. "Chapter 5: Peer review as scholarly conformity". www.bmartin.cc.

books.google.com

Steinzor R (2006). Rescuing Science from Politics. Cambridge University Press. p. 304. ISBN 978-0-521-85520-4.
Bingham C (2000). "Peer review and the ethics of internet publishing". In Jones AH, McLellan F (eds.). Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. pp. 85–111. ISBN 978-0-8018-6315-8.
New Scientist, 20 March 1980, p. 945^{[permanent dead link‍]}
Michaels D (2006). "Politicizing Peer Review: Scientific Perspective". In Wagner W, Steinzor R (eds.). Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research. Cambridge University Press. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-521-85520-4.

brendan-nyhan.com

"Academic reforms: A four-part proposal", Brendan Nyhan, 16 April 2012
"More on pre-accepted academic articles", 27 April 2012

caltech.edu

calteches.library.caltech.edu

"Cargo cult science"., Richard Feynman.

Calteches.library.caltech.edu

"Cargo Cult Science". Caltech Magazine. 1974. Archived from the original on August 24, 2019.

canadianlawyermag.com

"Law prof fighting for tenure track loses legal battle". www.canadianlawyermag.com. Retrieved April 30, 2024.

canlii.org

"McCue v. The University of British Columbia (No. 4), 2018 BCHRT 45 (CanLII)".

cf.ac.uk

orca.cf.ac.uk

Chambers CD (March 2013). "Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex" (PDF). Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior. 49 (3): 609–610. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016. hdl:2027.42/144295. PMID 23347556. S2CID 140204881.

chemistryworld.com

"Imposters hijack journal's peer review process to publish substandard papers". Chemistry World. January 18, 2021. Retrieved January 19, 2021.

chris-said.io

"It's the incentive structure, people! Why science reform must come from the granting agencies.", Chris Said, 17 April 2012

cogprints.org

Stevan Harnad (1991). "Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge". Public-Access Computer Systems Review. 2 (1): 39–53. Retrieved October 22, 2010.

creativecommons.org

Brezis ES, Birukou A (April 1, 2020). "Arbitrariness in the peer review process". Scientometrics. 123 (1): 393–411. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1. ISSN 1588-2861. S2CID 211017926. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

doi.org

Kupferschmidt K (August 14, 2018). "Researcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aav1079.
Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). "Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study". Science. 341 (6152): 1331. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1331. PMID 24052283.
Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. (June 2007). "The ups and downs of peer review". Advances in Physiology Education. 31 (2): 145–152 [145]. doi:10.1152/advan.00104.2006. PMID 17562902. S2CID 296058. Scientific peer review has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication.
Blow NS (January 2015). "Benefits and Burdens of Peer-Review". BioTechniques. 58 (1): 5. doi:10.2144/000114242.
"Benefits and Burdens of Peer-Review (editorial)". BioTechniques. 58 (1): 5. January 2015. doi:10.2144/000114242.
Pontille D, Torny D (2014). "From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: the changing technologies of journal peer review". Human Studies. 38: 57–79. doi:10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z. S2CID 53387591.
Csiszar A (April 2016). "Peer review: Troubled from the start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi:10.1038/532306a. PMID 27111616. S2CID 4458585.
Spier R (August 2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology. 20 (8): 357–358. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6. PMID 12127284.
Kennefick D (September 2005). "Einstein versus the Physical Review". Physics Today. 58 (9): 43–48. Bibcode:2005PhT....58i..43K. doi:10.1063/1.2117822. S2CID 122132354.
Baldwin M (September 1, 2018). "Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of "Peer Review" in the Cold War United States". Isis. 109 (3): 538–558. doi:10.1086/700070. ISSN 0021-1753. S2CID 150175444.
"Coping with peer rejection". Nature. 425 (6959): 645. October 2003. Bibcode:2003Natur.425..645.. doi:10.1038/425645a. PMID 14562060. S2CID 4380827.
Biagioli M (2002). "From book censorship to academic peer review". Emergences. 12 (1): 11–45. doi:10.1080/1045722022000003435. S2CID 143577949.
Rip A (1985). "Commentary: Peer review is alive and well in the United States". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 10 (3): 82–86. doi:10.1177/016224398501000310. S2CID 144738593.
Rennie D, Flanagin A (January 2018). "Three Decades of Peer Review Congresses". JAMA. 319 (4): 350–353. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.20606. PMID 29362775.
Hirschauer S (2010). "Editorial judgements: A praxeology of 'voting' in peer review". Social Studies of Science. 40 (1): 71–103. doi:10.1177/0306312709335405. S2CID 145222636.
Roos AM (2022). "Publish and flourish, or the collective wisdom of peer review". Notes and Records. 76 (3): 335–6. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2022.0022. PMC 9364700. PMID 35974900.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Sims Gerald K. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (PDF). Journal of Agronomic Education. 18 (2): 105–108. doi:10.2134/jae1989.0105. The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals
Stolowy H (2017). "Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk Rejected at European Accounting Review". European Accounting Review. 26 (3): 411–418. doi:10.1080/09638180.2017.1347360. S2CID 157531858.
"Summary Report of Journal Operations, 2016". American Psychologist. 72 (5): 499–500. 2017. doi:10.1037/amp0000172. PMID 28726464. S2CID 1271000.
Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE (December 2003). "How to review a paper". Advances in Physiology Education. 27 (1–4): 47–52. doi:10.1152/advan.00057.2002. PMID 12760840. S2CID 35635960.
Scott WA (1974). "Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology". American Psychologist. 29 (9): 698–702. doi:10.1037/h0037631.
Pless IB (August 2006). "When reviewers disagree". Injury Prevention. 12 (4): 211. doi:10.1136/ip.2006.090806. PMC 2586794. PMID 16887940.
Grimm D (2005). "Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published". Science. 309 (5743): 1974. doi:10.1126/science.309.5743.1974. PMID 16179438. S2CID 38626590.
Grimm D (September 23, 2005). "Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published". Science. doi:10.1126/article.61887.
Noble WS (October 2017). "Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers". PLOS Computational Biology. 13 (10): e1005730. Bibcode:2017PLSCB..13E5730N. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730. PMC 5638205. PMID 29023444.
Schwartz SM, Slater DW, Heydrick FP, Woolett GR (September 1995). "A Report of the AIBS Peer-Review Process for the US Army's 1994 Breast Cancer Initiative". BioScience. 45 (8): 558–563. doi:10.1093/bioscience/45.8.558. JSTOR 1312702.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Chloros GD, Giannoudis VP, Giannoudis PV (January 1, 2022). "Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish?". Annals of Surgery. 275 (1): e82 – e90. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004756. ISSN 1528-1140. PMID 33630457. S2CID 232049402.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Hames I (2014). "The changing face of peer review". Science Editing. 1: 9–12. doi:10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9.
Stemmle L, Collier K (2013). "RUBRIQ: Tools, services, and software to improve peer review". Learned Publishing. 26 (4): 265–268. doi:10.1087/20130406.
Armstrong JS (1982). "Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors". Journal of Forecasting. 1: 83–104. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.468.1453. doi:10.1002/for.3980010109. S2CID 11911654.
Pontille D, Torny D (2014). "The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review". Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology. 4. doi:10.7264/N3542KVW (inactive November 1, 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
Cressey D (2014). "Journals weigh up double-blind peer review". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15564. S2CID 155896469.
"Working double-blind". Nature. 451 (7179): 605–606. 2008. Bibcode:2008Natur.451R.605.. doi:10.1038/451605b. PMID 18256621. S2CID 4344755.
Mainguy G, Motamedi MR, Mietchen D (September 2005). "Peer review--the newcomers' perspective". PLOS Biology. 3 (9): e326. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326. PMC 1201308. PMID 16149851.
Moore R, Rajasekar A, Wan M (2005). "Data Grids, Digital Libraries, and Persistent Archives: An Integrated Approach to Sharing, Publishing, and Archiving Data". Proceedings of the IEEE. 93 (3): 578–588. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2004.842761. S2CID 8597031.
Rothwell PM, Martyn CN (September 2000). "Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?". Brain. 123 (9): 1964–1969. doi:10.1093/brain/123.9.1964. PMID 10960059.
Koonin E (2006). "Reviving a culture of scientific debate". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05005 (inactive November 2, 2024). Archived from the original on December 21, 2012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
Ross-Hellauer T (August 31, 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6. F1000 Research Ltd: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.
Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G (January 2000). "Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 176 (1): 47–51. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.47. PMID 10789326.
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (January 1999). "Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial". BMJ. 318 (7175): 23–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23. PMC 27670. PMID 9872878.
Sanders JK (January 2020). "Editorial 2020: Changing publishing and academic culture". Royal Society Open Science. 7 (1): 192197. Bibcode:2020RSOS....792197S. doi:10.1098/rsos.192197. ISSN 2054-5703. PMC 7029889. PMID 32218987.
"Editorial". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1: 1–2. 1978. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00059045.
Slavov N (November 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4. doi:10.7554/elife.12708. PMC 4641509. PMID 26559758.
Pöschl U (2012). "Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation". Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 6: 33. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033. PMC 3389610. PMID 22783183.
Yeo SK, Liang X, Brossard D, Rose KM, Korzekwa K, Scheufele DA, et al. (2017). "The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review". Public Understanding of Science. 26 (8): 937–952. doi:10.1177/0963662516649806. PMID 27229853. S2CID 20905189.
Reaves ML, Sinha S, Rabinowitz JD, Kruglyak L, Redfield RJ (July 2012). "Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells". Science. 337 (6093): 470–473. arXiv:1201.6643. Bibcode:2012Sci...337..470R. doi:10.1126/science.1219861. PMC 3845625. PMID 22773140.
Newcombe RG (September 1987). "Towards a reduction in publication bias". British Medical Journal. 295 (6599): 656–659. doi:10.1136/bmj.295.6599.656. PMC 1257777. PMID 3117278.
Kupfersmid J (1988). "Improving what is published: A model in search of an editor". American Psychologist. 43 (8): 635–642. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.43.8.635.
Glymour MM, Kawachi I (2005). "Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: Here's a proposal for editors that may help reduce publication bias". BMJ. 331 (7517): 638.2. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7517.638-a. PMC 1215604. PMID 16166149.
Smulders YM (2013). "A two-step manuscript submission process can reduce publication bias". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 66 (9): 946–947. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.023. PMID 23845183.
Mahoney MJ (1977). "Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system". Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1 (2): 161–175. doi:10.1007/BF01173636. S2CID 7350256.
Walster GW, Cleary TA (1970). "A Proposal for a New Editorial Policy in the Social Sciences". The American Statistician. 24 (2): 16–19. doi:10.1080/00031305.1970.10478884. S2CID 20366741.
Armstrong JS (1997). "Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation". Science and Engineering Ethics. 3: 63–84. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.37.5054. doi:10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3. S2CID 7920654.
Lawlor DA (2007). "Quality in epidemiological research: Should we be submitting papers before we have the results and submitting more hypothesis-generating research?". International Journal of Epidemiology. 36 (5): 940–943. doi:10.1093/ije/dym168. PMID 17875575.
Nyhan B (2015). "Increasing the Credibility of Political Science Research: A Proposal for Journal Reforms". PS: Political Science & Politics. 48: 78–83. doi:10.1017/S1049096515000463 (inactive November 1, 2024). S2CID 154801036.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
Chambers CD (March 2013). "Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex" (PDF). Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior. 49 (3): 609–610. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016. hdl:2027.42/144295. PMID 23347556. S2CID 140204881.
The Editors of The Lancet (2015). "Protocol review at The Lancet: 1997–2015". The Lancet. 386 (10012): 2456–2457. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01131-9. S2CID 140207427.
"Promoting reproducibility with registered reports". Nature Human Behaviour. 1: 0034. 2017. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0034. S2CID 28976450.
Armstrong J (1996). "Publication of research on controversial topics: The early acceptance procedure". International Journal of Forecasting. 12 (2): 299–302. doi:10.1016/0169-2070(95)00626-5. S2CID 8545569.
Weiss DJ (1989). "An Experiment in Publication: Advance Publication Review". Applied Psychological Measurement. 13: 1–7. doi:10.1177/014662168901300101. S2CID 122661856.
Sridharan L, Greenland P (2009). "Editorial Policies and Publication Bias". Archives of Internal Medicine. 169 (11): 1022–1023. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.100. PMID 19506169. S2CID 5158555.
d Chambers C, Feredoes E, d Muthukumaraswamy S, j Etchells P (2014). "Instead of "playing the game" it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond". AIMS Neuroscience. 1: 4–17. doi:10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.4.
Nosek BA, Lakens D (2014). "Registered Reports". Social Psychology. 45 (3): 137–141. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192.
Pain E (December 15, 2015). "Register your study as a new publication option". Science. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a1500282.
Findley MG, Jensen NM, Malesky EJ, Pepinsky TB (2016). "Can Results-Free Review Reduce Publication Bias? The Results and Implications of a Pilot Study". Comparative Political Studies. 49 (13): 1667–1703. doi:10.1177/0010414016655539. S2CID 44705752.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Squazzoni F, Brezis E, Marušić A (October 1, 2017). "Scientometrics of peer review". Scientometrics. 113 (1): 501–502. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4. ISSN 1588-2861. PMC 5629222. PMID 29056787.
Ragone A, Mirylenka K, Casati F, Marchese M (November 1, 2013). "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement". Scientometrics. 97 (2): 317–356. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z. ISSN 0138-9130. S2CID 16803499.
Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J (2003). "Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication". JAMA. 289 (11): 1438. doi:10.1001/jama.289.11.1438.
Horton R (February 2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". The Medical Journal of Australia. 172 (4): 148–149. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2000.tb125533.x. PMID 10772580. S2CID 36401069.
Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F (April 18, 2007). Cochrane Methodology Review Group (ed.). "Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010 (2): MR000016. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3. PMC 8973931. PMID 17443635.
Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I (December 2016). "Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis". BMC Medicine. 14 (1): 85. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5. ISSN 1741-7015. PMC 4902984. PMID 27287500.
Couchman JR (November 11, 2013). "Peer Review and Reproducibility. Crisis or Time for Course Correction?". Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry. 62 (1): 9–10. doi:10.1369/0022155413513462. PMC 3873808. PMID 24217925.
Brezis ES, Birukou A (April 1, 2020). "Arbitrariness in the peer review process". Scientometrics. 123 (1): 393–411. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1. ISSN 1588-2861. S2CID 211017926. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Ioannidis JP (2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". PLOS Medicine. 2 (8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMC 1182327. PMID 16060722.
Csiszar A (2016). "Peer Review: Troubled from the Start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi:10.1038/532306a. PMID 27111616.
Moxham N, Fyfe A (2018). "The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965" (PDF). The Historical Journal. 61 (4): 863–889. doi:10.1017/S0018246X17000334. S2CID 164984479.
Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I (2014). "Publishing: The Peer-Review Scam". Nature. 515 (7528): 480–482. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..480F. doi:10.1038/515480a. PMID 25428481.
Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR (1998). "Phenomena of Retraction: Reasons for Retraction and Citations to the Publications". JAMA. 280 (3): 296–297. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.296. PMID 9676689.
Smith R (2006). "Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99 (4): 178–182. doi:10.1177/014107680609900414. PMC 1420798. PMID 16574968.
Ross-Hellauer T (2017). "What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.
Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, et al. (2017). "A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review". F1000Research. 6: 1151. doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.3. PMC 5686505. PMID 29188015.
Wong VS, Avalos LN, Callaham ML (2019). "Industry Payments to Physician Journal Editors". PLOS ONE. 14 (2): e0211495. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1411495W. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211495. PMC 6366761. PMID 30730904.
Weiss GJ, Davis RB (2019). "Discordant Financial Conflicts of Interest Disclosures between Clinical Trial Conference Abstract and Subsequent Publication". PeerJ. 7: e6423. doi:10.7717/peerj.6423. PMC 6375255. PMID 30775185.
Jarvis S (September 2017). "The perils of peer review". Veterinary Record. 181 (12): 303–304. doi:10.1136/vr.j4362. S2CID 56853522.
Flaherty DK (2013). "Ghost- and Guest-Authored Pharmaceutical Industry–Sponsored Studies: Abuse of Academic Integrity, the Peer Review System, and Public Trust". The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 47 (7–8): 1081–1083. doi:10.1345/aph.1R691. PMID 23585648. S2CID 22513775.
Vanholsbeeck M, Thacker P, Sattler S, Ross-Hellauer T, Rivera-López BS, Rice C, et al. (March 11, 2019). "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing". Publications. 7 (2): 34. doi:10.3390/publications7020034.
Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F (2019). "The Effect of Publishing Peer Review Reports on Referee Behavior in Five Scholarly Journals". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 322. Bibcode:2019NatCo..10..322B. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2. PMC 6338763. PMID 30659186.
Tennant JP (2018). "The State of the Art in Peer Review". FEMS Microbiology Letters. 365 (19). doi:10.1093/femsle/fny204. PMC 6140953. PMID 30137294.
Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, Marušić A (2017). "Publishing: Journals Could Share Peer-Review Data". Nature. 546 (7658): 352. Bibcode:2017Natur.546Q.352S. doi:10.1038/546352a. hdl:2434/626022. PMID 28617464. S2CID 52858966.
Allen H, Boxer E, Cury A, Gaston T, Graf C, Hogan B, et al. (2018), What Does Better Peer Review Look like? Definitions, Essential Areas, and Recommendations for Better Practice, doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/4MFK2
Fang FC, Casadevall A (2011). "Retracted Science and the Retraction Index". Infection and Immunity. 79 (10): 3855–3859. doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11. PMC 3187237. PMID 21825063.
Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK (2016). "Why Articles Are Retracted: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study of Retraction Notices at BioMed Central". BMJ Open. 6 (11): e012047. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047. PMC 5168538. PMID 27881524.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science". Science. 349 (6251): aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716. hdl:10722/230596. PMID 26315443. S2CID 218065162.
Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie Du Sert N, et al. (2017). "A Manifesto for Reproducible Science". Nature Human Behaviour. 1 (1): 0021. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021. PMC 7610724. PMID 33954258.
Fanelli D (2018). "Opinion: Is Science Really Facing a Reproducibility Crisis, and Do We Need It To?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (11): 2628–2631. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708272114. PMC 5856498. PMID 29531051.
Goodman SN (1994). "Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine". Annals of Internal Medicine. 121 (1): 11–21. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003. PMID 8198342. S2CID 5716602.
Pierson CA (2018). "Peer review and journal quality". Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. 30 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1097/JXX.0000000000000018. PMID 29757914. S2CID 46888329.
Caputo RK (2019). "Peer Review: A Vital Gatekeeping Function and Obligation of Professional Scholarly Practice". Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services. 100: 6–16. doi:10.1177/1044389418808155.
Siler K, Lee K, Bero L (2015). "Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (2): 360–365. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112..360S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112. PMC 4299220. PMID 25535380.
Resnik DB, Elmore SA (2016). "Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors". Science and Engineering Ethics. 22 (1): 169–188. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5. PMID 25633924. S2CID 3641934.
Bornmann L (2011). "Scientific Peer Review". Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 45: 197–245. doi:10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.
Priem J, Hemminger BM (2012). "Decoupling the Scholarly Journal". Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 6: 19. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019. PMC 3319915. PMID 22493574.
Bowman ND, Keene JR (2018). "A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices". Communication Research Reports. 35 (4): 363–372. doi:10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273.
McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, Buck S, Kenall A, Lin J, et al. (2016). "Point of View: How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed". eLife. 5. doi:10.7554/eLife.16800. PMC 4973366. PMID 27387362.
Brembs B (2019). "Reliable Novelty: New Should Not Trump True". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000117. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117. PMC 6372144. PMID 30753184.
Stern BM, o'Shea EK (2019). "A Proposal for the Future of Scientific Publishing in the Life Sciences". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000116. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116. PMC 6372143. PMID 30753179.
Bradley JV (1981). "Pernicious Publication Practices". Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 18: 31–34. doi:10.3758/bf03333562.
Boudreau KJ, Guinan E, Lakhani K, Riedl C (October 2016). "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science". Management Science. 62 (10): 2765–2783. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285. PMC 5062254. PMID 27746512.
van den Besselaar P, Sandström U, Schiffbaenker H (October 2018). "Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports". Scientometrics. 117 (1): 313–329. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x. ISSN 0138-9130. PMC 6132964. PMID 30220747.
Osmond DH (March 1983). "Malice's wonderland: research funding and peer review". Journal of Neurobiology. 14 (2): 95–112. doi:10.1002/neu.480140202. PMID 6842193. Archived from the original on March 18, 2009. Retrieved June 24, 2015. ... they may strongly resist a rival's hypothesis that challenges their own
Grimaldo F, Paolucci M (March 14, 2013). "A simulation of disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review". Advances in Complex Systems. 16 (7): 1350004. Bibcode:2005AdCS....8...15L. doi:10.1142/S0219525913500045. S2CID 2590479.
Fang H (2011). "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly". Scientometrics. 87 (2): 293–301. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0323-4. S2CID 24236419.
Rowland F (2002). "The peer-review process". Learned Publishing. 15 (4): 247–258. doi:10.1087/095315102760319206. S2CID 18368797.
Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ (January 2008). "Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 23 (1): 4–6. Bibcode:2008TEcoE..23....4B. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008. PMID 17963996.
Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, Marusic A, Mehmani B, Willis M, et al. (January 6, 2021). "Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals". Science Advances. 7 (2): eabd0299. Bibcode:2021SciA....7..299S. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd0299. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 7787493. PMID 33523967.
Brainard J (March 1, 2021). "The $450 question: Should journals pay peer reviewers?". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abh3175.
Björk BC, Solomon D (2012). "Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact". BMC Medicine. 10: 73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73. PMC 3398850. PMID 22805105.
Lee K (2006). "Increasing accountability". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05007 (inactive November 2, 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML (September 1998). "Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance". Annals of Emergency Medicine. 32 (3 Pt 1): 310–317. doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X. PMID 9737492.
Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I (November 2014). "Publishing: The peer-review scam". Nature. 515 (7528): 480–482. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..480F. doi:10.1038/515480a. PMID 25428481. S2CID 4447250.
Callaway E (2015). "Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18202. S2CID 182578881.
Pinna N, Clavel G, Roco MC (2020). "The Journal of Nanoparticle Research victim of an organized rogue editor network!". Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 22 (12): 376. Bibcode:2020JNR....22..376P. doi:10.1007/s11051-020-05094-0. ISSN 1388-0764. S2CID 229182904.
Soon W, Baliunas S (2003). "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years". Climate Research. 23: 89–110. Bibcode:2003ClRes..23...89S. doi:10.3354/cr023089.
Tai MM (February 1994). "A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves". Diabetes Care. 17 (2): 152–154. doi:10.2337/diacare.17.2.152. PMID 8137688. S2CID 42761923.
Dougherty MV (2017). "Correcting the Scholarly Record in the Aftermath of Plagiarism: A Snapshot of Current-Day Publishing Practices in Philosophy". Metaphilosophy. 48 (3): 258–283. doi:10.1111/meta.12241.
Holliday VT, Daulton TL, Bartlein PJ, Boslough MB, Breslawski RP, Fisher AE, et al. (July 26, 2023). "Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH)". Earth-Science Reviews. 247: 104502. Bibcode:2023ESRv..24704502H. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104502.
Rennie D (July 7, 2016). "Let's make peer review scientific". Nature. 535 (7610): 31–33. Bibcode:2016Natur.535...31R. doi:10.1038/535031a. PMID 27383970. S2CID 4408375.
Slavov N (November 11, 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4: e12708. doi:10.7554/eLife.12708. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 4641509. PMID 26559758.
Couzin-Frankel J (September 18, 2018). "'Journalologists' use scientific methods to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science?". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aav4758.
Cosgrove A, Cheifet B (November 27, 2018). "Transparent peer review trial: the results". Genome Biology. 19 (1): 206. doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1584-0. ISSN 1474-760X. PMC 6260718. PMID 30482224.
Patterson M, Schekman R (June 26, 2018). "A new twist on peer review". eLife. 7: e36545. doi:10.7554/eLife.36545. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 6019064. PMID 29944117.
Ross-Hellauer T (August 31, 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.
Else H (November 3, 2022). "eLife won't reject papers once they are under review — what researchers think". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-03534-6. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 36329143. S2CID 253302170.
Schiermeier Q (2017). "Monument to peer review unveiled in Moscow". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22060.

dynamicecology.wordpress.com

"What should editors do when referees disagree?". Dynamic Ecology. September 2, 2014. Retrieved April 17, 2018.

editage.com

"Peer review process and editorial decision making at journals". Editage Insights. April 11, 2013.

ejp-blog.com

"Streamlined review and registered reports soon to be official at EJP". February 6, 2018.

elsevier.com

Zwaaf E (January 15, 2013). "8 reasons I accepted your article". Elsevier Connect. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
"Registered Reports: A step change in scientific publishing; Professor Chris Chambers, Registered Reports Editor of the Elsevier journal Cortex and one of the concept's founders, on how the initiative combats publication bias", Chambers, 13 November 2014

eurekalert.org

"British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report" (2004) EurekAlert Public release date: August 16, 2004

forbes.com

Knapp A (2011). "Apparently, Calculus Was Invented In 1994". Forbes.

fs.fed.us

"Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process" (PDF). USDA Forest Service. February 6, 2006. Retrieved October 4, 2010.

gwern.net

EJP editorial, Johnson 1975 (European Journal of Parapsychology. 1975;1(1):1-2); "Models of control and control of bias", Johnson 1975 (European Journal of Parapsychology. 1975;1(1):36–44); "On Publication Policy Regarding Non-Significant Results", Johnson 1976 (European Journal of Parapsychology 1976;1(2):1–5)

handle.net

hdl.handle.net

Gaudet J (July 16, 2014). "Investigating journal peer review as scientific object of study:unabridged version – Part I". UO Research. hdl:10393/31319.
Chambers CD (March 2013). "Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex" (PDF). Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior. 49 (3): 609–610. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016. hdl:2027.42/144295. PMID 23347556. S2CID 140204881.
Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, Marušić A (2017). "Publishing: Journals Could Share Peer-Review Data". Nature. 546 (7658): 352. Bibcode:2017Natur.546Q.352S. doi:10.1038/546352a. hdl:2434/626022. PMID 28617464. S2CID 52858966.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science". Science. 349 (6251): aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716. hdl:10722/230596. PMID 26315443. S2CID 218065162.

harvard.edu

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

Csiszar A (April 2016). "Peer review: Troubled from the start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi:10.1038/532306a. PMID 27111616. S2CID 4458585.
Kennefick D (September 2005). "Einstein versus the Physical Review". Physics Today. 58 (9): 43–48. Bibcode:2005PhT....58i..43K. doi:10.1063/1.2117822. S2CID 122132354.
"Coping with peer rejection". Nature. 425 (6959): 645. October 2003. Bibcode:2003Natur.425..645.. doi:10.1038/425645a. PMID 14562060. S2CID 4380827.
Noble WS (October 2017). "Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers". PLOS Computational Biology. 13 (10): e1005730. Bibcode:2017PLSCB..13E5730N. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730. PMC 5638205. PMID 29023444.
"Working double-blind". Nature. 451 (7179): 605–606. 2008. Bibcode:2008Natur.451R.605.. doi:10.1038/451605b. PMID 18256621. S2CID 4344755.
Sanders JK (January 2020). "Editorial 2020: Changing publishing and academic culture". Royal Society Open Science. 7 (1): 192197. Bibcode:2020RSOS....792197S. doi:10.1098/rsos.192197. ISSN 2054-5703. PMC 7029889. PMID 32218987.
Reaves ML, Sinha S, Rabinowitz JD, Kruglyak L, Redfield RJ (July 2012). "Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells". Science. 337 (6093): 470–473. arXiv:1201.6643. Bibcode:2012Sci...337..470R. doi:10.1126/science.1219861. PMC 3845625. PMID 22773140.
Csiszar A (2016). "Peer Review: Troubled from the Start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi:10.1038/532306a. PMID 27111616.
Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I (2014). "Publishing: The Peer-Review Scam". Nature. 515 (7528): 480–482. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..480F. doi:10.1038/515480a. PMID 25428481.
Wong VS, Avalos LN, Callaham ML (2019). "Industry Payments to Physician Journal Editors". PLOS ONE. 14 (2): e0211495. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1411495W. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211495. PMC 6366761. PMID 30730904.
Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F (2019). "The Effect of Publishing Peer Review Reports on Referee Behavior in Five Scholarly Journals". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 322. Bibcode:2019NatCo..10..322B. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2. PMC 6338763. PMID 30659186.
Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, Marušić A (2017). "Publishing: Journals Could Share Peer-Review Data". Nature. 546 (7658): 352. Bibcode:2017Natur.546Q.352S. doi:10.1038/546352a. hdl:2434/626022. PMID 28617464. S2CID 52858966.
Siler K, Lee K, Bero L (2015). "Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (2): 360–365. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112..360S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112. PMC 4299220. PMID 25535380.
Grimaldo F, Paolucci M (March 14, 2013). "A simulation of disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review". Advances in Complex Systems. 16 (7): 1350004. Bibcode:2005AdCS....8...15L. doi:10.1142/S0219525913500045. S2CID 2590479.
Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ (January 2008). "Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 23 (1): 4–6. Bibcode:2008TEcoE..23....4B. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008. PMID 17963996.
Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, Marusic A, Mehmani B, Willis M, et al. (January 6, 2021). "Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals". Science Advances. 7 (2): eabd0299. Bibcode:2021SciA....7..299S. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd0299. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 7787493. PMID 33523967.
Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I (November 2014). "Publishing: The peer-review scam". Nature. 515 (7528): 480–482. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..480F. doi:10.1038/515480a. PMID 25428481. S2CID 4447250.
Pinna N, Clavel G, Roco MC (2020). "The Journal of Nanoparticle Research victim of an organized rogue editor network!". Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 22 (12): 376. Bibcode:2020JNR....22..376P. doi:10.1007/s11051-020-05094-0. ISSN 1388-0764. S2CID 229182904.
Soon W, Baliunas S (2003). "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years". Climate Research. 23: 89–110. Bibcode:2003ClRes..23...89S. doi:10.3354/cr023089.
Holliday VT, Daulton TL, Bartlein PJ, Boslough MB, Breslawski RP, Fisher AE, et al. (July 26, 2023). "Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH)". Earth-Science Reviews. 247: 104502. Bibcode:2023ESRv..24704502H. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104502.
Rennie D (July 7, 2016). "Let's make peer review scientific". Nature. 535 (7610): 31–33. Bibcode:2016Natur.535...31R. doi:10.1038/535031a. PMID 27383970. S2CID 4408375.

dash.harvard.edu

Suber P (September 2, 2007). "Will open access undermine peer review?". SPARC Open Access Newsletter.

historynewsnetwork.org

"Historians on the Hot Seat". History News Network. April 23, 2010.

iapr.org

Lawrence O'Gorman (January 2008). "The (Frustrating) State of Peer Review" (PDF). IAPR Newsletter. 30 (1): 3–5.

icmje.org

"Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals". ICMJE. December 16, 2014. Retrieved June 26, 2015.

insidehighered.com

"Peer-review crisis creates problems for journals and scholars". www.insidehighered.com. Retrieved June 15, 2022.

jisc.ac.uk

"The Peer Review Process" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 21, 2012. Retrieved January 4, 2012.

jstor.org

Schwartz SM, Slater DW, Heydrick FP, Woolett GR (September 1995). "A Report of the AIBS Peer-Review Process for the US Army's 1994 Breast Cancer Initiative". BioScience. 45 (8): 558–563. doi:10.1093/bioscience/45.8.558. JSTOR 1312702.

kent.ac.uk

kar.kent.ac.uk

Moxham N, Fyfe A (2018). "The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965" (PDF). The Historical Journal. 61 (4): 863–889. doi:10.1017/S0018246X17000334. S2CID 164984479.

le.ac.uk

www2.le.ac.uk

Coleman AM (1979). "Editorial role in author-referee disagreements" (PDF). Bulletin of the British Psychological Society. 32: 390–391. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 10, 2017. Retrieved November 12, 2018.

mit.edu

haystack.csail.mit.edu

"A Proposal for Increasing Evaluation in CS Research Publication" Archived August 16, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, David Karger, 17 February 2011

mja.com.au

Horton R (February 2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". The Medical Journal of Australia. 172 (4): 148–149. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2000.tb125533.x. PMID 10772580. S2CID 36401069.

nap.edu

books.nap.edu

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 1995, 82 pages, ISBN 0309119707^{[page needed]}

nature.com

"Peer-review policy : authors & referees @ npg". www.nature.com. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
Koonin E (2006). "Reviving a culture of scientific debate". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05005 (inactive November 2, 2024). Archived from the original on December 21, 2012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)

blogs.nature.com

Markus A (December 28, 2005). "Double-blind peer review?". Archived from the original on October 22, 2020. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
Moore J (2006). "Does Peer Review Mean the Same to the Public as It Does to Scientists?". Nature peer review debate. peertopeer Peer review blog. Archived from the original on September 23, 2021. Retrieved May 23, 2023 – via Nature.

newscientist.com

"Bucking the Big Bang"., Eric Lerner, New Scientist.

nih.gov

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). "Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study". Science. 341 (6152): 1331. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1331. PMID 24052283.
Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. (June 2007). "The ups and downs of peer review". Advances in Physiology Education. 31 (2): 145–152 [145]. doi:10.1152/advan.00104.2006. PMID 17562902. S2CID 296058. Scientific peer review has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication.
Csiszar A (April 2016). "Peer review: Troubled from the start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi:10.1038/532306a. PMID 27111616. S2CID 4458585.
Spier R (August 2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology. 20 (8): 357–358. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6. PMID 12127284.
"Coping with peer rejection". Nature. 425 (6959): 645. October 2003. Bibcode:2003Natur.425..645.. doi:10.1038/425645a. PMID 14562060. S2CID 4380827.
Rennie D, Flanagin A (January 2018). "Three Decades of Peer Review Congresses". JAMA. 319 (4): 350–353. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.20606. PMID 29362775.
Roos AM (2022). "Publish and flourish, or the collective wisdom of peer review". Notes and Records. 76 (3): 335–6. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2022.0022. PMC 9364700. PMID 35974900.
"Summary Report of Journal Operations, 2016". American Psychologist. 72 (5): 499–500. 2017. doi:10.1037/amp0000172. PMID 28726464. S2CID 1271000.
Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE (December 2003). "How to review a paper". Advances in Physiology Education. 27 (1–4): 47–52. doi:10.1152/advan.00057.2002. PMID 12760840. S2CID 35635960.
Pless IB (August 2006). "When reviewers disagree". Injury Prevention. 12 (4): 211. doi:10.1136/ip.2006.090806. PMC 2586794. PMID 16887940.
Grimm D (2005). "Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published". Science. 309 (5743): 1974. doi:10.1126/science.309.5743.1974. PMID 16179438. S2CID 38626590.
Noble WS (October 2017). "Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers". PLOS Computational Biology. 13 (10): e1005730. Bibcode:2017PLSCB..13E5730N. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730. PMC 5638205. PMID 29023444.
Chloros GD, Giannoudis VP, Giannoudis PV (January 1, 2022). "Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish?". Annals of Surgery. 275 (1): e82 – e90. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004756. ISSN 1528-1140. PMID 33630457. S2CID 232049402.
Satyanarayana K (2013). "Journal publishing: the changing landscape". The Indian Journal of Medical Research. 138 (1): 4–7. PMC 3767268. PMID 24056548.
"Working double-blind". Nature. 451 (7179): 605–606. 2008. Bibcode:2008Natur.451R.605.. doi:10.1038/451605b. PMID 18256621. S2CID 4344755.
Mainguy G, Motamedi MR, Mietchen D (September 2005). "Peer review--the newcomers' perspective". PLOS Biology. 3 (9): e326. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326. PMC 1201308. PMID 16149851.
Rothwell PM, Martyn CN (September 2000). "Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?". Brain. 123 (9): 1964–1969. doi:10.1093/brain/123.9.1964. PMID 10960059.
Ross-Hellauer T (August 31, 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6. F1000 Research Ltd: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.
Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G (January 2000). "Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 176 (1): 47–51. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.47. PMID 10789326.
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (January 1999). "Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial". BMJ. 318 (7175): 23–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23. PMC 27670. PMID 9872878.
Sanders JK (January 2020). "Editorial 2020: Changing publishing and academic culture". Royal Society Open Science. 7 (1): 192197. Bibcode:2020RSOS....792197S. doi:10.1098/rsos.192197. ISSN 2054-5703. PMC 7029889. PMID 32218987.
Slavov N (November 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4. doi:10.7554/elife.12708. PMC 4641509. PMID 26559758.
Pöschl U (2012). "Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation". Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 6: 33. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033. PMC 3389610. PMID 22783183.
Yeo SK, Liang X, Brossard D, Rose KM, Korzekwa K, Scheufele DA, et al. (2017). "The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review". Public Understanding of Science. 26 (8): 937–952. doi:10.1177/0963662516649806. PMID 27229853. S2CID 20905189.
Reaves ML, Sinha S, Rabinowitz JD, Kruglyak L, Redfield RJ (July 2012). "Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells". Science. 337 (6093): 470–473. arXiv:1201.6643. Bibcode:2012Sci...337..470R. doi:10.1126/science.1219861. PMC 3845625. PMID 22773140.
Newcombe RG (September 1987). "Towards a reduction in publication bias". British Medical Journal. 295 (6599): 656–659. doi:10.1136/bmj.295.6599.656. PMC 1257777. PMID 3117278.
Glymour MM, Kawachi I (2005). "Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: Here's a proposal for editors that may help reduce publication bias". BMJ. 331 (7517): 638.2. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7517.638-a. PMC 1215604. PMID 16166149.
Smulders YM (2013). "A two-step manuscript submission process can reduce publication bias". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 66 (9): 946–947. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.023. PMID 23845183.
Lawlor DA (2007). "Quality in epidemiological research: Should we be submitting papers before we have the results and submitting more hypothesis-generating research?". International Journal of Epidemiology. 36 (5): 940–943. doi:10.1093/ije/dym168. PMID 17875575.
Chambers CD (March 2013). "Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex" (PDF). Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior. 49 (3): 609–610. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016. hdl:2027.42/144295. PMID 23347556. S2CID 140204881.
Sridharan L, Greenland P (2009). "Editorial Policies and Publication Bias". Archives of Internal Medicine. 169 (11): 1022–1023. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.100. PMID 19506169. S2CID 5158555.
Squazzoni F, Brezis E, Marušić A (October 1, 2017). "Scientometrics of peer review". Scientometrics. 113 (1): 501–502. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4. ISSN 1588-2861. PMC 5629222. PMID 29056787.
Horton R (February 2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". The Medical Journal of Australia. 172 (4): 148–149. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2000.tb125533.x. PMID 10772580. S2CID 36401069.
Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F (April 18, 2007). Cochrane Methodology Review Group (ed.). "Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010 (2): MR000016. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3. PMC 8973931. PMID 17443635.
Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I (December 2016). "Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis". BMC Medicine. 14 (1): 85. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5. ISSN 1741-7015. PMC 4902984. PMID 27287500.
Couchman JR (November 11, 2013). "Peer Review and Reproducibility. Crisis or Time for Course Correction?". Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry. 62 (1): 9–10. doi:10.1369/0022155413513462. PMC 3873808. PMID 24217925.
Ioannidis JP (2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". PLOS Medicine. 2 (8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMC 1182327. PMID 16060722.
Csiszar A (2016). "Peer Review: Troubled from the Start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi:10.1038/532306a. PMID 27111616.
Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I (2014). "Publishing: The Peer-Review Scam". Nature. 515 (7528): 480–482. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..480F. doi:10.1038/515480a. PMID 25428481.
Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR (1998). "Phenomena of Retraction: Reasons for Retraction and Citations to the Publications". JAMA. 280 (3): 296–297. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.296. PMID 9676689.
Smith R (2006). "Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99 (4): 178–182. doi:10.1177/014107680609900414. PMC 1420798. PMID 16574968.
Ross-Hellauer T (2017). "What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.
Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, et al. (2017). "A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review". F1000Research. 6: 1151. doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.3. PMC 5686505. PMID 29188015.
Wong VS, Avalos LN, Callaham ML (2019). "Industry Payments to Physician Journal Editors". PLOS ONE. 14 (2): e0211495. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1411495W. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211495. PMC 6366761. PMID 30730904.
Weiss GJ, Davis RB (2019). "Discordant Financial Conflicts of Interest Disclosures between Clinical Trial Conference Abstract and Subsequent Publication". PeerJ. 7: e6423. doi:10.7717/peerj.6423. PMC 6375255. PMID 30775185.
Flaherty DK (2013). "Ghost- and Guest-Authored Pharmaceutical Industry–Sponsored Studies: Abuse of Academic Integrity, the Peer Review System, and Public Trust". The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 47 (7–8): 1081–1083. doi:10.1345/aph.1R691. PMID 23585648. S2CID 22513775.
Relman AS (1990). "Peer Review in Scientific Journals--What Good Is It?". Western Journal of Medicine. 153 (5): 520–522. PMC 1002603. PMID 2260288.
Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F (2019). "The Effect of Publishing Peer Review Reports on Referee Behavior in Five Scholarly Journals". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 322. Bibcode:2019NatCo..10..322B. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2. PMC 6338763. PMID 30659186.
Tennant JP (2018). "The State of the Art in Peer Review". FEMS Microbiology Letters. 365 (19). doi:10.1093/femsle/fny204. PMC 6140953. PMID 30137294.
Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, Marušić A (2017). "Publishing: Journals Could Share Peer-Review Data". Nature. 546 (7658): 352. Bibcode:2017Natur.546Q.352S. doi:10.1038/546352a. hdl:2434/626022. PMID 28617464. S2CID 52858966.
Fang FC, Casadevall A (2011). "Retracted Science and the Retraction Index". Infection and Immunity. 79 (10): 3855–3859. doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11. PMC 3187237. PMID 21825063.
Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK (2016). "Why Articles Are Retracted: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study of Retraction Notices at BioMed Central". BMJ Open. 6 (11): e012047. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047. PMC 5168538. PMID 27881524.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science". Science. 349 (6251): aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716. hdl:10722/230596. PMID 26315443. S2CID 218065162.
Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie Du Sert N, et al. (2017). "A Manifesto for Reproducible Science". Nature Human Behaviour. 1 (1): 0021. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021. PMC 7610724. PMID 33954258.
Fanelli D (2018). "Opinion: Is Science Really Facing a Reproducibility Crisis, and Do We Need It To?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (11): 2628–2631. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708272114. PMC 5856498. PMID 29531051.
Goodman SN (1994). "Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine". Annals of Internal Medicine. 121 (1): 11–21. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003. PMID 8198342. S2CID 5716602.
Pierson CA (2018). "Peer review and journal quality". Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. 30 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1097/JXX.0000000000000018. PMID 29757914. S2CID 46888329.
Siler K, Lee K, Bero L (2015). "Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (2): 360–365. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112..360S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112. PMC 4299220. PMID 25535380.
Resnik DB, Elmore SA (2016). "Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors". Science and Engineering Ethics. 22 (1): 169–188. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5. PMID 25633924. S2CID 3641934.
Priem J, Hemminger BM (2012). "Decoupling the Scholarly Journal". Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 6: 19. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019. PMC 3319915. PMID 22493574.
McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, Buck S, Kenall A, Lin J, et al. (2016). "Point of View: How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed". eLife. 5. doi:10.7554/eLife.16800. PMC 4973366. PMID 27387362.
Brembs B (2019). "Reliable Novelty: New Should Not Trump True". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000117. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117. PMC 6372144. PMID 30753184.
Stern BM, o'Shea EK (2019). "A Proposal for the Future of Scientific Publishing in the Life Sciences". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000116. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116. PMC 6372143. PMID 30753179.
Boudreau KJ, Guinan E, Lakhani K, Riedl C (October 2016). "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science". Management Science. 62 (10): 2765–2783. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285. PMC 5062254. PMID 27746512.
van den Besselaar P, Sandström U, Schiffbaenker H (October 2018). "Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports". Scientometrics. 117 (1): 313–329. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x. ISSN 0138-9130. PMC 6132964. PMID 30220747.
Osmond DH (March 1983). "Malice's wonderland: research funding and peer review". Journal of Neurobiology. 14 (2): 95–112. doi:10.1002/neu.480140202. PMID 6842193. Archived from the original on March 18, 2009. Retrieved June 24, 2015. ... they may strongly resist a rival's hypothesis that challenges their own
Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ (January 2008). "Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 23 (1): 4–6. Bibcode:2008TEcoE..23....4B. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008. PMID 17963996.
Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, Marusic A, Mehmani B, Willis M, et al. (January 6, 2021). "Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals". Science Advances. 7 (2): eabd0299. Bibcode:2021SciA....7..299S. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd0299. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 7787493. PMID 33523967.
Björk BC, Solomon D (2012). "Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact". BMC Medicine. 10: 73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73. PMC 3398850. PMID 22805105.
Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML (September 1998). "Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance". Annals of Emergency Medicine. 32 (3 Pt 1): 310–317. doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X. PMID 9737492.
Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I (November 2014). "Publishing: The peer-review scam". Nature. 515 (7528): 480–482. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..480F. doi:10.1038/515480a. PMID 25428481. S2CID 4447250.
Tai MM (February 1994). "A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves". Diabetes Care. 17 (2): 152–154. doi:10.2337/diacare.17.2.152. PMID 8137688. S2CID 42761923.
Rennie D (July 7, 2016). "Let's make peer review scientific". Nature. 535 (7610): 31–33. Bibcode:2016Natur.535...31R. doi:10.1038/535031a. PMID 27383970. S2CID 4408375.
Slavov N (November 11, 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4: e12708. doi:10.7554/eLife.12708. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 4641509. PMID 26559758.
Cosgrove A, Cheifet B (November 27, 2018). "Transparent peer review trial: the results". Genome Biology. 19 (1): 206. doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1584-0. ISSN 1474-760X. PMC 6260718. PMID 30482224.
Patterson M, Schekman R (June 26, 2018). "A new twist on peer review". eLife. 7: e36545. doi:10.7554/eLife.36545. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 6019064. PMID 29944117.
Ross-Hellauer T (August 31, 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.
Else H (November 3, 2022). "eLife won't reject papers once they are under review — what researchers think". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-03534-6. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 36329143. S2CID 253302170.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Roos AM (2022). "Publish and flourish, or the collective wisdom of peer review". Notes and Records. 76 (3): 335–6. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2022.0022. PMC 9364700. PMID 35974900.
Pless IB (August 2006). "When reviewers disagree". Injury Prevention. 12 (4): 211. doi:10.1136/ip.2006.090806. PMC 2586794. PMID 16887940.
Noble WS (October 2017). "Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers". PLOS Computational Biology. 13 (10): e1005730. Bibcode:2017PLSCB..13E5730N. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730. PMC 5638205. PMID 29023444.
Satyanarayana K (2013). "Journal publishing: the changing landscape". The Indian Journal of Medical Research. 138 (1): 4–7. PMC 3767268. PMID 24056548.
Mainguy G, Motamedi MR, Mietchen D (September 2005). "Peer review--the newcomers' perspective". PLOS Biology. 3 (9): e326. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326. PMC 1201308. PMID 16149851.
Ross-Hellauer T (August 31, 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6. F1000 Research Ltd: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (January 1999). "Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial". BMJ. 318 (7175): 23–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23. PMC 27670. PMID 9872878.
Sanders JK (January 2020). "Editorial 2020: Changing publishing and academic culture". Royal Society Open Science. 7 (1): 192197. Bibcode:2020RSOS....792197S. doi:10.1098/rsos.192197. ISSN 2054-5703. PMC 7029889. PMID 32218987.
Slavov N (November 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4. doi:10.7554/elife.12708. PMC 4641509. PMID 26559758.
Pöschl U (2012). "Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation". Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 6: 33. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033. PMC 3389610. PMID 22783183.
Reaves ML, Sinha S, Rabinowitz JD, Kruglyak L, Redfield RJ (July 2012). "Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells". Science. 337 (6093): 470–473. arXiv:1201.6643. Bibcode:2012Sci...337..470R. doi:10.1126/science.1219861. PMC 3845625. PMID 22773140.
Newcombe RG (September 1987). "Towards a reduction in publication bias". British Medical Journal. 295 (6599): 656–659. doi:10.1136/bmj.295.6599.656. PMC 1257777. PMID 3117278.
Glymour MM, Kawachi I (2005). "Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: Here's a proposal for editors that may help reduce publication bias". BMJ. 331 (7517): 638.2. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7517.638-a. PMC 1215604. PMID 16166149.
Squazzoni F, Brezis E, Marušić A (October 1, 2017). "Scientometrics of peer review". Scientometrics. 113 (1): 501–502. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4. ISSN 1588-2861. PMC 5629222. PMID 29056787.
Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F (April 18, 2007). Cochrane Methodology Review Group (ed.). "Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010 (2): MR000016. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3. PMC 8973931. PMID 17443635.
Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I (December 2016). "Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis". BMC Medicine. 14 (1): 85. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5. ISSN 1741-7015. PMC 4902984. PMID 27287500.
Couchman JR (November 11, 2013). "Peer Review and Reproducibility. Crisis or Time for Course Correction?". Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry. 62 (1): 9–10. doi:10.1369/0022155413513462. PMC 3873808. PMID 24217925.
Ioannidis JP (2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". PLOS Medicine. 2 (8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMC 1182327. PMID 16060722.
Smith R (2006). "Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99 (4): 178–182. doi:10.1177/014107680609900414. PMC 1420798. PMID 16574968.
Ross-Hellauer T (2017). "What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.
Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, et al. (2017). "A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review". F1000Research. 6: 1151. doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.3. PMC 5686505. PMID 29188015.
Wong VS, Avalos LN, Callaham ML (2019). "Industry Payments to Physician Journal Editors". PLOS ONE. 14 (2): e0211495. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1411495W. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211495. PMC 6366761. PMID 30730904.
Weiss GJ, Davis RB (2019). "Discordant Financial Conflicts of Interest Disclosures between Clinical Trial Conference Abstract and Subsequent Publication". PeerJ. 7: e6423. doi:10.7717/peerj.6423. PMC 6375255. PMID 30775185.
Relman AS (1990). "Peer Review in Scientific Journals--What Good Is It?". Western Journal of Medicine. 153 (5): 520–522. PMC 1002603. PMID 2260288.
Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F (2019). "The Effect of Publishing Peer Review Reports on Referee Behavior in Five Scholarly Journals". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 322. Bibcode:2019NatCo..10..322B. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2. PMC 6338763. PMID 30659186.
Tennant JP (2018). "The State of the Art in Peer Review". FEMS Microbiology Letters. 365 (19). doi:10.1093/femsle/fny204. PMC 6140953. PMID 30137294.
Fang FC, Casadevall A (2011). "Retracted Science and the Retraction Index". Infection and Immunity. 79 (10): 3855–3859. doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11. PMC 3187237. PMID 21825063.
Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK (2016). "Why Articles Are Retracted: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study of Retraction Notices at BioMed Central". BMJ Open. 6 (11): e012047. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047. PMC 5168538. PMID 27881524.
Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie Du Sert N, et al. (2017). "A Manifesto for Reproducible Science". Nature Human Behaviour. 1 (1): 0021. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021. PMC 7610724. PMID 33954258.
Fanelli D (2018). "Opinion: Is Science Really Facing a Reproducibility Crisis, and Do We Need It To?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (11): 2628–2631. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708272114. PMC 5856498. PMID 29531051.
Siler K, Lee K, Bero L (2015). "Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (2): 360–365. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112..360S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112. PMC 4299220. PMID 25535380.
Priem J, Hemminger BM (2012). "Decoupling the Scholarly Journal". Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 6: 19. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019. PMC 3319915. PMID 22493574.
McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, Buck S, Kenall A, Lin J, et al. (2016). "Point of View: How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed". eLife. 5. doi:10.7554/eLife.16800. PMC 4973366. PMID 27387362.
Brembs B (2019). "Reliable Novelty: New Should Not Trump True". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000117. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117. PMC 6372144. PMID 30753184.
Stern BM, o'Shea EK (2019). "A Proposal for the Future of Scientific Publishing in the Life Sciences". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000116. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116. PMC 6372143. PMID 30753179.
Boudreau KJ, Guinan E, Lakhani K, Riedl C (October 2016). "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science". Management Science. 62 (10): 2765–2783. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285. PMC 5062254. PMID 27746512.
van den Besselaar P, Sandström U, Schiffbaenker H (October 2018). "Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports". Scientometrics. 117 (1): 313–329. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x. ISSN 0138-9130. PMC 6132964. PMID 30220747.
Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, Marusic A, Mehmani B, Willis M, et al. (January 6, 2021). "Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals". Science Advances. 7 (2): eabd0299. Bibcode:2021SciA....7..299S. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd0299. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 7787493. PMID 33523967.
Björk BC, Solomon D (2012). "Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact". BMC Medicine. 10: 73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73. PMC 3398850. PMID 22805105.
Slavov N (November 11, 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4: e12708. doi:10.7554/eLife.12708. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 4641509. PMID 26559758.
Cosgrove A, Cheifet B (November 27, 2018). "Transparent peer review trial: the results". Genome Biology. 19 (1): 206. doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1584-0. ISSN 1474-760X. PMC 6260718. PMID 30482224.
Patterson M, Schekman R (June 26, 2018). "A new twist on peer review". eLife. 7: e36545. doi:10.7554/eLife.36545. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 6019064. PMID 29944117.
Ross-Hellauer T (August 31, 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.

nnrh.dk

Dougherty MV, Harsting P, Friedman R (2009). "40 Cases of Plagiarism" (PDF). Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale. 51: 350–391.

nsf.gov

"Data Management & Sharing Frequently Asked Questions". National Science Foundation. November 30, 2010. Archived from the original on July 11, 2017. Retrieved September 8, 2012.

nytimes.com

Coy P (January 28, 2022). "Opinion | How to Disseminate Science Quickly". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
Coy P (January 28, 2022). "Opinion | How to Disseminate Science Quickly". The New York Times. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
Schwarz A, Bogdanich W, Williams J (March 24, 2016). "N.F.L.'s Flawed Concussion Research and Ties to Tobacco Industry". The New York Times..
Carroll AE (November 5, 2018). "Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others". The New York Times., Aaron E. Carroll, New York Times.

osf.io

"Registered Reports", OSF

overcomingbias.com

"Conclusion-Blind Review", 16 January 2007; "Result Blind Review", 6 November 2010; "Who Wants Unbiased Journals?", 27 April 2012

parliament.uk

publications.parliament.uk

"The Origin of the Scientific Journal and the Process of Peer Review". House of Commons. The Publishers Association. July 20, 2004. Retrieved December 3, 2024.

peerj.com

Wiseman et al 2019, "Registered reports: an early example and analysis"

phys.org

Yirka B (January 7, 2020). "Analysis: Peer review process unlikely to be primary cause of gender publishing inequalities in scholarly journals". phys.org. Retrieved February 6, 2021.

pogo.org

"Frequently asked questions about medical ghostwriting". June 28, 2011. Archived from the original on March 18, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021..

psu.edu

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu

Armstrong JS (1982). "Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors". Journal of Forecasting. 1: 83–104. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.468.1453. doi:10.1002/for.3980010109. S2CID 11911654.
Armstrong JS (1997). "Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation". Science and Engineering Ethics. 3: 63–84. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.37.5054. doi:10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3. S2CID 7920654.

publicationethics.org

"COPE statement on inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes". publicationethics.org. December 19, 2014.

queensu.ca

post.queensu.ca

Osmond DH (March 1983). "Malice's wonderland: research funding and peer review". Journal of Neurobiology. 14 (2): 95–112. doi:10.1002/neu.480140202. PMID 6842193. Archived from the original on March 18, 2009. Retrieved June 24, 2015. ... they may strongly resist a rival's hypothesis that challenges their own

realclimate.org

"Skeptics get a journal" (PDF)., Paul Thacker, 2005.

researchers.one

"In peer review we (don't) trust: How peer review's filtering poses a systemic risk to science". researchers.one.

retractionwatch.com

"Journal's new program: Choose your own reviewers – and get a decision in days". Retraction Watch. December 12, 2016. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
"Eight retractions for fake reviews lead journal to suspend author nominations". Retraction Watch. December 24, 2015. Retrieved April 17, 2018.

reviewercredits.com

Dyke G (2023). "Interview with Dr. Neeraj Kumar Sethiya, the newest ReviewerCredits ambassador".

rrresearch.blogspot.com

Redfield, Rosemary (4 December 2010). "Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA's claims)". RR Research blog. Retrieved 4 December 2010.

sagepub.com

journals.sagepub.com

Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.

scienceopen.com

blog.scienceopen.com

Elizabeth Allen (September 29, 2017) [December 8, 2014]. "The recipe for our (not so) secret Post-Publication Peer Review sauce!". ScienceOpen.com. Retrieved January 13, 2015.

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. (June 2007). "The ups and downs of peer review". Advances in Physiology Education. 31 (2): 145–152 [145]. doi:10.1152/advan.00104.2006. PMID 17562902. S2CID 296058. Scientific peer review has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication.
Pontille D, Torny D (2014). "From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: the changing technologies of journal peer review". Human Studies. 38: 57–79. doi:10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z. S2CID 53387591.
Csiszar A (April 2016). "Peer review: Troubled from the start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi:10.1038/532306a. PMID 27111616. S2CID 4458585.
Kennefick D (September 2005). "Einstein versus the Physical Review". Physics Today. 58 (9): 43–48. Bibcode:2005PhT....58i..43K. doi:10.1063/1.2117822. S2CID 122132354.
Baldwin M (September 1, 2018). "Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of "Peer Review" in the Cold War United States". Isis. 109 (3): 538–558. doi:10.1086/700070. ISSN 0021-1753. S2CID 150175444.
"Coping with peer rejection". Nature. 425 (6959): 645. October 2003. Bibcode:2003Natur.425..645.. doi:10.1038/425645a. PMID 14562060. S2CID 4380827.
Biagioli M (2002). "From book censorship to academic peer review". Emergences. 12 (1): 11–45. doi:10.1080/1045722022000003435. S2CID 143577949.
Rip A (1985). "Commentary: Peer review is alive and well in the United States". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 10 (3): 82–86. doi:10.1177/016224398501000310. S2CID 144738593.
Hirschauer S (2010). "Editorial judgements: A praxeology of 'voting' in peer review". Social Studies of Science. 40 (1): 71–103. doi:10.1177/0306312709335405. S2CID 145222636.
Stolowy H (2017). "Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk Rejected at European Accounting Review". European Accounting Review. 26 (3): 411–418. doi:10.1080/09638180.2017.1347360. S2CID 157531858.
"Summary Report of Journal Operations, 2016". American Psychologist. 72 (5): 499–500. 2017. doi:10.1037/amp0000172. PMID 28726464. S2CID 1271000.
Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE (December 2003). "How to review a paper". Advances in Physiology Education. 27 (1–4): 47–52. doi:10.1152/advan.00057.2002. PMID 12760840. S2CID 35635960.
Grimm D (2005). "Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published". Science. 309 (5743): 1974. doi:10.1126/science.309.5743.1974. PMID 16179438. S2CID 38626590.
Chloros GD, Giannoudis VP, Giannoudis PV (January 1, 2022). "Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish?". Annals of Surgery. 275 (1): e82 – e90. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004756. ISSN 1528-1140. PMID 33630457. S2CID 232049402.
Armstrong JS (1982). "Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors". Journal of Forecasting. 1: 83–104. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.468.1453. doi:10.1002/for.3980010109. S2CID 11911654.
Cressey D (2014). "Journals weigh up double-blind peer review". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15564. S2CID 155896469.
"Working double-blind". Nature. 451 (7179): 605–606. 2008. Bibcode:2008Natur.451R.605.. doi:10.1038/451605b. PMID 18256621. S2CID 4344755.
Moore R, Rajasekar A, Wan M (2005). "Data Grids, Digital Libraries, and Persistent Archives: An Integrated Approach to Sharing, Publishing, and Archiving Data". Proceedings of the IEEE. 93 (3): 578–588. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2004.842761. S2CID 8597031.
Yeo SK, Liang X, Brossard D, Rose KM, Korzekwa K, Scheufele DA, et al. (2017). "The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review". Public Understanding of Science. 26 (8): 937–952. doi:10.1177/0963662516649806. PMID 27229853. S2CID 20905189.
Mahoney MJ (1977). "Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system". Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1 (2): 161–175. doi:10.1007/BF01173636. S2CID 7350256.
Walster GW, Cleary TA (1970). "A Proposal for a New Editorial Policy in the Social Sciences". The American Statistician. 24 (2): 16–19. doi:10.1080/00031305.1970.10478884. S2CID 20366741.
Armstrong JS (1997). "Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation". Science and Engineering Ethics. 3: 63–84. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.37.5054. doi:10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3. S2CID 7920654.
Nyhan B (2015). "Increasing the Credibility of Political Science Research: A Proposal for Journal Reforms". PS: Political Science & Politics. 48: 78–83. doi:10.1017/S1049096515000463 (inactive November 1, 2024). S2CID 154801036.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
Chambers CD (March 2013). "Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex" (PDF). Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior. 49 (3): 609–610. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016. hdl:2027.42/144295. PMID 23347556. S2CID 140204881.
The Editors of The Lancet (2015). "Protocol review at The Lancet: 1997–2015". The Lancet. 386 (10012): 2456–2457. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01131-9. S2CID 140207427.
"Promoting reproducibility with registered reports". Nature Human Behaviour. 1: 0034. 2017. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0034. S2CID 28976450.
Armstrong J (1996). "Publication of research on controversial topics: The early acceptance procedure". International Journal of Forecasting. 12 (2): 299–302. doi:10.1016/0169-2070(95)00626-5. S2CID 8545569.
Weiss DJ (1989). "An Experiment in Publication: Advance Publication Review". Applied Psychological Measurement. 13: 1–7. doi:10.1177/014662168901300101. S2CID 122661856.
Sridharan L, Greenland P (2009). "Editorial Policies and Publication Bias". Archives of Internal Medicine. 169 (11): 1022–1023. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.100. PMID 19506169. S2CID 5158555.
Findley MG, Jensen NM, Malesky EJ, Pepinsky TB (2016). "Can Results-Free Review Reduce Publication Bias? The Results and Implications of a Pilot Study". Comparative Political Studies. 49 (13): 1667–1703. doi:10.1177/0010414016655539. S2CID 44705752.
Ragone A, Mirylenka K, Casati F, Marchese M (November 1, 2013). "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement". Scientometrics. 97 (2): 317–356. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z. ISSN 0138-9130. S2CID 16803499.
Horton R (February 2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". The Medical Journal of Australia. 172 (4): 148–149. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2000.tb125533.x. PMID 10772580. S2CID 36401069.
Brezis ES, Birukou A (April 1, 2020). "Arbitrariness in the peer review process". Scientometrics. 123 (1): 393–411. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1. ISSN 1588-2861. S2CID 211017926. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Moxham N, Fyfe A (2018). "The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965" (PDF). The Historical Journal. 61 (4): 863–889. doi:10.1017/S0018246X17000334. S2CID 164984479.
Jarvis S (September 2017). "The perils of peer review". Veterinary Record. 181 (12): 303–304. doi:10.1136/vr.j4362. S2CID 56853522.
Flaherty DK (2013). "Ghost- and Guest-Authored Pharmaceutical Industry–Sponsored Studies: Abuse of Academic Integrity, the Peer Review System, and Public Trust". The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 47 (7–8): 1081–1083. doi:10.1345/aph.1R691. PMID 23585648. S2CID 22513775.
Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, Marušić A (2017). "Publishing: Journals Could Share Peer-Review Data". Nature. 546 (7658): 352. Bibcode:2017Natur.546Q.352S. doi:10.1038/546352a. hdl:2434/626022. PMID 28617464. S2CID 52858966.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science". Science. 349 (6251): aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716. hdl:10722/230596. PMID 26315443. S2CID 218065162.
Goodman SN (1994). "Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine". Annals of Internal Medicine. 121 (1): 11–21. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003. PMID 8198342. S2CID 5716602.
Pierson CA (2018). "Peer review and journal quality". Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. 30 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1097/JXX.0000000000000018. PMID 29757914. S2CID 46888329.
Resnik DB, Elmore SA (2016). "Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors". Science and Engineering Ethics. 22 (1): 169–188. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5. PMID 25633924. S2CID 3641934.
Grimaldo F, Paolucci M (March 14, 2013). "A simulation of disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review". Advances in Complex Systems. 16 (7): 1350004. Bibcode:2005AdCS....8...15L. doi:10.1142/S0219525913500045. S2CID 2590479.
Fang H (2011). "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly". Scientometrics. 87 (2): 293–301. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0323-4. S2CID 24236419.
Rowland F (2002). "The peer-review process". Learned Publishing. 15 (4): 247–258. doi:10.1087/095315102760319206. S2CID 18368797.
Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I (November 2014). "Publishing: The peer-review scam". Nature. 515 (7528): 480–482. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..480F. doi:10.1038/515480a. PMID 25428481. S2CID 4447250.
Callaway E (2015). "Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18202. S2CID 182578881.
Pinna N, Clavel G, Roco MC (2020). "The Journal of Nanoparticle Research victim of an organized rogue editor network!". Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 22 (12): 376. Bibcode:2020JNR....22..376P. doi:10.1007/s11051-020-05094-0. ISSN 1388-0764. S2CID 229182904.
Tai MM (February 1994). "A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves". Diabetes Care. 17 (2): 152–154. doi:10.2337/diacare.17.2.152. PMID 8137688. S2CID 42761923.
Rennie D (July 7, 2016). "Let's make peer review scientific". Nature. 535 (7610): 31–33. Bibcode:2016Natur.535...31R. doi:10.1038/535031a. PMID 27383970. S2CID 4408375.
Else H (November 3, 2022). "eLife won't reject papers once they are under review — what researchers think". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-03534-6. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 36329143. S2CID 253302170.

senate.gov

grassley.senate.gov

"Ghostwriting in medical literature" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 14, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021..

slate.com

Zimmer, Carl (7 December 2010). "Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life". Slate. Retrieved 7 December 2010.

smu.edu.sg

ink.library.smu.edu.sg

Open Science Collaboration (2015). "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science". Science. 349 (6251): aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716. hdl:10722/230596. PMID 26315443. S2CID 218065162.

springer.com

"Peer Review". www.springer.com. Retrieved April 17, 2018.

sspnet.org

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

Davis P (September 25, 2017). "Portable Peer Review RIP".
"The Stars Are Aligning for Preprints". The Scholarly Kitchen. April 18, 2017. Retrieved May 19, 2018.

stm-publishing.com

"F1000Research peer-reviewed articles now visible on PubMed and PubMed Central". STM Publishing News. December 12, 2013. Retrieved January 13, 2015.

the-scientist.com

Alison McCook (February 2006). "Is Peer Review Broken?". The Scientist.
Akst J (January 6, 2020). "No Gender Bias in Peer Review: Study". The Scientist. Retrieved February 6, 2021.

theconversation.com

Spicer A. "Explainer: what is peer review?". The Conversation. Retrieved April 17, 2018.

theglobeandmail.com

Basen I (May 19, 2023). "The peer-review process is in need of some scrutiny". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 29, 2024. Einstein replied that he had not authorized anyone to review the paper before publication.

theguardian.com

"Psychology's 'registration revolution': Moves to uphold transparency are not only making psychology more scientific – they are harnessing our knowledge of the mind to strengthen science", Guardian, 20 May 2014
Petit-Zeman S (January 16, 2003). "Trial by peers comes up short". The Guardian.

thelancet.com

"Read it, understand it, believe it, use it: Principles and proposals for a more credible research publication", Green et al 2013, citing "Protocol Review"

timeshighereducation.com

"The peer review drugs don't work". Times Higher Education. May 28, 2015. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
"Peer review 'works against' early career researchers". Times Higher Education (THE). July 16, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.

tuwien.ac.at

cg.tuwien.ac.at

Purgathofer W. "Beware of VIDEA!". tuwien.ac.at. Technical University of Vienna. Retrieved April 29, 2014.

uchicago.edu

chronicle.uchicago.edu

"Obituary: Sol Tax, Anthropology". Retrieved October 22, 2010.

upenn.edu

repository.upenn.edu

Armstrong JS, Dagum EB, Fildes R, Makridakis S (1986). "Publishing Standards for Research on Forecasting (editorial)". Marketing Papers (86).
Armstrong J (1996). "Publication of research on controversial topics: The early acceptance procedure". International Journal of Forecasting. 12 (2): 299–302. doi:10.1016/0169-2070(95)00626-5. S2CID 8545569.

uva.nl

dare.uva.nl

Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie Du Sert N, et al. (2017). "A Manifesto for Reproducible Science". Nature Human Behaviour. 1 (1): 0021. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021. PMC 7610724. PMID 33954258.

washingtonpost.com

Weiss R (June 9, 2005). "Many scientists admit to misconduct: Degrees of deception vary in poll". Washington Post.

web.archive.org

"AAUP Membership Benefits and Eligibility". Association of American University Presses. Archived from the original on August 20, 2016. Retrieved August 3, 2016.
McKenzie D (February 21, 2017). "The State of Development Journals 2017: Quality, Acceptance Rates, and Review Times". Impact Evaluations. Archived from the original on April 18, 2018. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
Coleman AM (1979). "Editorial role in author-referee disagreements" (PDF). Bulletin of the British Psychological Society. 32: 390–391. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 10, 2017. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
Markus A (December 28, 2005). "Double-blind peer review?". Archived from the original on October 22, 2020. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
"Data Management & Sharing Frequently Asked Questions". National Science Foundation. November 30, 2010. Archived from the original on July 11, 2017. Retrieved September 8, 2012.
"The Peer Review Process" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 21, 2012. Retrieved January 4, 2012.
Koonin E (2006). "Reviving a culture of scientific debate". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05005 (inactive November 2, 2024). Archived from the original on December 21, 2012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
"A Proposal for Increasing Evaluation in CS Research Publication" Archived August 16, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, David Karger, 17 February 2011
Moore J (2006). "Does Peer Review Mean the Same to the Public as It Does to Scientists?". Nature peer review debate. peertopeer Peer review blog. Archived from the original on September 23, 2021. Retrieved May 23, 2023 – via Nature.
"Ghostwriting in medical literature" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 14, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021..
"Frequently asked questions about medical ghostwriting". June 28, 2011. Archived from the original on March 18, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021..
"Cargo Cult Science". Caltech Magazine. 1974. Archived from the original on August 24, 2019.
Osmond DH (March 1983). "Malice's wonderland: research funding and peer review". Journal of Neurobiology. 14 (2): 95–112. doi:10.1002/neu.480140202. PMID 6842193. Archived from the original on March 18, 2009. Retrieved June 24, 2015. ... they may strongly resist a rival's hypothesis that challenges their own
Afifi, M. "Reviewing the "Letter-to-editor" section in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000–2004". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Archived from the original on August 6, 2006.

who.int

Afifi, M. "Reviewing the "Letter-to-editor" section in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000–2004". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Archived from the original on August 6, 2006.

wired.com

Jeffrey Marlow (July 23, 2013). "Publish First, Ask Questions Later". Wired. Retrieved January 13, 2015.

worldbank.org

blogs.worldbank.org

McKenzie D (February 21, 2017). "The State of Development Journals 2017: Quality, Acceptance Rates, and Review Times". Impact Evaluations. Archived from the original on April 18, 2018. Retrieved April 17, 2018.

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org

Baldwin M (September 1, 2018). "Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of "Peer Review" in the Cold War United States". Isis. 109 (3): 538–558. doi:10.1086/700070. ISSN 0021-1753. S2CID 150175444.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Chloros GD, Giannoudis VP, Giannoudis PV (January 1, 2022). "Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish?". Annals of Surgery. 275 (1): e82 – e90. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004756. ISSN 1528-1140. PMID 33630457. S2CID 232049402.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Ross-Hellauer T (August 31, 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6. F1000 Research Ltd: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.
Sanders JK (January 2020). "Editorial 2020: Changing publishing and academic culture". Royal Society Open Science. 7 (1): 192197. Bibcode:2020RSOS....792197S. doi:10.1098/rsos.192197. ISSN 2054-5703. PMC 7029889. PMID 32218987.
Coy P (January 28, 2022). "Opinion | How to Disseminate Science Quickly". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
Thomson T, Irvine L, Thomas G (May 16, 2024). "Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline". Media International Australia. doi:10.1177/1329878X241254568. ISSN 1329-878X.
Squazzoni F, Brezis E, Marušić A (October 1, 2017). "Scientometrics of peer review". Scientometrics. 113 (1): 501–502. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4. ISSN 1588-2861. PMC 5629222. PMID 29056787.
Ragone A, Mirylenka K, Casati F, Marchese M (November 1, 2013). "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement". Scientometrics. 97 (2): 317–356. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z. ISSN 0138-9130. S2CID 16803499.
Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I (December 2016). "Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis". BMC Medicine. 14 (1): 85. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5. ISSN 1741-7015. PMC 4902984. PMID 27287500.
Brezis ES, Birukou A (April 1, 2020). "Arbitrariness in the peer review process". Scientometrics. 123 (1): 393–411. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1. ISSN 1588-2861. S2CID 211017926. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
van den Besselaar P, Sandström U, Schiffbaenker H (October 2018). "Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports". Scientometrics. 117 (1): 313–329. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x. ISSN 0138-9130. PMC 6132964. PMID 30220747.
Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, Marusic A, Mehmani B, Willis M, et al. (January 6, 2021). "Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals". Science Advances. 7 (2): eabd0299. Bibcode:2021SciA....7..299S. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd0299. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 7787493. PMID 33523967.
Pinna N, Clavel G, Roco MC (2020). "The Journal of Nanoparticle Research victim of an organized rogue editor network!". Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 22 (12): 376. Bibcode:2020JNR....22..376P. doi:10.1007/s11051-020-05094-0. ISSN 1388-0764. S2CID 229182904.
Slavov N (November 11, 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4: e12708. doi:10.7554/eLife.12708. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 4641509. PMID 26559758.
Cosgrove A, Cheifet B (November 27, 2018). "Transparent peer review trial: the results". Genome Biology. 19 (1): 206. doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1584-0. ISSN 1474-760X. PMC 6260718. PMID 30482224.
Patterson M, Schekman R (June 26, 2018). "A new twist on peer review". eLife. 7: e36545. doi:10.7554/eLife.36545. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 6019064. PMID 29944117.
Ross-Hellauer T (August 31, 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC 5437951. PMID 28580134.
Else H (November 3, 2022). "eLife won't reject papers once they are under review — what researchers think". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-03534-6. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 36329143. S2CID 253302170.

zenodo.org

Nosek BA, Lakens D (2014). "Registered Reports". Social Psychology. 45 (3): 137–141. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192.