Bias in peer review
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] J. Ioannidis,et al. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.
[2] Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al. Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review , 2013, Scientometrics.
[3] Carole J. Lee. A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review , 2012 .
[4] Terttu Luukkonen,et al. Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices , 2012 .
[5] C. Sen. Rebound peer review: a viable recourse for aggrieved authors? , 2012, Antioxidants & redox signaling.
[6] Chris I. Baker,et al. Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal , 2011, Front. Comput. Neurosci..
[7] Lutz Bornmann,et al. A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication? , 2011 .
[8] J. Havey,et al. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi‐rater study , 2011, The British journal of dermatology.
[9] R. Frodeman,et al. Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts , 2011 .
[10] B. Lawrence,et al. Citation and Peer Review of Data: Moving Towards Formal Data Publication , 2011, Int. J. Digit. Curation.
[11] Kathlyn E. Fletcher,et al. The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal , 2011, PloS one.
[12] Laura Valkonen,et al. Gender balance in Cortex acceptance rates , 2011, Cortex.
[13] T. Rees,et al. The Gendered Construction of Scientific Excellence , 2011 .
[14] Christian D. Schunn,et al. Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity , 2011, Hypatia.
[15] S. Ceci,et al. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[16] Allan Kardec Duailibe,et al. No crisis in supply of peer reviewers , 2010, Nature.
[17] L. Bornmann,et al. A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants , 2010, PloS one.
[18] Axel Boldt,et al. Extending ArXiv.org to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing , 2010, ArXiv.
[19] S. Evans,et al. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[20] Lutz Bornmann,et al. Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics , 2010, PloS one.
[21] Rebecca S. Benner,et al. Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. , 2010, Journal of women's health.
[22] Stefan Thurner,et al. Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average , 2010, 1008.4324.
[23] Ruth E. Duerr,et al. Data Citation and Peer Review , 2010 .
[24] David M. Schultz,et al. Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate , 2010, Scientometrics.
[25] Lutz Bornmann,et al. A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ? , 2010, Scientometrics.
[26] D. Fanelli. Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data , 2010, PloS one.
[27] William M. Tierney,et al. Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? , 2010, PloS one.
[28] Lutz Bornmann,et al. Reliability of reviewers' ratings when using public peer review: a case study , 2010, Learn. Publ..
[29] David M. Schultz,et al. REjEctIOn RAtES FOR jOURnAlS PUBlISHInG In tHE AtMOSPHERIc ScIEncES , 2010 .
[30] Stefan Hirschauer,et al. Editorial Judgments , 2010 .
[31] Amber E. Budden,et al. To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review , 2009 .
[32] Lutz Bornmann,et al. Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition , 2009, J. Informetrics.
[33] L. Bornmann,et al. Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches , 2009 .
[34] Fabio Casati,et al. Is peer review any good? A quantitative analysis of peer review , 2009 .
[35] D. Linden,et al. Is There Gender Bias in the Peer Review Process at Journal of Neurophysiology , 2009 .
[36] Lutz Bornmann,et al. The influence of the applicants’ gender on the modeling of a peer review process by using latent Markov models , 2009, Scientometrics.
[37] Sergio Sismondo,et al. Ghosts in the Machine , 2009, Social studies of science.
[38] Yoshiyuki Takeda,et al. Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation , 2009 .
[39] S. Isenberg,et al. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal , 2009, British Journal of Ophthalmology.
[40] M. Lamont,et al. Fairness as Appropriateness , 2009 .
[41] T. Ley,et al. The Gender Gap in NIH Grant Applications , 2008, Science.
[42] Molly C Dougherty,et al. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. , 2008, Journal of advanced nursing.
[43] Lutz Bornmann,et al. How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study , 2008, J. Informetrics.
[44] L. Bornmann,et al. The effectiveness of the peer review process: inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. , 2008, Angewandte Chemie.
[45] R. Whittaker,et al. Journal review and gender equality: a critical comment on Budden et al. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.
[46] Leif Engqvist,et al. Double-blind peer review and gender publication bias , 2008, Animal Behaviour.
[47] Lokman I. Meho,et al. A proposal for a dynamic h-type index , 2008 .
[48] Alan S. Gerber,et al. Publication Bias in Empirical Sociological Research , 2008 .
[49] Robert P Freckleton,et al. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.
[50] U. W. Jayasinghe,et al. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. , 2008, The American psychologist.
[51] Brian Ahl,et al. Sociological Reflections on My Work Experience , 2008 .
[52] David Lane. Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields , 2008, Nature.
[53] Ulf Sandström,et al. Persistent nepotism in peer-review , 2008, Scientometrics.
[54] Richard J. C. Brown,et al. Double anonymity in peer review within the chemistry periodicals community , 2007, Learn. Publ..
[55] Irene Hames,et al. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals , 2007 .
[56] Leo Egghe,et al. Uncertainty and information: Foundations of generalized information theory: Book Reviews , 2007 .
[57] L. Bornmann,et al. Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis , 2007, J. Informetrics.
[58] Lutz Bornmann,et al. Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: effects of university prestige and field of study , 2006 .
[59] M. Kon,et al. Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. , 2006, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.
[60] M. Hakel,et al. An Examination of Sources of Peer-Review Bias , 2006, Psychological science.
[61] C. Gross,et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. , 2006, JAMA.
[62] Richard Smith,et al. Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals , 2006, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
[63] J. Bargh,et al. The Automaticity of Social Life , 2006, Current directions in psychological science.
[64] Hans-Dieter Daniel,et al. Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity , 2005, Learn. Publ..
[65] D. Shatz. Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry , 2004 .
[66] H. Lacey. Is Science Value Free?: Values and Scientific Understanding , 2004 .
[67] A. Hrõbjartsson,et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. , 2004, JAMA.
[68] B. Cronin. Scholarly communication and epistemic cultures , 2003 .
[69] Michael Mabe,et al. The growth and number of journals , 2003 .
[70] Nigel W. Bond,et al. A multilevel cross‐classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings , 2003 .
[71] Harald Merckelbach,et al. Peer-Review: Let's Imitate the Lawyers! , 2002, Cortex.
[72] Joseph Smith,et al. Impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content. , 2002, The Journal of urology.
[73] Tom Tregenza,et al. Gender bias in the refereeing process , 2002 .
[74] R. Spier. The history of the peer-review process. , 2002, Trends in biotechnology.
[75] D. Rennie,et al. Publication bias in editorial decision making. , 2002, JAMA.
[76] Tony Delamothe,et al. Twenty thousand conversations , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[77] M. Biagioli. From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review , 2002 .
[78] R. Melero,et al. Referees’ Attitudes toward Open Peer Review and Electronic Transmission of Papers , 2001 .
[79] H. Longino. The Fate of Knowledge , 2001 .
[80] Dale T. Miller,et al. Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.
[81] A. F. J. Van Raan,et al. Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research , 2001 .
[82] A. Palmer,et al. QUASIREPLICATION AND THE CONTRACT OF ERROR: Lessons from Sex Ratios, Heritabilities and Fluctuating Asymmetry , 2000 .
[83] P. Rothwell,et al. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.
[84] J. Ziman. Real Science: What It Is and What It Means , 2000 .
[85] E Ernst,et al. A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy , 2000, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
[86] G. Wilkinson,et al. Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial , 2000, British Journal of Psychiatry.
[87] Fiona Godlee,et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review , 1999, Journal of General Internal Medicine.
[88] R. Steinpreis,et al. The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study , 1999 .
[89] E. Ernst,et al. Reviewer bias against the unconventional? A randomized double-blind study of peer review. , 1999, Complementary therapies in medicine.
[90] Antonio J. Herrera. Language bias discredits the peer-review system , 1999, Nature.
[91] Richard N. Zare,et al. Interdisciplinary Research: From Belief to Reality , 1999, Science.
[92] R Smith,et al. Opening up BMJ peer review , 1999, BMJ.
[93] F. Godlee,et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial , 1999, BMJ.
[94] Yu Xie,et al. Sex differences in research productivity : New evidence about an old puzzle , 1998 .
[95] A. Bardy. Bias in reporting clinical trials. , 1998, British journal of clinical pharmacology.
[96] Simon Wessely,et al. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? , 1998, The Lancet.
[97] F. Godlee,et al. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. , 1998, JAMA.
[98] D. Rennie,et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. , 1998, JAMA.
[99] A. Link. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. , 1998, JAMA.
[100] N. Black,et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. , 1998, JAMA.
[101] R. Nickerson. Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .
[102] Juan Miguel Campanario,et al. Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 2 , 1998 .
[103] Juan Miguel Campanario,et al. Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 1 , 1998 .
[104] J. Ioannidis. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. , 1998, JAMA.
[105] H. Friesen. Equal opportunities in Canada , 1998, Nature.
[106] M. Biagioli,et al. LIFE SCIENCES FORUM The Instability of Authorship: Credit and Responsibility in Contemporary Biomedicine , 1998 .
[107] J. Grant,et al. No evidence of sexism in peer review , 1997, Nature.
[108] C. Wennerås,et al. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review , 1997, Nature.
[109] E Frank,et al. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal. , 1996, Preventive medicine.
[110] S. Shapin,et al. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England, Steven Shapin. 1994. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 530 pages. ISBN: 0-226-75018-3. $29.95 , 1995 .
[111] Juan Miguel Campanario,et al. Commentary: On Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations , 1995 .
[112] J. R. Gilbert,et al. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? , 1994, JAMA.
[113] S. Goodman,et al. Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[114] P. Kitcher,et al. The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity without Illusion. , 1994 .
[115] Daniel S. Hamermesh,et al. Facts and Myths about Refereeing , 1994 .
[116] David N. Laband,et al. Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors , 1994, Journal of Political Economy.
[117] Blaise Cronin,et al. The trajectory of rejection , 1992, J. Documentation.
[118] R. Liang,et al. Recovery from Chronic Hepatitis B , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[119] K. Dickersin,et al. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. , 1992, JAMA.
[120] MARGOT O'TOOLE,et al. Imanishi-Kari (continued) , 1991, Nature.
[121] Harold Maurice Collins,et al. New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System , 1991 .
[122] A. Yankauer,et al. How blind is blind review? , 1991, American journal of public health.
[123] P. Easterbrook,et al. Publication bias in clinical research , 1991, The Lancet.
[124] John C. Bailar,et al. Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review , 1991, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
[125] Lowell L. Hargens,et al. Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees , 1990, Scientometrics.
[126] D F Horrobin,et al. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. , 1990, JAMA.
[127] K. Dickersin. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. , 1990, JAMA.
[128] D. Kronick. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. , 1990, JAMA.
[129] M J Gardner,et al. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. , 1990, JAMA.
[130] David L. Hull,et al. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, David L. Hull. 1988. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 608 pages. ISBN: 0-226-35060-4. $39.95 , 1989 .
[131] J. McCullough,et al. First Comprehensive Survey of NSF Applicants Focuses on Their Concerns About Proposal Review , 1989 .
[132] A. Greenwald,et al. Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? , 1986, Psychological review.
[133] M. Ferber,et al. Citations: Are They an Objective Measure of Scholarly Merit? , 1986, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society.
[134] Alan L. Porter,et al. Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals , 1985 .
[135] Daryl E. Chubin,et al. Experience with NIH Peer Review: Researchers' Cynicism and Desire for Change , 1985 .
[136] Stephen J. Ceci,et al. How blind is blind review , 1984 .
[137] L. James,et al. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .
[138] Stevan Harnad,et al. Peer Commentary on Peer Review: A Case Study in Scientific Quality Control , 1983 .
[139] Stephen J. Ceci,et al. Peer-review research: Objections and obligations , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
[140] S. Ceci,et al. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
[141] J. R. Cole,et al. Chance and consensus in peer review. , 1981, Science.
[142] Robert F. Rich,et al. Who Is Making Science Policy , 1979 .
[143] L J Carter,et al. A new and searching look at NSF. , 1979, Science.
[144] Stephen D. Gottfredson,et al. Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. , 1978 .
[145] M. Mahoney. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system , 1977, Cognitive Therapy and Research.
[146] Derek de Solla Price,et al. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes , 1976, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..
[147] T. Gustafson. The Controversy Over Peer Review , 1975, Science.
[148] J Walsh,et al. NSF and Its Critics in Congress: New Pressure on Peer Review. , 1975, Science.
[149] R. Merton,et al. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1973 .
[150] W. Hagstrom. Inputs, Outputs, and the Prestige of University Science Departments , 1971 .
[151] R. Merton. The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.
[152] Nigel W. Bond,et al. Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model , 2011, J. Informetrics.
[153] Lutz Bornmann,et al. Peer Review and Bibliometric: Potentials and Problems , 2011 .
[154] Bo-Christer Björk,et al. Scientific journal publishing: yearly volume and open access availability , 2009, Inf. Res..
[155] Ulf Sandström,et al. Cognitive Bias in Peer Review : a New Approach , 2009 .
[156] Michèle Lamont,et al. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment , 2009 .
[157] T. Tregenza,et al. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.
[158] Lutz Bornmann,et al. Gatekeepers of science - Effects of external reviewers' attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications , 2007, J. Informetrics.
[159] T. Tyler,et al. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. , 2006, Annual review of psychology.
[160] Julie Thompson Klein,et al. Promoting Interdisciplinary Research The Case of the Academy of Finland , 2005 .
[161] Blaise Cronin,et al. Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[162] S. Chaiken,et al. Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .
[163] Joshua S. Gans,et al. Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough) , 1998 .
[164] Hans-Dieter Daniel,et al. Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review , 1994 .
[165] R. Blank. The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review , 1991 .
[166] Samuel Ball,et al. The Peer Review Process Used to Evaluate Manuscripts Submitted to Academic Journals: Interjudgmental Reliability , 1989 .