Zhang H, Maillo A, Khan S, Martinez-de-Morentin X, Lehmann R, Gomez-Cabrero D
Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024; 23:3989-3998.
PMID: 39582890
PMC: 11584522.
DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.10.034.
Turoman N, Heyard R, Schwab S, Furrer E, Vergauwe E, Held L
F1000Res. 2024; 12:588.
PMID: 38983445
PMC: 11231630.
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.129814.3.
Drozdz J, Ladomery M
Br J Biomed Sci. 2024; 81:12054.
PMID: 38952614
PMC: 11215012.
DOI: 10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054.
Schulz V, Ucker A, Scherr C, Tournier A, Jager T, Baumgartner S
Heliyon. 2023; 9(11):e21287.
PMID: 38074879
PMC: 10700388.
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21287.
Willis J, Ramos J, Cobey K, Ng J, Khan H, Albert M
PLoS One. 2023; 18(7):e0287660.
PMID: 37436973
PMC: 10337866.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287660.
Peer Review: A Process Primed for Quality Improvement?.
Golan R, Reddy R, Deebel N, Ramasamy R, Harris A
J Urol. 2023; 209(6):1069-1070.
PMID: 37042798
PMC: 10175188.
DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003460.
Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies.
Peh W
Singapore Med J. 2021; 63(2):55-60.
PMID: 34602311
PMC: 9251232.
DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2021139.
Present-day tools for assessing publishing integrity in biomedical science represent valuable work in progress.
Misra D, Agarwal V
Clin Rheumatol. 2021; 40(5):2111-2112.
PMID: 33768422
PMC: 7993894.
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-021-05702-x.
Administrative Discretion in Scientific Funding: Evidence from a Prestigious Postdoctoral Training Program.
Ginther D, Heggeness M
Res Policy. 2020; 49(4).
PMID: 32675837
PMC: 7365616.
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.103953.
Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing.
Besancon L, Ronnberg N, Lowgren J, Tennant J, Cooper M
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020; 5:8.
PMID: 32607252
PMC: 7318523.
DOI: 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z.
Peer reviewing an original research paper.
Tullu M, Karande S
J Postgrad Med. 2020; 66(1):1-6.
PMID: 31898597
PMC: 6970322.
DOI: 10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_492_19.
Freedom of Science - Can Industry Influence What Scientists Publish?.
Ziegler R, Schnell O, Kulzer B, Gilbart J, Heinemann L
Eur Endocrinol. 2018; 10(1):10-13.
PMID: 29872457
PMC: 5983090.
DOI: 10.17925/EE.2014.10.01.1.
Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals.
Davis C, Bass B, Behrns K, Lillemoe K, Garden O, Roh M
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018; 3:4.
PMID: 29850109
PMC: 5964882.
DOI: 10.1186/s41073-018-0048-0.
Do peer review models affect clinicians' trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors.
Patel J, Pierce M, Boughton S, Baldeweg S
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018; 2:11.
PMID: 29451550
PMC: 5803626.
DOI: 10.1186/s41073-017-0029-8.
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers.
Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B
PLoS One. 2017; 12(12):e0189311.
PMID: 29236721
PMC: 5728564.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189311.
Quality assessment of scientific outputs using the BWM.
Salimi N
Scientometrics. 2017; 112(1):195-213.
PMID: 28725096
PMC: 5486896.
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2284-3.
Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process.
Farrell P, Magida Farrell L, Farrell M
J Perinatol. 2016; 37(1):13-15.
PMID: 27853323
DOI: 10.1038/jp.2016.209.
Editorial behaviors in peer review.
Wang W, Kong X, Zhang J, Chen Z, Xia F, Wang X
Springerplus. 2016; 5(1):903.
PMID: 27386349
PMC: 4923013.
DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2601-y.
The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review.
Tennant J, Waldner F, Jacques D, Masuzzo P, B Collister L, Hartgerink C
F1000Res. 2016; 5:632.
PMID: 27158456
PMC: 4837983.
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.3.
Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.
Walker R, Barros B, Conejo R, Neumann K, Telefont M
F1000Res. 2015; 4:21.
PMID: 26594326
PMC: 4648219.
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.6012.2.