Robergs R, OMalley B, Torrens S
Sports Med Health Sci. 2024; 6(2):193-199.
PMID: 38708325
PMC: 11067858.
DOI: 10.1016/j.smhs.2024.03.008.
Polosa R, Farsalinos K
Intern Emerg Med. 2022; 18(4):973-975.
PMID: 36480082
PMC: 10326081.
DOI: 10.1007/s11739-022-03163-x.
Dunleavy D
Eur J Philos Sci. 2022; 12(4):61.
PMID: 36407486
PMC: 9643948.
DOI: 10.1007/s13194-022-00492-8.
Robergs R, Opeyemi O, Torrens S
Sports Med Health Sci. 2022; 4(2):140-146.
PMID: 35782279
PMC: 9219292.
DOI: 10.1016/j.smhs.2022.04.001.
Siler K, Vincent-Lamarre P, Sugimoto C, Lariviere V
PLoS One. 2022; 17(4):e0265831.
PMID: 35417471
PMC: 9007338.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265831.
Why ex post peer review encourages high-risk research while ex ante review discourages it.
Gross K, Bergstrom C
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021; 118(51).
PMID: 34921115
PMC: 8713750.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2111615118.
and Peer Review.
Hall 3rd R
JID Innov. 2021; 1(3):100056.
PMID: 34909739
PMC: 8659384.
DOI: 10.1016/j.xjidi.2021.100056.
Computational chemistry experiments performed directly on a blockchain virtual computer.
Hanson-Heine M, Ashmore A
Chem Sci. 2021; 11(18):4644-4647.
PMID: 34122919
PMC: 8159212.
DOI: 10.1039/d0sc01523g.
Experiments in Open Innovation at Harvard Medical School: What happens when an elite academic institution starts to rethink how research gets done?.
Guinan E, Boudreau K, Lakhani K
MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2017; 54(3):45-52.
PMID: 29276450
PMC: 5739322.
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.
Tennant J, Dugan J, Graziotin D, Jacques D, Waldner F, Mietchen D
F1000Res. 2017; 6:1151.
PMID: 29188015
PMC: 5686505.
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3.
Overview of the publications of rheumatologists after the millennium.
Tezcan M
Eur J Rheumatol. 2016; 2(3):96-98.
PMID: 27708938
PMC: 5047259.
DOI: 10.5152/eurjrheum.2015.0112.
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping.
Siler K, Lee K, Bero L
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 112(2):360-5.
PMID: 25535380
PMC: 4299220.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418218112.
Common sense: folk wisdom that ethnobiological and ethnomedical research cannot afford to ignore.
Erren T, Koch M, Benno Meyer-Rochow V
J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013; 9:80.
PMID: 24295068
PMC: 3880218.
DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-9-80.
2013 SSAT presidential address: Peer review.
Matthews J
J Gastrointest Surg. 2013; 18(1):1-6.
PMID: 24190246
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-013-2342-y.
Substantial agreement of referee recommendations at a general medical journal--a peer review evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International.
Baethge C, Franklin J, Mertens S
PLoS One. 2013; 8(5):e61401.
PMID: 23658692
PMC: 3642182.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061401.
Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.
Steinhauser G, Adlassnig W, Risch J, Anderlini S, Arguriou P, Armendariz A
Theor Med Bioeth. 2012; 33(5):359-76.
PMID: 23054375
DOI: 10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1.
Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.
Abdoul H, Perrey C, Amiel P, Tubach F, Gottot S, Durand-Zaleski I
PLoS One. 2012; 7(9):e46054.
PMID: 23029386
PMC: 3460995.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046054.
The evaluation of research papers in the XXI century. The Open Peer Discussion system of the World Economics Association.
Ietto-Gillies G
Front Comput Neurosci. 2012; 6:54.
PMID: 22891057
PMC: 3413091.
DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00054.
Information Quality in Regulatory Decision Making: Peer Review versus Good Laboratory Practice.
McCarty L, Borgert C, Mihaich E
Environ Health Perspect. 2012; 120(7):927-34.
PMID: 22343028
PMC: 3404654.
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1104277.
On the lack of consensus over the meaning of openness: an empirical study.
Grubb A, Easterbrook S
PLoS One. 2011; 6(8):e23420.
PMID: 21858110
PMC: 3157385.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023420.