Welcome to the Peer Review Week resources page where you can find How-tos & Tutorials, Best Practices & Guidelines and Research related to peer review.

To encourage greater understanding of the rapidly evolving practice of peer review, we have gathered together the best resources from across the web and print media.


The following are resources related to Transparency, the official theme of Peer Review Week 2017.

Aleksic, J., Alexa, A., Attwood, T. K., Chue Hong, N., Dahlö, M., Davey, R., … Vieira, B. M. (2015). An Open Science Peer Review Oath. F1000Research, 3(271). http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5686.2

Amsen, E. (2014). Transparency in Peer Review. Retrieved from www.consortium.ch/wp…/InfoOA_2014_PPresentation_Facultyof1000_Amsen.pdf

Anderson, K., Brown, V., Grossman, A., Haak, L., & Preston, A. (2015). Trust and Transparency in Peer Review. Wiley. Retrieved from https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/11201/172103

Bali, M. (2015). A New Scholar’s Perspective on Open Peer Review. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(8), 857–863. http://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1085857

Bolam, P. (2017). Transparent Review at the European Journal of Neuroscience: Experiences One Year On. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2017/09/13/transparent-review-at-the-european-journal-of-neuroscience-experiences-one-year-on?referrer=exchanges

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). Reliability of Reviewers’ Ratings When Using Public Peer Review: A Case Study. Learned Publishing, 23(2), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1087/20100207

Current Issues in Peer Review. (2017). COPE. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77K9hGxKeDk

Denker, S. P. (2017). To Sign or Not to Sign: A Slice of Transparency in Peer Review. Retrieved from http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2017/09/slice-of-transparency-in-peer-review/

Dunn, A. G., Coiera, E., Mandl, K. D., & Bourgeois, F. T. (2016). Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0006-7

Fitzpatrick, K., & Santo, A. (2012). Open Review: A Study of Contexts and Practices. Retrieved from https://mellon.org/media/filer_public/20/ff/20ff03e0-17b0-465b-ae82-1ed7c8cef362/mediacommons-open-review-white-paper-final.pdf

Ford, E. (2013). Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311–326. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001

Ford, E. (2015). Open Peer Review at Four STEM Journals: An Observational Overview. F1000Research, 4, 6. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6005.2

Greaves, S., Scott, J., Clarke, M., Miller, L., Hannay, T., Thomas, A., & Campbell, P. (2006). Nature’s Trial of Open Peer Review. Nature. http://doi.org/doi:10.1038/nature05535

Griffin, S. (2013). Open and Transparent Peer Review. F1000Research. Retrieved from http://blog.f1000research.com/2013/05/08/video-open-and-transparent-peer-review/

Groves, T. (2010). Is Open Peer Review the Fairest System? Yes. BMJ, 341. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6424

Hendricks, G. (2017). Making Peer Reviews Citable, Discoverable, and Creditable. Retrieved from https://www.crossref.org/blog/making-peer-reviews-citable-discoverable-and-creditable/

An Interview with Philip Moriarty. (2017). IOP Publishing. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/page/peer-review-week-2017

IOP Behind the Scenes. (2017). IOP Publishing. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/page/peer-review-week-2017

IOP Introduction to Peer Review. (2017). IOP Publishing. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/page/peer-review-week-2017

Khan, K. (2010). Is Open Peer Review the Fairest System? No. BMJ, 341. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6425

Khosrow-Pour, M. (2017). Maintaining the Integrity of Scientific Knowledge Content Collaborative Efforts Among Librarians, Researchers, Publishers & Content Distributors. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z93mj0alKEg&feature=youtu.be

Koop, T. (2006). An Open, Two-Stage Peer-Review Journal. Nature, 0–2. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature04988

Kostic, M. (2017). Towards a More Transparent and Collaborative Review Process. Retrieved from http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/towards-a-more-transparent-and-collaborative-review-process

Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 79. http://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00079

Kulkarni, S. (2017). How Transparency Can Abate Peer Review Scams. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2017/09/11/how-transparency-can-abate-peer-review-scams?referrer=exchanges

Kulkarni, S. (2016). Open Peer Review: A Step Towards Open Science? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/open-peer-review-a-step-towards-open-science

Lane, T. (2017). How to Peer Review a Paper. Retrieved from https://www.edanzediting.com/files/howtopeerreviewapaper01mp4

Lane, T. (2017). How to Write a Peer Review Report. Retrieved from https://www.edanzediting.com/files/howtowriteapeerreviewreportmp4 PRW17

Lee, C. (2012). Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 1. http://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00001

Loh, S. (2017). What Can Publishers Do to Encourage and Contribute to a Culture of Transparency?. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2017/09/14/what-can-publishers-do-to-encourage-and-contribute-to-a-culture-of-transparency?referrer=exchanges

Mehmani, B. (2016). Is Open Peer Review the Way Forward? Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/is-open-peer-review-the-way-forward

Morey, R. D., Chambers, C. D., Etchells, P. J., Harris, C. R., Hoekstra, R., Lakens, D., … Zwaan, R. A. (2016). The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative: Incentivizing Open Research Practices Through Peer Review. Royal Society Open Science, 3(1), 150547. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150547

Nobarany, S., & Booth, K. S. (2017). Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23711

Open Peer Review: Models, Attitudes and Next Steps. (2017). OpenAIRE. Retrieved from https://webinars.eifl.net/2017-09-15_OpenAIRE_UGOE_OpenPeerReview/index.html PRW17

ORCID Peer Review Week 2017. (2017). ORCID. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.23640/07243.5410978

Peer Review and the Benefits of Openness. (2017). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Library. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyFfghPZBqQ

Peer Review at IOP Publishing. (2017). IOP Publishing. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/page/peer-review-week-2017

Perakakis, P., Ponsati, A., Bernal, I., Sierra, C., Osman, N., Mosquera-de-Arancibia, C., & Lorenzo, E. (2017). OPRM: Challenges to Including Open Peer Review in Open Access Repositories. Code4Lib, 35. Retrieved from http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/12171

Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M. G., & Trachana, V. (2011). Understanding the Role of Open Peer Review and Dynamic Academic Articles. Scientometrics, 88(2), 669–673. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0402-1

Perspectives on Transparency in Peer Review. (2017). J&J Editorial. Retrieved from http://jjeditorial.com/podcast-series-perspectives-transparency-peer-review/

Pöschl, U. (2010). Interactive Open Access Publishing and Peer Review: The Effectiveness and Perspectives of Transparency and Self-Regulation in Scientific Communication and Evaluation. LIBER Quarterly, 19(3-4), 293. http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7967

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. http://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033

Preprints and Open Peer Review. (2017). Academic Karma. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcdFdSTv7sI

Pulverer, B. (2010). Transparency Showcases Strength of Peer Review. Nature, 468(7320), 29–31. http://doi.org/10.1038/468029a

Results-Free Review. (2017). BioMed Central. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbXxmqKve1Y&feature=youtu.be

Ross-Hellauer, T. (2016). Defining Open Peer Review: Part One – Competing Definitions. Retrieved from https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1371

Ross-Hellauer, T. (2016). Defining Open Peer Review: Part Two – Seven Traits of OPR. Retrieved from https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1410

Sandewall, E. (2012). Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 9. http://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00009

Schneider, L. (2015). Optionally Transparent Peer Review: A Major Step Forward, but Which Direction? Retrieved April 12, 2017, from https://forbetterscience.com/2015/12/17/optionally-transparent-peer-review-a-major-step-forward-but-which-direction/

Shanahan, D. R., & Olsen, B. R. (2014). Opening Peer-Review: The Democracy of Science. Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, 13(1), 2. http://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5751-13-2

Sweet, D. (2017). What Changed? Transparency in a Table to Highlight the Value of Peer Review. Retrieved from http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/what-changed-transparency-in-a-table-to-highlight-the-value-of-peer-review

Tools of the Trade for Transparency. (2017). Council of Science Editors. Retrieved from https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/past-presentationswebinars/past-webinars/2017-webinar-5-tools-trade-transparency-journals-can-increase/

Transparency in peer review. (2011). Nature Materials, 10(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2952

Transparency in Peer Review. (2017). Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/pages/285/Transparency-in-Peer-Review.html

Transparency in Peer Review and High Impact Research. (2017). British University in Egypt. Retrieved from http://www.bue.edu.eg/index.php/arts-humanities-menu/3354-news-brief-peer-review-week-2017-seminar-faculty-of-arts-and-humanities-2

Under the Microscope: Transparency in Peer Review. (2017). Peer Review Week. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x1dho6HRzE

van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Smith, R., & Black, N. (1998). Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial. JAMA, 280(3), 234–237. https://doi.org/0.1001/jama.280.3.234

Vercellini, P., Buggio, L., Viganò, P., & Somigliana, E. (2016). Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 31, 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2016.04.014

Wang, P., You, S., Rath, M., & Wolfram, D. (2016). Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers. Journal of Data and Information Science, 1(4), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201625

What Does Good Peer Review Look Like to You?. (2017). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5hnXW9oBjY&feature=youtu.be

Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. PloS One, 11(1), e0147913. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913

‘How-Tos’ & Tutorials

The following is a list of how-tos, and online training documents for authors, editors, and reviewers.

Patel, J. (2015b). A Beginner’s Guide to Peer Review: Part Three. Retrieved from http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/07/09/beginners-guide-peer-review-part-three/

Patel, J. (2015c). A Beginner’s Guide to Peer Review: Part Two. Retrieved from http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/06/08/beginners-guide-peer-review-part-two/

A Guide to Peer Review, Part 1: Why Is Peer Review So Important? (2016). Wiley. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/07/26/why-is-peer-review-so-important-a-guide-to-peer-review-part-1?referrer=exchanges

A Guide to Peer Review, Part 2: How To Navigate The Peer Review Process. (2016). Wiley. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/07/27/navigating-the-peer-review-process-a-guide-to-peer-review-part-2?referrer=exchanges

A Guide to Peer Review, Part 3: Breaking Down Peer Review by Type. (2016). Wiley. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/08/10/breaking-down-peer-review-by-type-a-guide-to-peer-review-part-3?referrer=exchanges

ACS Reviewer Lab. (2017). American Chemical Society. Retrieved from https://www.acsreviewerlab.org/

AHRC Early Career Researchers. (2016). AHRC Press. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/vVzfx8xvVMQ

Alam, S., & Patel, J. (2015). Peer Review: Tips from Field Experts for Junior Reviewers. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–2. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0512-3

Are you the right reviewer? 5 questions to ask yourself. (2017). Publons. Retrieved from https://publons.com/blog/are-you-the-right-reviewer/

Board, A. E. (2014). How to Write a Reviewer Report. Retrieved from https://journals.jsap.jp/wp-content/uploads/how_to_write_rev_rep.pdf

Booth, B. A. (2006). Peer Review. In The ACS Style Guide (pp. 71–76). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Retrieved from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2006-STYG.ch006

Bordage, G., & Caelleigh, A. S. (2001b). How To Read “Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts.” Academic Medicine, 76(9), 909–910. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/09000/How_To_Read__Review_Criteria_for_Research.14.aspx

Challenging Aspects of Peer Reviewing 2015. (2015). Wiley. Retrieved from http://bcove.me/8jz2cxr8

Clivaz, C. (2015). Reshaping the Peer-review Process: Heretic Remarks in a Digital Time. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/120666302

Committee on Science, Engineering, and P. P. (2009). On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://doi.org/10.17226/12192

Dealing with Reviewers’ Comments. (2016). Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/pages/227/How-to-handle-revisions.html

Durning, S. J., & Carline, J. D. (Eds.). (2015). Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges. Retrieved from https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Review Criteria For Research Manuscripts.pdf

Editage Insights. (2014). How Can I Implement Reviewer Comments on a Rejected Paper in My Next Submission? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-can-i-implement-reviewer-comments-on-a-rejected-paper-in-my-next-submission

Editage Insights. (2014). Responding to Biased Reviewer Comments. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/responding-to-biased-reviewer-comments

Editage Insights. (2014). Why Should I Select Preferred Reviewers and How Should I Do It? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/why-should-i-select-preferred-reviewers-and-how-should-i-do-it

Editage Insights. (2016). How Should I Respond If I Cannot Address a Reviewer’s Suggestion? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-should-i-respond-if-i-cannot-address-a-reviewers-suggestion

Editage Insights. (2016). How to Write a Response to Reviewer Comments in Case of Minor Revisions. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-write-a-response-to-reviewer-comments-in-case-of-minor-revisions

Getting Started as a Peer Review(2016). Cell Press. Retrieved from http://info.cell.com/crosstalk-getting-started-as-a-peer-reviewer

Hames, I. (2012). Peer Review in a Rapidly Evolving Publishing Landscape. In I. Campbell, Robert; Pentz, Ed; Borthwick (Ed.), Academic and Professional Publishing (1st ed., pp. 15–52). Oxford: Chandos Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781843346692500020

How to critically evaluate a manuscript: 12 questions you should always ask yourself. (2017). Publons. Retrieved from https://publons.com/blog/how-to-critically-evaluate-a-manuscript-12-questions-you-should-always-ask-yourself/

How to Respond to Peer Reviewer Comments. (2014). Editage. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-respond-to-peer-reviewer-comments

How to Review a Manuscript #01 – Peer Review. (2013). Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/8823/65107

How to Review a Manuscript #02 – The Reviewing Process. (2013). Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/8823/65109

How to Review a Manuscript #03 – The Reviewer’s Role. (2013). Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/8823/65113

How to Write a Peer Review: 12 things you need to know. (2017). Publons. Retrieved from https://publons.com/blog/how-to-write-a-peer-review-12-things-you-need-to-know/

How We Found 15 Million Hours of Lost Time. (2013). Rubriq. Retrieved from https://blog.rubriq.com/2013/06/03/how-we-found-15-million-hours-of-lost-time/

Journal Peer Review. (2017). Queensland University of Technology, Library and Office of Research Ethics & Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/training/prhandout.pdf

Khanam, S. (2013). Frequently Asked Questions about Peer Review. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/frequently-asked-questions-about-peer-review

Kostic, M. (2017). How to Be a Great Reviewer for a Research Paper. Retrieved from http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/how-to-be-a-great-reviewer-for-a-research-paper

Kotsis, S. V. (2015). How to Submit a Revision and Tips on Being a Good Peer Reviewer. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-submit-a-revision-and-tips-on-being-a-good-peer-reviewer

Lamont, M. (Ed.). (2009). Opening the Black Box of Peer Review. In How Professors Think (pp. 1–21). Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0gx9.3

Majumder, K. (2015). How to Deal with Conflicting Reviewer Comments: A Case Study. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-deal-with-conflicting-reviewer-comments-a-case-study

Moher, D. (2015). Optimal Strategies to Consider When Peer Reviewing a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 274. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0509-y

Mulligan, A., & Raphael, E. (2010). Peer Review in a Changing World – Preliminary Findings of a Global Study. Serials, 23(1), 25–34. http://doi.org/10.1629/2325

Pedrazzinia, A., Bautista, A., Scheuer, N., & Monereo, C. (2014). Review by (Non)peers as an Opportunity for Learning: A Case Study on the Editorial Process of Papers by Junior Researchers / La Revisión por (Im)pares como Instancia de Aprendizaje: Un Estudio de Casos del Proceso Editorial de Artículos de Investigadoras. Infancia Y Aprendizaje, 37(4), 851–901. http://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2014.977531

Peer Review and Editorial Decision Making at Journals. (2013). Editage. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/peer-review-and-editorial-decision-making-at-journals-0

Peer Review: How to Review a Manuscript. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/pages/163/how-to-review-a-manuscript.html

Pitfalls for AHRC Grant Applicants to Avoid. (2015). Arts & Humanities Research Council. Retrieved from http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/guides/pitfalls-for-ahrc-grant-applicants-to-avoid/

Publons Academy. Publons. Retrieved from https://publons.com/community/academy/

Rajagopalan, J. (2014). How to Respond to Peer Reviewers’ Comments: Some Do’s and Don’ts. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-respond-to-peer-reviewers%E2%80%99-comments-some-do%E2%80%99s-and-don%E2%80%99ts

Results-Free Review. (2017). BioMed Central. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbXxmqKve1Y&feature=youtu.be

Rojon, C., & Saunders, M. N. K. (2015). Dealing with Reviewers’ Comments in the Publication Process. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 8(2), 169–180. http://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2015.1047463

Scott-Lichter, D. (2012). CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update (3rd Revise). Wheat Ridge, CO. Retrieved from http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/

6 Common Flaws To Look Out For in Peer Review. (2017). Publons. Retrieved from https://publons.com/blog/6-common-research-flaws-to-watch-out-for-in-peer-review/

Taylor & Francis. (2016). How to Get Involved in Peer Review (And Why You Should). Retrieved from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/how-to-get-involved-in-peer-review-and-why-you-should/

Taylor & Francis. (2016). Infographic: Understanding Peer Review. Retrieved from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/what-to-expect-during-peer-review/understanding-peer-review/

Taylor & Francis. (2016). What to Expect During Peer Review. Retrieved from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/what-to-expect-during-peer-review/

Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2013). Writing for Peer Reviewed Journals: Strategies for Getting Published. Abingdon: Routledge.

Wager, E. (2002). How to Survive Peer Review. London: BMJ Books.

Want To Peer Review? Top 10 Tips To Get Noticed By Editors. (2017). Publons. Retrieved from https://publons.com/blog/10-things-you-need-to-know-to-get-noticed-by-editors/

Warne, V., Willis, M., Starck, J. M., Trevorrow, P., Langley, J., & Jesper, E. (2014). Getting Peer Review Right: A Guide for Early Career Researchers. Wiley. Retrieved from https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/11201/134767

What Are the Characteristics You Need to Be a Peer Reviewer? (2013). AHRC Press. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/mVmOB0vshSc

What is Peer Review? (2012). AHRC Press. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/RAG-XepEXjE

What to Consider When Asked to Peer Review a Manuscript. (2017). COPE. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/What-to-consider-when-asked-to-PR.pdf

Wiley. (2016). Infographic: The Peer Review Process. Retrieved from http://media.wiley.com/assets/7320/72/Review_Process_Diagram.png

Wiley. (2016). Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript. Retrieved from http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828101.html

Wiley. (2016). The Peer Review Process. Retrieved from http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828096.html

Wilson, J. (2012). Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts. London: Sense About Science. Retrieved from http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/99/Peer-review_The-nuts-and-bolts.pdf

Best Practices & Guidelines

The following are general and discipline-specific peer review guidelines and best practices.

Best Practices for Peer Review. (2016). New York, N.Y.: Association of American University Presses. Retrieved from http://www.aaupnet.org/resources/for-members/handbooks-and-toolkits/peer-review-best-practices

Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics: A Publisher’s Perspective. (2014) (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons Inc. Retrieved from http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828274.html

Carpenter, T. A. (2017). What Constitutes Peer Review of Data? A Survey of Peer Review Guidelines. Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02236v1

COPE Digest. COPE. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/cope-newsletter

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. (2017). Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf

COPE Forum Cases. COPE. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/cases/?f%5B0%5D=im_field_classifications%3A809

Citrome, L. (2014). Navigating Through Peer Review, Selecting Preferred Reviewers, and More. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/navigating-through-peer-review-selecting-preferred-reviewers-and-more

Del Mar, C., & Hoffmann, T. C. (2015). A Guide to Performing a Peer Review of Randomised Controlled Trials. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0471-8

Roberts, L. W., Coverdale, J., Edenharder, K., & Louie, A. (2014). How to Review a Manuscript: A “Down-to-Earth” Approach. Academic Psychiatry, 28(2), 81–87. http://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.28.2.81

Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (Eds.). (2003). Peer Review in Health Sciences (2nd ed.). London: BMJ Books.

Hames, I. (2012). Peer Review in a Rapidly Evolving Publishing Landscape. In I. Campbell, Robert; Pentz, Ed; Borthwick (Ed.), Academic and Professional Publishing (1st ed., pp. 15–52). Oxford: Chandos Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781843346692500020

Hames, I. (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Wiley; Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405131594.html

How to Recognise Potential Manipulation of the Peer Review Process. (2017). COPE. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/COPE%20PR_Manipulation_Process.pdf

Kulkarni, S. (2014). What Is Peer Review: The Basics and Guidelines for Authors. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/what-is-peer-review-the-basics-and-guidelines-for-authors

Majumder, K. (2015). Tips for First Time Peer Reviewers: Accepting a Peer Review Invitation. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/tips-for-first-time-peer-reviewers-accepting-a-peer-review-invitation?placement=5-exceed-return

Majumder, K. (2015). Tips for First Time Peer Reviewers: Reviewing a Scientific Manuscript Responsibly. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/tips-for-first-time-peer-reviewers-reviewing-a-scientific-manuscript-responsibly

McCook, A. (2016). Can you spot a fake? The trend of fake peer reviews. COPE North American Seminar 2016. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDZGkkw6-5M

Moylan, E. (2016). Peer review and research misconduct. COPE North American Seminar 2016. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wITD5xcImPE

Onitilo, A. A., Engel, J. M., Salzman-Scott, S. A., Stankowski, R. V, & Doi, S. A. R. (2013). Reliability of Reviewer Ratings in the Manuscript Peer Review Process: An Opportunity for Improvement. Accountability in Research, 20(4), 270–284. http://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.804345

Overstreet, K. (2016). Who reviews the reviewers? COPE North American Seminar 2016. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40JxF3A4h8o

Peer Review 360°. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/360-view-on-peer-review/

Supporting the Peer Review Process. (2016). Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www.nxtbook.com/nxteu/elsevier/reviewersinfopack/

Taylor & Francis. (2016). Reviewer Guidelines and Best Practice. Retrieved from http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/reviewers-guidelines-and-best-practice/

Top 10 Tips for Peer Reviewers. (2015). Wiley. Retrieved from http://exchanges.wiley.com/medialibrary/2015/08/13/458d1f9c/Top Tips for Peer Review.pdf

Top Tips for Peer Review 2015. (2015). Wiley. Retrieved from http://bcove.me/unlc6tex

Who “Owns” Peer Reviews? (2017). Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/Who_owns_peer_reviews_discussion_document.pdf

Wiley. (2016). General and Ethical Guidelines. Retrieved from http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828100.html

Wiley. (2016). Useful Peer Review Resources. Retrieved from http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828108.html


The following is a collection of evidenced-based research on the practice and application of scholarly peer review.

APS Outstanding Referees Program. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2016, from https://journals.aps.org/OutstandingReferees

Cantor, M., & Gero, S. (2015). The Missing Metric: Quantifying Contributions of Reviewers. Royal Society Open Science, 2(2), 140540–140540. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140540

Early Adopter Program — Peer Review. (2015). ORCID. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/129558161

Expert Opinions on Peer Review. (2016). Digital Science. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fNJMVm0dB4

Gasparyan, A. Y., Gerasimov, A. N., Voronov, A. A., & Kitas, G. D. (2015). Rewarding Peer Reviewers: Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(4), 360–4. http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360

Gilroy, P. (2015). Seven Tips for Recruiting and Retaining Referees. Retrieved from http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/seven-tips-for-recruiting-and-retaining-referees/

Godlee, F. (2002). Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit. JAMA, 287(21), 2762–2765. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2762

Goldman, H. V. (2015). More Delays in Peer Review: Finding Reviewers Willing to Contribute. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/more-delays-in-peer-review-finding-reviewers-willing-to-contribute

Goldman, H. V. (2015). The Scarce Peer Reviewer and Challenges Journal Editors Face. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/the-scarce-peer-reviewer-and-challenges-journal-editors-face

Goldman, H. V. (2015). Why Is Peer Review So Slow? The First Step: Identifying Peer Reviewers. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/why-is-peer-review-so-slow-the-first-step-identifying-peer-reviewers

Hoke, T., & Moylan, E. (2016). Who “Owns” Peer Reviews? COPE Discussion Document. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Who_Owns_Peer_Reviews_Discussion_Document_Web.pdf

Johnson, C. (2016). Awards for Outstanding Reviewers. Retrieved from http://liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/blogs/news/awards-for-outstanding-reviewers

Johnston, D. (2016). Why Peer Review Recognition Matters to Universities. Retrieved from https://www.digital-science.com/blog/guest/peer-review-recognition-matters-universities/

Jordan, C. M. (2010). Redefining Peer Review and Products of Engaged Scholarship. In Handbook of Engaged Scholarship (pp. 295–306). Michigan State University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7ztb0c.23

Kulkarni, S. (2014). Is the Publons System of Recognition the Way Forward for Peer Review? Retrieved from www.editage.com/insights/is-the-publons-system-of-recognition-the-way-forward-for-peer-review

Kulkarni, S. (2014). Peer Reviewing: A Thankless Job or a Duty to the Academic Community? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/peer-reviewing-a-thankless-job-or-a-duty-to-the-academic-community

Miller, C. C. (2006). Peer Review in the Organizational and Management Sciences: Prevalence and Effects of Reviewer Hostility, Bias, and Dissensus. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 425–431. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794661

Overstreet, K. (2011). Retaining Reviewers. EON, (June), 2–4. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ismte.org/resource/resmgr/eon/june_2011.pdf?hhSearchTerms=%22Retaining+and+Reviewers%22

Paglione, L. D., & Lawrence, R. N. (2015). Data Exchange Standards to Support and Acknowledge Peer-Review Activity. Learned Publishing, 28(4), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150411

Peer Review and Research Misconduct. (2016). COPE. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wITD5xcImPE

Peer Review is Dead! Long Live Peer Review! Panel. (2016). ALPSP. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj1szaIYEg

Peer Review: Why It Matters & What Lies Ahead. (2016). Association of American University Presses. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIBjSYuj2k

Publons. (2015). How Is Publons Changing Peer Review(ers)? Retrieved from https://blog.publons.com/how-is-publons-changing-peer-reviewers/

Recognising Review: New and Future Approaches to Acknowledging the Peer Review Process. (2016). ScienceOpen. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeY0606pjQ8

Recognition for Peer Reviewers: Building a Culture of Credit in Scholarly Publishing. (2016). Council of Scientific Editors. Retrieved from https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/past-presentationswebinars/past-webinars/2016-webinar-3-recognition-peer-reviewers-building-culture-credit/

Recognizing Peer Reviewers: a Webinar to Celebrate Editors and Researchers. (n.d.). Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/pages/267/Recognizing-Peer-Reviewers-a-Webinar-to-Celebrate-Editors-and-Researchers.html

Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., Godlee, F., & Bloom, T. (2015). The Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Jama,313(20), 2031. Retrieved from http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2297145

Roberts, J. (2008). Efforts to Improve the Quality of Reviews: Part I: Rating, Rewarding, and Educating Reviewers. EON, (June), 8–14. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ismte.org/resource/resmgr/eon/June_2008.pdf?hhSearchTerms=%22rating%2c+rewarding%2c+and+educating+reviewers%2c%22

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. http://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

Van Noorden, R. (2014). The Scientists Who Get Credit for Peer Review. Nature. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.16102

Warne, V. (2016). Rewarding Reviewers – Sense or Sensibility? A Wiley Study Explained. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 41–50. http://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1002

Who Owns Peer Reviews? (2016). COPE. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIOYO4Kau8I

Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). Evaluating Research: From Informed Peer Review to Bibliometrics. Scientometrics. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7

Alexander, E. (2017). Peer Review and Open Access. Retrieved from https://www.igi-global.com/newsroom/archive/peer-review-open-access/3436/

Bautista, A., Monereo, C., & Scheuer, N. (2014). The Peer Review Process as an Opportunity for Learning / La Evaluación por Pares como Oportunidad para el Aprendizaje. Infancia Y Aprendizaje, 37(4), 665–686. http://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2014.977105

Andersen, L. E. (2017). On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics. Accountability in Research, 24(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1274885

Bammer, G. (2016). What Constitutes Appropriate Peer Review for Interdisciplinary Research? Palgrave Communications, 2, 16017. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.17

Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., … Wassef, A. (2011). Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5, 56. http://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00056

Björk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2015). Emerging New Methods of Peer Review in Scholarly Journals. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 85–91. http://doi.org/10.1087/20150202

Bordage, G., & Caelleigh, A. S. (2001a). A Tool for Reviewers: “Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts.” Academic Medicine, 76(9), 904–908. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/09000/A_Tool_for_Reviewers___Review_Criteria_for.13.aspx

Bornmann, L. (2010). Does the Journal Peer Review Select the “Best” from the Work Submitted? The State of Empirical Research. IETE Technical Review, 27(2), 93. http://doi.org/10.4103/0256-4602.60162

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The Luck of the Referee Draw: The Effect of Exchanging Reviews. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 117–125. http://doi.org/10.1087/2009207

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010a). The Manuscript Reviewing Process: Empirical Research on Review Requests, Review Sequences, and Decision Rules in Peer Review. Library & Information Science Research, 32(1), 5–12. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.010

Breuning, M., Backstrom, J., Brannon, J., Gross, B. I., & Widmeier, M. (2015). Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review Their Peers’ Work. PS: Political Science and Politics, 48(4), 595. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515000827

Brown, T. (2006). Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas. London: Sense About Science. Retrieved from http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/17/peerReview.pdf

Caelleigh, A. S., & Shea, J. A. (2001). Publication Decision. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 918–919. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/09000/Publication_Decision.18.aspx

Callaham, M. L., & Tercier, J. (2007). The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), e40. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040

Cals, J. W. L., Mallen, C. D., Glynn, L. G., & Kotz, D. (2013). Should Authors Submit Previous Peer-Review Reports When Submitting Research Papers? Views of General Medical Journal Editors. Annals of Family Medicine, 11(2), 179–81. http://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1448

Carpenter, A. S., Sullivan, J. H., Deshmukh, A., Glisson, S. R., & Gallo, S. A. (2015). A Retrospective Analysis of the Effect of Discussion in Teleconference and Face-to-Face Scientific Peer-Review Panels. BMJ Open, 5(9), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009138

Carpenter, M. A. (2009). Editor’s Comments: Mentoring Colleagues in the Craft and Spirit of Peer Review. The Academy of Management Review, 34(2), 191–195. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.36982609

Cormode, G. (2016). Behind the Scenes: How a Journal Editor Selects Peer Reviewers. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/behind-the-scenes-how-a-journal-editor-selects-peer-reviewers

Couzin-Frankel, J. (2013). Secretive and Subjective, Peer Review Proves Resistant to Study. Science, 341(6152), 1331. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.341.6152.1331

Cowley, S. J. (2015). How peer review constrains cognition: on the frontline in the knowledge sector. Frontiers in Psychology. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01706

DeCoursey, T. E. (2015). Double-Blind Peer Review a Double Risk. Nature, 520, 623. http://doi.org/10.1038/520623d

Derricourt, R. (2012). Peer Review: Fetishes, Fallacies, and Perceptions. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(2), 137–147. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.43.2.137

Devine, E., & Smith, M. J. (2014). What I Wish I’d Known When I First Started Editing a Journal. Retrieved from http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/what-i-wish-id-known-when-i-first-started-editing-a-journal/

Editage Insights. (2015a). Can I Withdraw My Paper After Reviewers Have Been Assigned? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/can-i-withdraw-my-paper-after-reviewers-have-been-assigned

Editage Insights. (2015b). How Long Does a Second Round of Peer Review Take? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-long-does-a-second-round-of-peer-review-take

Editage Insights. (2015c). Infographic: Possible Outcomes of Peer Review. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/possible-outcomes-of-peer-review

Editage Insights. (2016a). How Long Does It Take for the Status to Change from “Reviewers Assigned” to “Under Review”? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-long-does-it-take-for-the-status-to-change-from-reviewers-assigned-to-under-review

Editage Insights. (2016b). What Does the Status “Reviewer Assignment Pending” Mean? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/what-does-the-status-reviewer-assignment-pending-mean

Ellison, G. (2011). Is Peer Review in Decline? Economic Inquiry, 49(3), 635–657. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00261.x

Fisher, D., & Parisis, N. (2015). Social influence and peer review: Why traditional peer review is no longer adapted, and how it should evolve. EMBO Reports, 1–4. Retrieved from http://embor.embopress.org/cgi/doi/10.15252/embr.201541256\nhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26559523

Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Peer Review. In K. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Planned Obsolescence (pp. 15–49). NYU Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qg9mh.5

Fitzpatrick, K. (2012). Beyond Metrics: In Debates in the Digital Humanities (NED – New, pp. 452–459). University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttv8hq.29

Fox, J., & Petchey, O. L. (2010). Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer Commons. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 91(3), 325–333. http://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9623-91.3.325

Ginsparg, P. (2002). Can Peer Review Be Better Focused? Science & Technology Libraries, 22(3-4), 5–17. http://doi.org/10.1300/J122v22n03_02

Hames, I. (2014). The Changing Face of Peer Review. Science Editing, 1(1), 9. http://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9

Hames, I. (2014). The Peer Review Process: Challenges and Progress. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress

Hartonen, T., & Alava, M. J. (2013). How Important Tasks Are Performed: Peer Review. Scientific Reports, 3, 1679. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep01679

Hirschauer, S. (2004). Peer Review Verfahren auf dem Prüfstand: Zum Soziologiedefizit der Wissenschaftsevaluation / Peer Review Research — Reviewed: Sociological Shortcomings of Academic Evaluation. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 33(1), 62–83. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23772252

Horn, S. A. (2016). The Social and Psychological Costs of Peer Review. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615586597

Important Outcomes of Peer Review. (2015). Wiley. Retrieved from http://bcove.me/hwogcsn3

Jackson, J. L., Srinivasan, M., Rea, J., Fletcher, K. E., & Kravitz, R. L. (2011). The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal. PloS One, 6(7), e22475. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022475

Johnston, D. (2015). Peer Review Incentives: A Simple Idea to Encourage Fast and Effective Peer Review. European Science Editing, 41(3), 70–71. Retrieved from http://www.ease.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/essay_johnston.pdf

Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016). Complex Systems Approach to Scientific Publication and Peer-Review System: Development of an Agent-Based Model Calibrated with Empirical Journal Data. Scientometrics, 106(2), 695–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1800-6

Kowalczuk, M. K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S. L., & Moylan, E. C. (2013b). A Comparison of the Quality of Reviewer Reports from Author-Suggested Reviewers and Editor-Suggested Reviewers in Journals Operating on Open or Closed Peer Review Models. F1000Research, 4. http://doi.org/10.7490/f1000research.1094564.1

Kravitz, R. L., Franks, P., Feldman, M. D., Gerrity, M., Byrne, C., & Tierney, W. M. (2010). Editorial Peer Reviewers’ Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? PloS One, 5(4), e10072. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010072

Kulkarni, S. (2016a). “Gotcha Reviewing”: Do Journals Err on the Side of Rejection Rather Than Acceptance? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/gotcha-reviewing-do-journals-err-on-the-side-of-rejection-rather-than-acceptance

Lawrence, B., Jones, C., Matthews, B., Pepler, S., & Callaghan, S. (2011). Citation and Peer Review of Data: Moving Towards Formal Data Publication. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(2), 4–37. http://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v6i2.205

McCarty, L. S., Borgert, C. J., & Mihaich, E. M. (2012). Information Quality in Regulatory Decision Making: Peer Review versus Good Laboratory Practice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(7), 927–934. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104277

McCulloch, G. (2014). What I Wish I’d Known When I First Started Editing a Journal. Retrieved from http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/what-i-wish-id-known-when-i-first-started-editing-a-journal-2/

Moylan, E. C., Harold, S., O’Neill, C., & Kowalczuk, M. K. (2014). Open, Single-Blind, Double-Blind: Which Peer Review Process Do You Prefer? BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, 15(1), 1–5. http://doi.org/10.1186/2050-6511-15-55

Mulligan, A. (2004). Is Peer Review in Crisis? Perspectives in Publishing, (2), 1–6. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/93675/PerspPubl2.pdf

Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer Review in a Changing World: An International Study Measuring the Attitudes of Researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132–161. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798

Mungra, P., & Webber, P. (2010). Peer Review Process in Medical Research Publications: Language and Content Comments. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 43–53. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002

Murphy, S. P., Bulman, C., Shariati, B., Hausmann, L., & Committee, the I. S. N. P. (2014). Submitting a Manuscript for Peer Review–Integrity, Integrity, Integrity. Journal of Neurochemistry, 128(3), 341–343. http://doi.org/10.1111/jnc.12644

Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., … Levine, K. (2015). Peer Review: Still King in the Digital Age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 15–21. http://doi.org/10.1087/20150104

Nicholas, K. A., & Gordon, W. S. (2011). A Quick Guide to Writing a Solid Peer Review. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92(28), 233. http://doi.org/10.1029/2011EO280001

Park, I.-U., Peacey, M. W., & Munafo, M. R. (2014). Modelling the Effects of Subjective and Objective Decision Making in Scientific Peer Review. Nature, 506(7486), 93–96. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12786

Peer Review and Publication Standards in Social Work Journals: The Miami Statement. (2005). Social Work Research, 29(2), 119–121. http://doi.org/10.1093/swr/29.2.119

Raelin, J. A. (2008). Refereeing the Game of Peer Review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 124–129. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2008.314138

Ragone, A., Mirylenka, K., Casati, F., & Marchese, M. (2013). On Peer Review in Computer Science: Analysis of Its Effectiveness and Suggestions for Improvement. Scientometrics, 97(2), 317–356. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z

Resnik, D. B., Gutierrez-Ford, C., & Peddada, S. (2008). Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 305–310. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4

Riley, E. (2016). Why Peer Review Needs You – And You Need Peer Review. Retrieved July 12, 2016, from http://www.insight.mrc.ac.uk/2016/05/10/why-peer-review-needs-you-and-you-need-peer-review/

Rosenfield, D., & Hoffman, S. J. (2009). Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions: An Evidence-Based Framework for Responding to Peer-Review Feedback. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 181(12), E301–E305. http://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.091164

Saeidnia, S., & Abdollahi, M. (2015). Peer Review Processes and Related Issues in Scholarly Journals. DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 23(1), 1–4. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40199-015-0099-4

Shamseer, L., & Roberts, J. (2016). Disclosure of data and statistical commands should accompany completely reported studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 70, 272–4. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.033

Squazzoni, F. (2013). Opening the Black Box of Peer Review. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 16(2), 1–11. http://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.2128

Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2009). The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 40–50. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01105.x

Taylor & Francis. (2016). Understanding Different Types of Peer Review. Retrieved from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/understanding-different-types-of-peer-review/

Tolkin, B. (2017). What to Do When Your Paper Is Out for Review. Retrieved from http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/what-to-do-when-your-paper-is-out-for-review

Toroser, D., Carlson, J., Robinson, M., Gegner, J., Girard, V., Smette, L., … O’Kelly, J. (n.d.). Factors Impacting Time to Acceptance and Publication for Peer-Reviewed Publications. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 0(0), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2016.1271778

Triaridis, S., & Kyrgidis, A. (2010). Peer Review and Journal Impact Factor: The Two Pillars of Contemporary Medical Publishing. Hippokratia, 14(Suppl 1), 5–12. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049421/

Triggle, C. R., & Triggle, D. J. (2007). What Is the Future of Peer Review? Why Is There Fraud in Science? Is Plagiarism Out of Control? Why Do Scientists Do Bad Things? Is It All a Case Of “All That Is Necessary for the Triumph of Evil Is that Good Men Do Nothing?” Vascular Health and Risk Management, 3(1), 39–53. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994041/

Walbot, V. (2009). Are We Training Pit Bulls to Review Our Manuscripts? Journal of Biology, 8. http://doi.org/10.1186/jbiol125

Walker, R., & Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging Trends in Peer Review—A Survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, 169. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169

Ware, M. (2011). Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 23–53. http://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812

Weale, A. (2007). Peer Review: The Challenges for the Humanities and Social Sciences. London: The British Academy. Retrieved from http://www.britac.ac.uk/templates/asset-relay.cfm?frmAssetFileID=6434

Wheeler, B. (2011). The Ontology of the Scholarly Journal and the Place of Peer Review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(3), 307–322. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.42.3.307

Wiley. (2016). Infographic: 6 Tips For Authors On Surviving Peer Review. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/07/12/infographic-6-tips-for-authors-on-surviving-peer-review?referrer=exchanges

Wiley. (2016). Working with Editors. Retrieved from http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828103.html

Wong, V. S. S., & Callaham, M. L. (2012). Medical Journal Editors Lacked Familiarity with Scientific Publication Issues Despite Training and Regular Exposure. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(3), 247–52. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.003

Wulf, K. (2017). Does Born-Digital Mean Rethinking Peer Review?. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/09/12/born-digital-mean-rethinking-peer-review/

Zaharie, M. A., & Osoian, C. L. (2016). Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach. European Management Journal, 34(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.004

An Analysis of Peer Review Cases Brought to COPE from 1997-2016. (2017). COPE. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20Review%20poster_2017.pdf

Anderson, E. (2013). The Need to Review Peer Review: The Regnerus Scandal as a Call to Action. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 17(3), 337–351. http://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2013.789459

Barroga, E. F. (2014). Safeguarding the Integrity of Science Communication by Restraining “Rational Cheating” in Peer Review. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 29(11), 1450–1452. http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1450

Blackburn, J. L., & Hakel, M. D. (2006). An Examination of Sources of Peer-Review Bias. Psychological Science, 17(5), 378–382. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01715.x

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). How to Detect Indications of Potential Sources of Bias in Peer Review: A Generalized Latent Variable Modeling Approach Exemplified by a Gender Study. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 280–287. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.09.003

Borsuk, R. M., Aarssen, L. W., Budden, A. E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Tregenza, T., & Lortie, C. J. (2009). To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review. BioScience, 59(11), 985–989. http://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.10

Bosetti, F., & Toscano, C. D. (2007). Is It Time to Standardize Ethics Guiding the Peer Review Process? Lipids, 43(2), 107–108. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11745-007-3134-5

Bowman, J. D. (2014). Predatory Publishing, Questionable Peer Review, and Fraudulent Conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(10), 176. http://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7810176

Colquhoun, D. (2011, September 5). Publish-or-Perish: Peer Review and the Corruption of Science. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

Comer, D. R., & Schwartz, M. (2014). The Problem of Humiliation in Peer Review. Ethics and Education, 9(2), 141–156. http://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2014.913341

Editage Insights. (2015a). Is It Possible to Find Out the Identity of a Reviewer? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/is-it-possible-to-find-out-the-identity-of-a-reviewer

Editage Insights. (2015b). Should I Thank the Editor and Reviewers for Accepting My Paper? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/should-i-thank-the-editor-and-reviewers-for-accepting-my-paper

Editage Insights. (2016a). Can Reviewers’ Refusal to Review a Manuscript Influence the Editor’s Decision? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/can-reviewers-refusal-to-review-a-manuscript-influence-the-editors-decision

Editage Insights. (2016b). How to Tackle Errors that Have Not Been Mentioned by the Peer Reviewers? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-tackle-errors-that-have-not-been-mentioned-by-the-peer-reviewers

Editage Insights. (2016c). What to Do If the Reviewer Comments on a Method I Have Not Used in My Paper? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/what-to-do-if-the-reviewer-comments-on-a-method-i-have-not-used-in-my-paper

Emerson, G. B., Warme, W. J., Wolf, F. M., Heckman, J. D., Brand, R. A., & Leopold, S. S. (2010). Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170(21), 1934–1939. http://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406

Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42), 17028–33. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109

Fox, C. W., Burns, C. S., & Meyer, J. A. (2016). Editor and Reviewer Gender Influence the Peer Review Process But Not Peer Review Outcomes at an Ecology Journal. Functional Ecology, 30(1), 140–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12529

Fox, P. T., Bullmore, E., Bandettini, P. A., & Lancaster, J. L. (2009). Protecting Peer Review: Correspondence Chronology and Ethical Analysis regarding Logothetis vs. Shmuel and Leopold. Human Brain Mapping, 30(2), 347–54. http://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20682

Gallo, S. A., Lemaster, M., & Glisson, S. R. (2016). Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 189–197. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9631-7

García, J. A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2015). Bias and Effort in Peer Review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2020–2030. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23307

Gatekeepers of Science: Peer Review Controversies at Home and Abroad. (2004). The New Atlantis, (4), 112–114. Retrieved from http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/gatekeepers-of-science

Giordan, M., Csikasz-Nagy, A., Collings, A. M., & Vaggi, F. (2016). The Effects of an Editor Serving as One of the Reviewers During the Peer-Review Process. F1000Research, 5(683). http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8452.1

HaCohen-Kerner, Y., & Tayeb, A. (2017). Rapid detection of similar peer-reviewed scientific papers via constant number of randomized fingerprints. Information Processing & Management, 53(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2016.06.007

Hailiang, Y. (2014). 4 Basic Reasons a Peer Reviewer Might Reject Your Manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/4-basic-reasons-a-peer-reviewer-might-reject-your-manuscript

Kulkarni, S. (2014b). Peer Review Rigging: What Can Journals Do to Tackle this Problem? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/peer-review-rigging-what-can-journals-do-to-tackle-this-problem

Kulkarni, S. (2014s). Peer Review Rigging: Should Authors Be Allowed to Suggest Peer Reviewers? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/peer-review-rigging-should-authors-be-allowed-to-suggest-peer-reviewers

Kulkarni, S. (2015). Why Peer Reviewers Refuse Review Requests. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/why-peer-reviewers-refuse-review-requests

Kulkarni, S. (2016). What Causes Peer Review Scams and How Can They Be Prevented? Learned Publishing, 29(3), 211–213. http://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1031

Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in Peer Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784

Leek, J. T., Taub, M. A., & Pineda, F. J. (2011). Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy. PloS One, 6(11), e26895. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026895

Loannidis, J. P. A., & Ioannidis, J. P. a. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Majumder, K. (2014). Do Rules of Publication Ethics Apply to Peer Reviewers? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/do-rules-of-publication-ethics-apply-to-peer-reviewers

McCook, A. (2016). Can you spot a fake? The trend of fake peer reviews. COPE North American Seminar 2016. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDZGkkw6-5M

Moher, D. (2015). Optimal Strategies to Consider When Peer Reviewing a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–4. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0509-y

Moylan, E. (2016). Peer review and research misconduct. COPE North American Seminar 2016. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wITD5xcImPE

Overstreet, K. (2015). ISMTE: Establishing Best Practices for Ethical Peer Review Management for Editorial Office Professionals. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/ismte-establishing-best-practices-for-ethical-peer-review-management-for-editorial-office-professionals

Overstreet, K. (2016). Who reviews the reviewers? COPE North American Seminar 2016. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40JxF3A4h8o

Ploegh, H. (2011). End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments. Nature, 472. http://doi.org/10.1038/472391a

Qing, F., Lifang, X., & Xiaochuan, L. (2008). Peer-Review Practice and Research for Academic Journals in China. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(4), 417–427. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.39.4.417

Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2016). Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5

Retractions, Post-Publication Peer Review, and Fraud: Scientific Publishing’s Wild West. (2017). McGill University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGBrfyOCCII

Review Criteria. (2001). Academic Medicine, 76(9), 920–921. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/09000/Review_Criteria.20.aspx

Selfe, C. L., & Hawisher, G. E. (2012). Methodologies of Peer and Editorial Review: Changing Practices. College Composition and Communication, 63(4), 672–698. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23264233

Shibayama, S., & Baba, Y. (2016). Dishonest Conformity in Peer Review. Prometheus, 1–19. http://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2015.1114745

Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the Effectiveness of Scientific Gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), 360–365. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112

Souder, L. (2011). The Ethics of Scholarly Peer Review: A Review of the Literature. Learned Publishing, 24(1), 55–74. http://doi.org/10.1087/20110109

Sugimoto, C. R., & Cronin, B. (2013). Citation Gamesmanship: Testing for Evidence of Ego Bias in Peer Review. Scientometrics, 95(3), 851–862. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0845-z

Taylor & Francis. (2016). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Retrieved from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/ethical-guidelines-for-peer-reviewers/

van der Heyden, M. A. G., van de Ven, T., & Opthof, T. (2009). Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction: Implications for the peer-review process. Netherlands Heart Journal, 17(1), 25–29. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF03086211

Walker, R., Barros, B., Conejo, R., Neumann, K., & Telefont, M. (2015). Personal Attributes of Authors and Reviewers, Social Bias and the Outcomes of Peer Review: A Case Study. F1000Research, 4(21). http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6012.2

Wiley. (2016). 10 Types of Plagiarism in Research. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/02/02/10-types-of-plagiarism-in-research?referrer=exchanges

Bernstein, J. (2013). Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 471(10), 3093–3097. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3216-z

Adamson, J. (2012). Mentoring Academic Journal Reviewers: Brokering Reviewing Knowledge. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.677593

Adewoyin, O., Araya, R., & Vassileva, J. (2016). Peer Review in Mentorship: Perception of the Helpfulness of Review and Reciprocal Ratings. In A. Micarelli, J. Stamper, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 13th International Conference, ITS 2016, Zagreb, Croatia, June 7-10, 2016. Proceedings (pp. 286–293). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39583-8_31

Bakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. (1989). Mixed Messages: Referees’ Comments on the Manuscripts They Review. The Sociological Quarterly, 30(4), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1989.tb01540.x

Bornmann, L. (2008). Scientific Peer Review An Analysis of the Peer Review Process from the Perspective of Sociology of Science Theories. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 33(2), 23–38. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture/vol6/iss2/3

Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific Peer Review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245. http://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112

Bornmann, L. (2012). The Hawthorne Effect in Journal Peer Review. Scientometrics, 91(3), 857–862. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0547-y

Bornmann, L. (2015). Interrater Reliability and Convergent Validity of F1000Prime Peer Review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(12), 2415–2426. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23334

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). Reliability of Reviewers’ Ratings When Using Public Peer Review: A Case Study. Learned Publishing, 23(2), 124–131. http://doi.org/10.1087/20100207

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants. PLoS One, 5(12), e14331. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014331

Challenges for Scientific Peer Review and Some Possible Solutions. (2016). University of Sydney Libraries. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d_Tht7uWBY

Chubin, D. E., & J., H. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Retrieved from http://www.sunypress.edu/p-952-peerless-science.aspx

Cobo, E., Cortes, J., Ribera, J. M., Cardellach, F., Selva-O’Callaghan, A., Kostov, B., … Vilardell, M. (2011). Effect of Using Reporting Guidelines During Peer Review on Quality of Final Manuscripts Submitted to A Biomedical Journal: Masked Randomised Trial. BMJ, 343(nov22 2), d6783–d6783. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6783

Cooper, M. L. (2009). Problems, Pitfalls, and Promise in the Peer-Review Process: Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 84–90. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01109.x

Coupé, T. (2013). Peer Review versus Citations – An Analysis of Best Paper Prizes. Research Policy, 42(1), 295–301. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.004

de Gloucester, P. C. (2013). Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications. Accountability in Research, 20(3), 143–166. http://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.788379

De Silva, P. U. K., & K. Vance, C. (2017). Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles. In Scientific Scholarly Communication: The Changing Landscape (pp. 73–99). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2_6

Dobele, A. R. (2015). Assessing the Quality of Feedback in the Peer-Review Process. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(5), 853–868. http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1011086

Editage Insights. (2015). Is It Normal for Peer Review to Be Completed in Two Days? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/is-it-normal-for-peer-review-to-be-completed-in-two-days

Editage Insights. (2016a). Does an Unusually Quick Peer Review Indicate Rejection? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/does-an-unusually-quick-peer-review-indicate-rejection

Editage Insights. (2016b). What Are the Components of a Good Review? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/what-are-the-components-of-a-good-review

Editage Insights. (2016c). Why Is the Journal Sending My Paper for Further Review When the Reviewer Has Recommended Acceptance? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/why-is-the-journal-sending-my-paper-for-further-review-when-the-reviewer-has-recommended-acceptance

Gallo, S. A., Carpenter, A. S., & Glisson, S. R. (2013). Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes. PloS One, 8(8), e71693. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071693

Gallo, S. A., Carpenter, A. S., Irwin, D., McPartland, C. D., Travis, J., Reynders, S., … Glisson, S. R. (2014). The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies. PloS One, 9(9), e106474. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106474

Harnad, S. (2010). No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine, 16(7/8). http://doi.org/10.1045/july2010-harnad

Hirschauer, S. (2010). Editorial Judgments: A Praxeology of “Voting” in Peer Review. Social Studies of Science, 40(1), 71–103. http://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709335405

Horrobin, D. F. (2001). Something Rotten at the Core of Science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22(2), 51–52. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-6147(00)01618-7

Houry, D., Green, S., & Callaham, M. (2012). Does Mentoring New Peer Reviewers Improve Review Quality? A Randomized Trial. BMC Medical Education, 12(1), 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-83

Jansen, Y., Hornbæk, K., & Dragicevic, P. (2016). What Did Authors Value in the CHI’16 Reviews They Received? In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 596–608). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892576

Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2786–2790. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2786

Jennings, C. (2006). Quality and Value: The True Purpose of Peer Review. Nature, (2006), 1–6. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature05032

Kennison, R. (2016). Back to the future: (re)turning from peer review to peer engagement. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1001

Kulkarni, S. (2014). Is Reviewers’ Demand for More Experiments Justified? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/is-reviewers-demand-for-more-experiments-justified

Kulkarni, S. (2015). Can Metrics Replace Peer Review in Indicating the Quality & Impact of Research? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/can-metrics-replace-peer-review-in-indicating-the-quality-impact-of-research

Lyman, R. L. (2013). A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(3), 211–220. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44.3.001

Majumder, K. (2015). Quiz: Do You Know What It Takes to Be a Good Peer Reviewer? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/quiz-do-you-know-what-it-takes-to-be-a-good-peer-reviewer

Meadows, A. (2015). Peer Review — Recognition Wanted! Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/01/08/peer-review-recognition-wanted/

Moffat, L. E. F. (2003). On Publication in Peer Reviewed Journals. UroOncology, 3(2), 81–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/1561095031000148781

Moore, A. (2015). How, when and why to say no to a review request. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2015/03/12/how-when-and-why-to-say-no-to-a-review-request?referrer=exchanges

Neff, B. D., & Olden, J. D. (2006). Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? BioScience, 56(4), 333–340. http://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[333:IPRAGO]2.0.CO;2

Newcombe, N. S., & Bouton, M. E. (2009). Masked Reviews Are Not Fairer Reviews. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 4 (1 ), 62–64. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x

Newton, D. P. (2010). Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors. Accountability in Research, 17(3), 130–145. http://doi.org/10.1080/08989621003791945

Onitilo, A. A., Engel, J. M., Salzman-Scott, S. A., Stankowski, R. V, & Doi, S. A. R. (2014). A Core-Item Reviewer Evaluation (CoRE) System for Manuscript Peer Review. Accountability in Research, 21(2), 109–121. http://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.847664

Paglione, L. D., & Lawrence, R. N. (2015). Data Exchange Standards to Support and Acknowledge Peer-Review Activity. Learned Publishing, 28(4), 309–316. http://doi.org/10.1087/20150411

Paltridge, B. (2017). The Discourse of Peer Review: Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0

Paolucci, M., & Grimaldo, F. (2014). Mechanism Change in a Simulation of Peer Review: From Junk Support to Elitism. Scientometrics, 99(3), 663–688. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1239-1

Patel, J. (2014). Why Training and Specialization Is Needed for Peer Review: A Case Study of Peer Review for Randomized Controlled Trials. BMC Medicine, 12, 128. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z

Ravindran, S. (2016). Getting Credit for Peer Review. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/02/getting-credit-peer-review

Roux, A. P. J., & De Beer, C. S. (2016). Peer Review: Reliable Measuring Scale or Superfluous Practice? In On the Way to the Best Possible Science (p. 167). Stellenbosch: Sun Press.

Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2009). The Peer-Review and Editorial System: Ways to Fix Something That Might Be Broken. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 54–61. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01106.x

Shatz, D. (2004). Peer Review : A Critical Inquiry. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.

Sidalak, D., Purdy, E., Luckett-Gatopoulos, S., Murray, H., Thoma, B., & Chan, T. M. (2017). Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors. Academic Medicine, 92(2), 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001224

Siler, K., & Strang, D. (2017). Peer Review and Scholarly Originality. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(1), 29–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916656919

Smith, D. R. (2016). Will Publons Popularize the Scientific Peer-Review Process? BioScience. http://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw010

Snell, R. R. (2015). Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers. PloS One, 10(4), e0120838. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120838

Stevenson, J. (2015). The Importance of Training in Peer Review. Retrieved from http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/the-importance-of-training-in-peer-review/

Trafimow, D., & Rice, S. (2009). What If Social Scientists Had Reviewed Great Scientific Works of the Past? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 65–78. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01107.x

Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.

Weller, A. C. (2005). Electronic Scientific Information, Open Access, and Editorial Peer Review. Science & Technology Libraries, 26(1), 89–108. http://doi.org/10.1300/J122v26n01_06

Wolters Kluwer. (2016). Accept, Reject, or Revise? Improving Scholarship by Improving Peer Review. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/accept-reject-or-revise-improving-scholarship-by-improving-peer-review

Alam, M., Kim, N. A., Havey, J., Rademaker, A., Ratner, D., Tregre, B., … Coleman III, W. P. (2011). Blinded vs. Unblinded Peer Review of Manuscripts Submitted to a Dermatology Journal: A Randomized Multi-Rater Study. British Journal of Dermatology, 165(3), 563–567. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10432.x

Bacchetti, P. (2002). Peer Review Of Statistics In Medical Research: The Other Problem. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 324(7348), 1271–1273. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7362.491/a

Baez, B. (2002). Confidentiality and Peer Review: The Paradox of Secrecy in Academe. The Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 163–183. http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2002.0002

Bailey, C. D., Hermanson, D. R., & Tompkins, J. G. (2008). The Peer Review Process in Finance Journals. Journal of Financial Education, 34, 1–27. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41948838

Ball, C. E., & Eyman, D. (2015). Editorial Workflows for Multimedia-Rich Scholarship. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 18(4). http://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0018.406

Belojevic, N., Sayers, J., & Research Teams, I. and M. (2014). Peer Review Personas. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 17(3). http://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0017.304

Berg, L. D. (2001). Masculinism, Emplacement, and Positionality in Peer Review. The Professional Geographer, 53(4), 511–521. http://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00301

Björk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2015). Emerging New Methods of Peer Review in Scholarly Journals. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150202

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010b). The Usefulness of Peer Review for Selecting Manuscripts for Publication: A Utility Analysis Taking as an Example a High-Impact Journal. PloS One, 5(6), e11344. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011344

Brown, R. J. C. (2005). The Use of Double Anonymity in Peer Review: A Decision Whose Time Has Come? Quality Assurance, 11(2-4), 103–109. http://doi.org/10.1080/10529410500481983

Burgess, I. (2015). Using Peer Review Comments in a Constructive Way. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/using-peer-review-comments-in-a-constructive-way

Callaghan, S. (2016). Starting Something New: The Beginnings of Peer Review of Data. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/01/26/starting-something-new-the-beginnings-of-peer-review-of-data?referrer=exchanges

Cross, J. G. (2008). Reviewing Digital Scholarship: The Need for Discipline-Based Peer Review. Journal of Web Librarianship, 2(4), 549–566. http://doi.org/10.1080/19322900802473936

Doi, S. A. R., Salzman-Scott, S. A., & Onitilo, A. A. (2016). Validation of the CoRE Questionnaire for a Medical Journal Peer Review. Accountability in Research, 23(1), 47–52. http://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.1002835

Eldredge, J. D., Phillips, H. E., & Kroth, P. J. (2013). Real-Time Peer Review: An Innovative Feature to an Evidence-Based Practice Conference. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 32(4), 412–423. http://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2013.837690

Fresco-Santalla, A., & Hernández-Pérez, T. (2014). Current and Evolving Models of Peer Review. The Serials Librarian, 67(4), 373–398. http://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.985415

Frishauf, P. (2008). The End of Peer Review and Traditional Publishing as We Know It. The Medscape Journal of Medicine, 10(11), 267. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2605128/

Gasparyan, A. Y., & Kitas, G. D. (2012). Best Peer Reviewers and the Quality of Peer Review in Biomedical Journals. Croatian Medical Journal, 53(4), 386–389. http://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386

Gould, T. H. P. (2010). Scholar as E-Publisher: The Future Role of [Anonymous] Peer Review within Online Publishing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41(4), 428–448. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.41.4.428

Gould, T. H. P. (2012a). Do We Still Need Peer Review? An Argument for Change. Scarecrow Press.

Gould, T. H. P. (2012b). The Church and Peer Review: Was “Peer” Review Fairer, More Honest Then Than Now? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(1), 36–60. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44.1.36

Greenwood, D. C., & Freeman, J. V. (2015). How to Spot a Statistical Problem: Advice for a Non-Statistical Reviewer. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–3. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0510-5

Grivell, L. (2006). Through a Glass Darkly. EMBO Reports, 7(6), 567–570. Retrieved from http://embor.embopress.org/content/7/6/567.abstract

Haak, L. (2015). The Practice of Acknowledging Peer Review. Retrieved from http://orcid.org/blog/2015/05/15/f1000-and-orcid-partner-launch-standard-citing-peer-review-activities

Herron, D. M. (2012). Is Expert Peer Review Obsolete? A Model Suggests that Post-Publication Reader Review May Exceed the Accuracy of Traditional Peer Review. Surgical Endoscopy, 26(8), 2275–2280. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2171-1

Hirst, A., & Altman, D. G. (2012). Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals. PloS One, 7(4), e35621. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035621

Howard, G. (2012). Peer Review As Boundary Work. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/jsp.43.3.322#.VrpTDFO9ETA.mendeley

Kaatz, A., Gutierrez, B., & Carnes, M. (2016). Threats to objectivity in peer review: the case of gender. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 35(8), 371–373. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2014.06.005

Kissling, I. (2015). Peer Review Under Revision – The Digital Challenge for Funding Agencies. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/120487651

Knoepfler, P. (2016). Reviewing Post-Publication Peer Review. Trends in Genetics, 31(5), 221–223. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006

Kotsis, S. V, & Chung, K. C. (2014). Manuscript Rejection: How to Submit a Revision and Tips on Being a Good Peer Reviewer. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 133(4), 958–964. http://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000002

Kulkarni, S. (2014a). Post-publication Peer Review—An Unexplored Avenue. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/post-publication-peer-review-an-unexplored-avenue

Kulkarni, S. (2014b). Post-publication Peer Review and Legal Clashes: Should Researchers Be Wary of Commenting Publicly? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/post-publication-peer-review-and-legal-clashes-should-researchers-be-wary-of-commenting-publicly

Lammey, R., Mothersole, L., & Teasdale, C. (2011). An Overview of Peer Review. Editors’ Bulletin, 7(1), 37–43. http://doi.org/10.1080/17521742.2010.573705

Larson, B. P., & Chung, K. C. (2012). A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts. HAND, 7(1), 37–44. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-012-9392-6

Lee, C. J. (2015). Commensuration Bias in Peer Review. Philosophy of Science, 82(5), 1272–1283. http://doi.org/10.1086/683652

Li, L., Wang, Y., Liu, G., Wang, M., & Wu, X. (2015). Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review. PloS One, 10(6), e0130493. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130493

Lipworth, W., & Kerridge, I. (2011). Shifting Power Relations and the Ethics of Journal Peer Review. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 97–121. http://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2010.534567

Mandernach, B. J., Holbeck, R., & Cross, T. (2015). Hybrid Review: Taking SoTL Beyond Traditional Peer Review for Journal Publication. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 18(2). http://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0018.202

Mayden, K. D. (2012). Peer Review: Publication’s Gold Standard. Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology, 3(2), 117–122. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093306/

MRC Peer Review Explained. (2016). Medical Research Council. Retrieved from http://www.insight.mrc.ac.uk/2016/05/10/mrc-peer-review-explained/

Peer Review in 2015: A Global View. (2015a) (p. 47 slides). Retrieved from http://www.uksg.org/webinars/peerreview

Okike, K., Hug, K. T., Kocher, M. S., & Leopold. (2016). Single-Blind vs Double-Blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. JAMA, 316(12), 1315–1316. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.11014

Perry, G., Bertoluci, J., Bury, B., Hansen, R. W., Jehle, R., Measey, J., … Zuffi, M. A. L. (2012). The “Peer” in “Peer Review.” African Journal of Herpetology, 61(1), 1–2. http://doi.org/10.1080/21564574.2012.658665

Phillips, J. S. (2011). Expert Bias in Peer Review. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 27(12), 2229–2233. http://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2011.624090

Poythress, N., & Petrila, J. P. (2010). PCL-R Psychopathy: Threats to Sue, Peer Review, and Potential Implications for Science and Law. A Commentary. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9(1), 3–10. http://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2010.483346

Preston, A. (2014). A Mission to Speed up Science: Publons. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/a-mission-to-speed-up-science-publons

Rajagopalan, J. (2014). What Are the Types of Peer Review? Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/what-are-the-types-of-peer-review

Rajagopalan, J. (2015). Patient Peer Reviews: An Unorthodox Approach to Clinical Trial Publication. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/patient-peer-reviews-an-unorthodox-approach-to-clinical-trial-publication

Results-Free Review: A New Model of Peer Review. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/RFPR

Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Carpenter, J., Godlee, F., & Smith, R. (2004). Effects of Training on Quality of Peer Review: Randomised Controlled Trial. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 328(7441), 673. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE

Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-gzM8bsbpg

Seppänen, J.-T., Collings, A., & Plank, J. (2015). New Models for Peer Review. Association of Southeastern Research Libraries. Retrieved from https://epiresearch.org/about-us/archives/video-archives-2/how-to-conduct-or-reply-to-peer-review/

Shashok, K. (2008). Content and Communication: How Can Peer Review Provide Helpful Feedback About the Writing? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 1–9. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-3

Stahel, P. F., & Moore, E. E. (2014). Peer Review for Biomedical Publications: We Can Improve the System. BMC Medicine, 12(1), 1–4. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1

Steinecke, A., & Shea, J. A. (2001). Review Form. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 916–918. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/09000/Review_Form.17.aspx

Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review. Accountability in Research, 22(1), 22–40. http://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.899909

Wager, E., & Jefferson, T. (2001). Shortcomings of Peer Review in Biomedical Journals. Learned Publishing, 14(4), 257–263. http://doi.org/10.1087/095315101753141356

Wiley. (2016). Reviewing Revised Manuscripts. Retrieved from http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828104.html

Adler, J. R. (2012). A New Age of Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals. Surgical Neurology International, 3, 145. http://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.103889

Clarke, I. (2015). The Gatekeepers of Modern Physics: Periodicals and Peer Review in 1920s Britain. Isis, 106(1), 70–93. http://doi.org/10.1086/681037

Ferreira, C., Bastille-Rousseau, G., Bennett, A. M., Ellington, E. H., Terwissen, C., Austin, C., … Murray, D. L. (2016). The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline? Biological Reviews, 91(3), 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12185

History of Journal Peer Review. (2017). Queensland University of Technology, Library and Offic­e of Research Ethics & Integrity. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/216091379

Mallard, G., Lamont, M., & Guetzkow, J. (2009). Fairness as Appropriateness: Negotiating Epistemological Differences in Peer Review. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34(5), 573–606. http://doi.org/10.1177/0162243908329381

Spier, R. (2002). The History of the Peer-Review Process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6

Albert, A. Y. K., Gow, J. L., Cobra, A., & Vines, T. H. (2016). Is It Becoming Harder to Secure Reviewers for Peer Review? A Test with Data from Five Ecology Journals. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0022-7

Baethge, C., Franklin, J., & Mertens, S. (2013). Substantial Agreement of Referee Recommendations at a General Medical Journal – A Peer Review Evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. PloS One, 8(5), e61401. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061401

Bailey, C. D., Hair, J. F., Hermanson, D. R., & Crittenden, V. L. (2012). Marketing Academics’ Perceptions of the Peer Review Process. Marketing Education Review, 22(3), 263–278. http://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008220306

Björk, B.-C., & Catani, P. (2016). Peer Review in Megajournals Compared with Traditional Scholarly Journals: Does It Make A Difference? Learned Publishing, 29(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1007

Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts: The Strengths and Weaknesses in Medical Education Reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889–896. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/09000/Reasons_Reviewers_Reject_and_Accept_Manuscripts_.10.aspx

Caelleigh, A. S., Shea, J. A., & Penn, G. (2001). Selection and Qualities of Reviewers. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 914–916. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/09000/Selection_and_Qualities_of_Reviewers.16.aspx

Chauvin, A., Ravaud, P., Baron, G., Barnes, C., & Boutron, I. (2015). The Most Important Tasks for Peer Reviewers Evaluating a Randomized Controlled Trial Are Not Congruent with the Tasks Most Often Requested by Journal Editors. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0395-3

Davo, M. del C., Vives, C., & Alvarez-Dardet, C. (2003). Why Are Women Underused in the JECH Peer Review Process? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-), 57(12), 936–937. http://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.12.936

Donovan, S. K. (2011). Big Journals, Small Journals, and the Two Peer Reviews. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(4), 534–538. http://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.42.4.534

Earnshaw, J. J., Farndon, J. R., Guillou, P. J., Johnson, C. D., Murie, J. A., & Murray, G. D. (2000). A Comparison of Reports from Referees Chosen by Authors or Journal Editors in the Peer Review Process. Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 82. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10889776

Editors, T. Pl. M. (2007). Peer Review in PLoS Medicine. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), e58. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040058

Fox, C. W., Burns, C. S., & Meyer, J. A. (2016). Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 30(1), 140–153.

Ho, R. C.-M., Kwok-Kei, M., Tao, R., Lu, Y., R., D., & Pan, F. (2013). Views on the Peer Review System of Biomedical Journals: An Online Survey of Academics from High-Ranking Universities. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(74), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-74

Hopewell, S., Collins, G. S., Boutron, I., Yu, L.-M., Cook, J., Shanyinde, M., … Altman, D. G. (2014). Impact of Peer Review on Reports of Randomised Trials Published in Open Peer Review Journals: Retrospective Before and After Study. BMJ, 349, 11. http://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4145

Jefferson, T. (2006). Quality and Value: Models of Quality Control for Scientific Research. Nature, Online. http://doi.org/doi:10.1038/nature05031

Kowalczuk, M. K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S. L., Patel, J., & Moylan, E. C. (2015). Retrospective Analysis of the Quality of Reports by Author-Suggested and Non-Author-Suggested Reviewers in Journals Operating on Open or Single-Blind Peer Review Models. BMJ Open, 5(9). http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707

Kratz, J. E., & Strasser, C. (2015). Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0117619. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117619

Lipworth, W. L., Kerridge, I. H., Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2011). Journal Peer Review in Context: A Qualitative Study of the Social and Subjective Dimensions of Manuscript Review in Biomedical Publishing. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 72(7), 1056–63. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.002

Majumder, K. (2016). How Do Authors Feel When They Receive Negative Peer Reviewer Comments? An Experience from Chinese Biomedical Researchers. Journal: European Science Editing, 42(2), 31–35. Retrieved from http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/how-do-authors-feel-when-they-receive-negative-peer-reviewer-comments-an-experience-from-chinese-biomedical-researchers/

Patel, J. (2015a). A Beginner’s Guide to Peer Review: Part One. Retrieved from http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/05/13/beginners-guide-peer-review-part-one/

Peel, D. (2008). Re-viewing the Journal Peer Review Process. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), 1–9. http://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2008.03020001

Petchey, O. L., Fox, J. W., & Haddon, L. (2014). Imbalance in Individual Researcher’s Peer Review Activities Quantified for Four British Ecological Society journals, 2003-2010. PloS ONE, 9(3), e92896. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092896

Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (2010). Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(02), 187. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183

Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A., & Black, N. (2006). Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors. JAMA, 295. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.3.314

Sikdar, S., Marsili, M., Ganguly, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2016). Anomalies in the Peer-review System: A Case Study of the Journal of High Energy Physics. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 2245–2250). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2983323.2983675

Soh, K. C. (2013). Peer Review: Has It a Future? European Journal of Higher Education, 3(2), 129–139. http://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.747877

van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., & Evans, S. J. W. (2010). Effect on Peer Review of Telling Reviewers that Their Signed Reviews Might Be Posted on the Web: Randomised Controlled Trial. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 341, c5729. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729

Wager, E., Parkin, E. C., & Tamber, P. S. (2006). Are Reviewers Suggested by Authors as Good as Those Chosen by Editors? Results of a Rater-Blinded, Retrospective Study. BMC Medicine, 4(1), 1–5. http://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-4-13

Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open Peer Review: A Randomised Controlled Trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry : The Journal of Mental Science, 176(1), 47–51. http://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.176.1.47

Wiley. (2016). Wiley Peer Reviewer Study: Key Findings. Retrieved from http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828031.html

Kivisto, P. (2016). Advice to Young Authors: Think Like an Editor. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/08/22/advice-to-young-authors-think-like-an-editor?referrer=exchanges

Kulkarni, S. (2015b). How Authors, Reviewers, and Editors Perceive Peer Review: An Overview of the Taylor & Francis Report. Retrieved from http://www.editage.com/insights/how-authors-reviewers-and-editors-perceive-peer-review-an-overview-of-the-taylor-francis-report

Meadows, A. (2015). Peer Review Around the World. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2015/09/30/peer-review-around-the-world?referrer=exchanges

Review in 2015: A Global View. (2015b). Retrieved from authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Peer-Review-2015-white-paper.pdf

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Eighth Report of Session 2010–12. (2011). London: The Stationery Office Limited; House of Commons. Science and Technology Committee. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/85602.htm

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Government and Research Councils UK Responses to the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2010–12. (2011). London: The Stationery Office Limited; House of Commons. Science and Technology Committee. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/1535/1535.pdf

Peer Review: A Global View. (2016). Retrieved from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Peer-review-supplement-motivations-and-support.pdf

Peer Review: A Global View. (2016). Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbkKjvJgB8&feature=youtu.be

Peer Review: A Guide for Researchers. (2010). London: Research Information Network. Retrieved from http://rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Peer-review-guide-screen.pdf

Taylor, G. (2016). What Are the Current Attitudes Toward Peer Review?: Publishing Research Consortium Survey Results. Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/06/27/what-are-the-current-attitudes-toward-peer-review-publishing-research-consortium-survey-results?referrer=exchanges

Ware, M. (2008). Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium, 20. Retrieved from http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prc-research-projects/35-prc-summary-4-ware-final-1/file

Ware, M. (2016). Peer Review Survey 2015. Retrieved from http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prc-research-projects/57-prc-peer-review-survey-2015/file

Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2009). The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Journal Publishing. Oxford: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf

Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2012). The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Journal Publishing (3rd ed.). STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.stm-assoc.org/2012_12_11_STM_Report_2012.pdf

Ware, M., & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer Review In Scholarly Journals: An International Study into the Perspective of the Scholarly Community. Bristol: Mark Ware Consulting Ltd. Retrieved from http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prc-research-projects/36-peer-review-full-prc-report-final/file

What Might Peer Review Look Like in 2030?: A Report from BioMed Central and Digital Science. (2017). Retrieved from https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/8341862

Supporting Organizations

PRE works closely with the other like-minded organizations to preserve the integrity of scholarly communication.

Recommend a Resource!

Do you know of a great peer review resource not listed here? Let us know!
Send us a note below with links or references.

First Name

Last Name


Email Address