Committed to improving the practice and application of scholarly peer review

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

‘How-Tos’ & Tutorials

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

Alam, S., & Patel, J. (2015). Peer Review: Tips from Field Experts for Junior Reviewers. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–2.

Bordage, G., & Caelleigh, A. S. (2001b). How To Read “Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts.” Academic Medicine, 76(9), 909–910. Retrieved from

Challenging Aspects of Peer Reviewing 2015. (2015). Wiley. Retrieved from

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

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.

How to Review a Manuscript #01 – Peer Review. (2013). Elsevier. Retrieved from

How to Review a Manuscript #02 – The Reviewing Process. (2013). Elsevier. Retrieved from

How to Review a Manuscript #03 – The Reviewer’s Role. (2013). Elsevier. Retrieved from

Lammey, R., Mothersole, L., & Teasdale, C. (2011). An Overview of Peer Review. Editors’ Bulletin, 7(1), 37–43.

Moher, D. (2015). Optimal Strategies to Consider When Peer Reviewing a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–4.

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

Patel, J. (2015a). A Beginner’s Guide to Peer Review: Part One. Retrieved from

Patel, J. (2015b). A Beginner’s Guide to Peer Review: Part Three. Retrieved from

Patel, J. (2015c). A Beginner’s Guide to Peer Review: Part Two. Retrieved from

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.

Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works. (2010). Retrieved from

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.

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

Wilson, J. (2012). Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts. London: Sense About Science. Retrieved from

Best Practices & Guidelines

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

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. (2013). Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved from

Del Mar, C., & Hoffmann, T. C. (2015). A Guide to Performing a Peer Review of Randomised Controlled Trials. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–7.

Early Adopter Program — Peer Review. (2015). ORCID. Retrieved from

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

On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition. (2009). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Top 10 Tips for Peer Reviewers. (2015). Wiley. Retrieved from Tips for Peer Review.pdf

Top Tips for Peer Review 2015. (2015). Wiley. Retrieved from


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

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.

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.

Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific Peer Review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245.

Brown, T. (2006). Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas. London: Sense About Science. Retrieved from

Cowley, S. J. (2015). How Peer Review Constrains Cognition: On the Frontline in the Knowledge Sector. Frontiers in Psychology.

Ellison, G. (2011). Is Peer Review in Decline? Economic Inquiry, 49(3), 635–657.

Fagan, W. T. (1990). To Accept or Reject: Peer Review. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET) / Revue de La Pensée Éducativ, 24(2), 103–113. Retrieved from

Fitzpatrick, K. (2012). Beyond Metrics: In Debates in the Digital Humanities (NED – New, pp. 452–459). University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved from

Fitzpatrick. (2011). Peer Review. In K. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Planned Obsolescence (pp. 15–49). NYU Press. Retrieved from

Ginsparg, P. (2002). Can Peer Review Be Better Focused? Science & Technology Libraries, 22(3-4), 5–17.

Guarding the Guardians: Research on Editorial Peer Review, Selected Proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. (1990). In International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Chicago: American Medical Association.

Harnad, S. (1998). Learned Inquiry and the Net: The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright. Learned Publishing, 11(4), 283–292.

Hopps, J. G. (1989). Peer Review: A Trust, Not a Vault. Social Work, 34(1), 3–4. Retrieved from

Howard, G. (2012). Peer Review As Boundary Work. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. Retrieved from

Jennings, C. (2006). Quality and Value: The True Purpose of Peer Review. Nature, (2006), 1–6.

Kassirer, J. P., & Campion, E. W. (1994). Peer Review: Crude and Understudied, but Indispensable. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 272 (2), 96–97.

Kissling, I. (2015). Peer Review Under Revision – The Digital Challenge for Funding Agencies. Retrieved from

Larson, B. P., & Chung, K. C. (2012). A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts. HAND, 7(1), 37–44.

Mayden, K. D. (2012). Peer Review: Publication’s Gold Standard. Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology, 3(2), 117–122. Retrieved from

Mulligan, A., & Raphael, E. (2010). Peer Review in a Changing World – Preliminary Findings of a Global Study. Serials, 23(1), 25–34.

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.

Nicholls, R. D. (1999). Peer Review Under Review. Science, 286(5446), 1853. Retrieved from

Peel, D. (2008). Re-viewing the Journal Peer Review Process. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), 1–9.

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.

Raelin, J. A. (2008). Refereeing the Game of Peer Review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 124–129.

Saeidnia, S., & Abdollahi, M. (2015). Peer Review Processes and Related Issues in Scholarly Journals. DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 23(1), 1–4.

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

Squazzoni, F. (2013). Opening the Black Box of Peer Review. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 16(2), 1–11.

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.

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

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

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

Wheeler, B. (2011). The Ontology of the Scholarly Journal and the Place of Peer Review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(3), 307–322.

Anderson, K., Brown, V., Grossman, A., Haak, L., & Preston, A. (2015). Trust and Transparency in Peer Review. Wiley. Retrieved from

Bordage, G., & Caelleigh, A. S. (2001a). A Tool for Reviewers: “Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts.” Academic Medicine, 76(9), 904–908. Retrieved from

Hartonen, T., & Alava, M. J. (2013). How Important Tasks Are Performed: Peer Review. Scientific Reports, 3, 1679.

Important Outcomes of Peer Review. (2015). Wiley. Retrieved from
Peer Review: A Guide for Researchers. (2010). London: Research Information Network. Retrieved from

Weale, A. (2007). Peer Review: The Challenges for the Humanities and Social Sciences. London: The British Academy. Retrieved from

Tonks, A. (1995). Reviewers Chosen by Authors. BMJ, 311(6999), 210.

Walbot, V. (2009). Are We Training Pit Bulls to Review Our Manuscripts? Journal of Biology, 8.

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

Caelleigh, A. S., & Shea, J. A. (2001b). Publication Decision. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 918–919. Retrieved from

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.

Review Criteria. (2001). Academic Medicine, 76(9), 920–921. Retrieved from

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.

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.

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.

Shashok, K. (2008). Content and Communication: How Can Peer Review Provide Helpful Feedback About the Writing? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 1–9.

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.

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.

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.

Campanario, J. M. (1998a). Peer Review for Journals as It Stands Today—Part 1. Science Communication, 19(3), 181–211.

Campanario, J. M. (1998b). Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 2. Science Communication, 19(4), 277–306.

Berry, R. L. (1980). Academic Freedom and Peer Reviews of Research Proposals and Papers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(4), 639–646.

Brush, A. H. (1986). Peer Review. The Auk, 103(1), 248. Retrieved from

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.

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.

Blackburn, J. L., & Hakel, M. D. (2006). An Examination of Sources of Peer-Review Bias. Psychological Science, 17(5), 378–382.

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.

Bosetti, F., & Toscano, C. D. (2007). Is It Time to Standardize Ethics Guiding the Peer Review Process? Lipids, 43(2), 107–108.

Bowman, J. D. (2014). Predatory Publishing, Questionable Peer Review, and Fraudulent Conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(10), 176.

Comer, D. R., & Schwartz, M. (2014). The Problem of Humiliation in Peer Review. Ethics and Education, 9(2), 141–156.

CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update. (2012). Council of Science Editors. Retrieved from

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.

Fox, M. F. (1994). Scientific Misconduct and Editorial and Peer Review Processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 298–309.

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.

Gatekeepers of Science: Peer Review Controversies at Home and Abroad. (2004). The New Atlantis, (4), 112–114. Retrieved from

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.

Lee, C. J. (2015). Commensuration Bias in Peer Review. Philosophy of Science, 82(5), 1272–1283.

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.

Link, A. M. (1998). US and Non-US Submissions: An Analysis of Reviewer Bias. JAMA, 280(3), 246–247. Retrieved from

Lipworth, W., & Kerridge, I. (2011). Shifting Power Relations and the Ethics of Journal Peer Review. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 97–121.

Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161–175.

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.

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.

Phillips, J. S. (2011). Expert Bias in Peer Review. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 27(12), 2229–2233.

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.

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.

Shibayama, S., & Baba, Y. (2016). Dishonest Conformity in Peer Review. Prometheus, 1–19.

Sigelman, L., & Whicker, M. L. (1987). Some Implications of Bias in Peer Review: A Simulation-Based Analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 68(3), 494–509. Retrieved from

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

Sugimoto, C. R., & Cronin, B. (2013). Citation Gamesmanship: Testing for Evidence of Ego Bias in Peer Review. Scientometrics, 95(3), 851–862.

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.

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).

Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review. Nature, 387(6631), 341–343.

Berkenkotter, C. (1995). The Power and the Perils of Peer Review. Rhetoric Review, 13(2), 245–248. Retrieved from

Bernstein, J. (2013). Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 471(10), 3093–3097.

Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science (New York, N.Y.), 342(6154), 60–5.

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.

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.

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.

Daniel, H.-D. (1993). Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review. Wiley.

de Gloucester, P. C. (2013). Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications. Accountability in Research, 20(3), 143–166.

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

Hargens, L. L., & Herting, J. R. (1990). Neglected Considerations in the Analysis of Agreement Among Journal Referees. Scientometrics, 19(1), 91–106.

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

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.

Horrobin, D. F. (2001). Something Rotten at the Core of Science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22(2), 51–52.

Jefferson, T. (2006). Quality and Value: Models of Quality Control for Scientific Research. Nature, Online.

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.

Loannidis, J. P. A., & Ioannidis, J. P. a. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.

Lock, S. (1982). Peer Review Weighed In The Balance. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition), 285(6350), 1224–1226. Retrieved from

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.

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

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

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.

Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A., & Black, N. (2006). Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors. JAMA, 295(3), 314–317.

Shatz, D. (1996). Is Peer Review Overrated? The Monist, 79(4), 536–563. Retrieved from

Shatz, D. (2004). Peer Review : A Critical Inquiry. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the Effectiveness of Scientific Gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), 360–365.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Altman, D. G. (1998). Statistical Reviewing for Medical Journals. Statistics in Medicine, 17(23), 2661–2674.;2-B

Arrington, P. (1995). Some Thoughts on Changing the Review Process for Academic Journals: A Personal Exploration. Rhetoric Review, 13(2), 249–253. Retrieved from

Bacchetti, P. (2002). Peer Review Of Statistics In Medical Research: The Other Problem. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 324(7348), 1271–1273.

Baez, B. (2002). Confidentiality and Peer Review: The Paradox of Secrecy in Academe. The Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 163–183.

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

Bali, M. (2015). A New Scholar’s Perspective on Open Peer Review. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(8), 857–863.

Ball, C. E., & Eyman, D. (2015). Editorial Workflows for Multimedia-Rich Scholarship. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 18(4).

Belojevic, N., Sayers, J., & Research Teams, I. and M. (2014). Peer Review Personas. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 17(3).

Berg, L. D. (2001). Masculinism, Emplacement, and Positionality in Peer Review. The Professional Geographer, 53(4), 511–521.

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.

Bloom, T. (2006). Online Frontiers of the Peer-Reviewed Literature. Nature.

Boldt, A. (2010). Extending to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2), 238–242.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Fitzpatrick, K. (2010). Peer-to-Peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority. Social Epistemology, 24(3), 161–179.

Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (2003). Peer Review in Health Sciences. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), . London, 2e: BMJ Books.

Ford, E. (2013). Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311–326.

Ford, E. (2015). Open Peer Review at Four STEM Journals: An Observational Overview. F1000Research, 4, 6.

Fox, M. F. (1989). Disciplinary Fragmentation, Peer Review, and the Publication Process. The American Sociologist, 20(2), 188–191.

Fresco-Santalla, A., & Hernández-Pérez, T. (2014). Current and Evolving Models of Peer Review. The Serials Librarian, 67(4), 373–398.

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

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.

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.

Godlee, F. (2002). Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit. JAMA, 287(21), 2762–2765.

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.

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

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

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.

Griffin, S. (2013). Open and Transparent Peer Review. F1000Research. Retrieved from

Groves, T. (2010). Is Open Peer Review the Fairest System? Yes. BMJ, 341.

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

How We Found 15 Million Hours of Lost Time. (2013). Rubriq. Retrieved from

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

Khan, K. (2010). Is Open Peer Review the Fairest System? No. BMJ, 341.

Knoepfler, P. (2016). Reviewing Post-Publication Peer Review. Trends in Genetics, 31(5), 221–223.

Koop, T. (2006). An Open, Two-Stage Peer-Review Journal. Nature, 0–2.

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

Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1994a). A Citation Analysis of the Impact of Blinded Peer Review. JAMA, 272(2), 147–149.

Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1994b). Does the “Blindness” of Peer Review Influence Manuscript Selection Efficiency? Southern Economic Journal, 60(4), 896–906.

Lamont, M. (Ed.). (2009). Opening the Black Box of Peer Review. In How Professors Think (pp. 1–21). Harvard University Press. Retrieved from

Lee, C. (2012). Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 1.

Leek, J. T., Taub, M. A., & Pineda, F. J. (2011). Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy. PloS One, 6(11), e26895.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Peer Review and Publication Standards in Social Work Journals: The Miami Statement. (2005). Social Work Research, 29(2), 119–121.

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.

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.

Ploegh, H. (2011). End the Wasteful Tyranny of Reviewer Experiments. Nature, 472.

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.

Sandewall, E. (2012). Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 9.

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.

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

Seppänen, J.-T., Collings, A., & Plank, J. (2015). New Models for Peer Review. Association of Southeastern Research Libraries. Retrieved from

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

Smith, R. (1988). Problems With Peer Review and Alternatives. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition), 296(6624), 774–777.

Stahel, P. F., & Moore, E. E. (2014). Peer Review for Biomedical Publications: We Can Improve the System. BMC Medicine, 12(1), 1–4.

Steinecke, A., & Shea, J. A. (2001). Review Form. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 916–918. Retrieved from

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.

van Rooyen, S., Black, N., & Godlee, F. (1999). Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(7), 625–629.

Wager, E., & Jefferson, T. (2001). Shortcomings of Peer Review in Biomedical Journals. Learned Publishing, 14(4), 257–263.

Weeks, K. M. (1990). The Peer Review Process: Confidentiality and Disclosure. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(2), 198–219.

Whitehurst, G. J. (1984). Interrater Agreement for Journal Manuscript Reviews. American Psychologist, 39(1), 22–28.

Adler, J. R. (2012). A New Age of Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals. Surgical Neurology International, 3, 145.

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

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.

Grivell, L. (2006). Through a Glass Darkly. EMBO Reports, 7(6), 567–570. Retrieved from

Lyman, R. L. (2013). A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(3), 211–220.

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.

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

Caelleigh, A. S., Shea, J. A., & Penn, G. (2001). Selection and Qualities of Reviewers. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 914–916. Retrieved from

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.

Davo, M. del C., Vives, C., & Álvarez-Dardet, C. (2003). Why Are Women Underused in the JECH Peer Review Process? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-), 57(12), 936–937.

Donovan, S. K. (2011). Big Journals, Small Journals, and the Two Peer Reviews. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(4), 534–538.

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

Editors, T. Pl. M. (2007). Peer Review in PLoS Medicine. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), e58.

Harnad, S. R. (1982). Peer Commentary on Peer Review: A Case Study in Scientific Quality Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

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.

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.

Kowalczuk, M. K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S. L., & Moylan, E. C. (2013a). 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.

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).

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.

McNutt, R. A., Evans, A. T., Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (1990). The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial. JAMA, 263(10), 1371–1376.

Murray, F. B., & Raths, J. (1996). Factors in the Peer Review of Reviews. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 417–421.

Paolucci, M., & Grimaldo, F. (2014). Mechanism Change in a Simulation of Peer Review: From Junk Support to Elitism. Scientometrics, 99(3), 663–688.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1999). The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 188–203.

Reid, J. J. (1990). Editor’s Corner: Peer Review at American Antiquity. American Antiquity, 55(4), 665–666. Retrieved from

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.

Snell, R. R. (2015). Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers. PloS One, 10(4), e0120838.

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.

van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of Open Peer Review on Quality of Reviews and on Reviewers’ Recommendations: A Randomised Trial. BMJ, 318, 23–27.

van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Smith, R., & Black, N. (1999). Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14(10), 622–624.

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.

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.

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

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

Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. (1991). In International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication (p. 263). Chicago: Council of Biology Editors.

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

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