Committed to improving the practice and application of scholarly peer review

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

‘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

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

A Guide to Peer Review, Part 1: Why Is Peer Review So Important? (2016). Wiley. Retrieved from

A Guide to Peer Review, Part 2: How To Navigate The Peer Review Process. (2016). Wiley. Retrieved from

A Guide to Peer Review, Part 3: Breaking Down Peer Review by Type. (2016). Wiley. Retrieved from

AHRC Early Career Researchers. (2016). AHRC Press. Retrieved from

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

Board, A. E. (2014). How to Write a Reviewer Report. Retrieved from

Booth, B. A. (2006). Peer Review. In The ACS Style Guide (pp. 71–76). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Retrieved from

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

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.

Dealing with Reviewers’ Comments. (2016). Elsevier. Retrieved from

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

Editage Insights. (2014). How Can I Implement Reviewer Comments on a Rejected Paper in My Next Submission? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2014). Responding to Biased Reviewer Comments. Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2014). Why Should I Select Preferred Reviewers and How Should I Do It? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2016). How Should I Respond If I Cannot Address a Reviewer’s Suggestion? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2016). How to Write a Response to Reviewer Comments in Case of Minor Revisions. Retrieved from

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

How to Respond to Peer Reviewer Comments. (2014). Editage. Retrieved from

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

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

Khanam, S. (2013). Frequently Asked Questions about Peer Review. Retrieved from

Kotsis, S. V. (2015). How to Submit a Revision and Tips on Being a Good Peer Reviewer. Retrieved from

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

Majumder, K. (2015). How to Deal with Conflicting Reviewer Comments: A Case Study. Retrieved from

Moher, D. (2015). Optimal Strategies to Consider When Peer Reviewing a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 274.

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

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.

Peer Review and Editorial Decision Making at Journals. (2013). Editage. Retrieved from

Peer Review: How to Review a Manuscript. (2016). Retrieved from

Pitfalls for AHRC Grant Applicants to Avoid. (2015). Arts & Humanities Research Council. Retrieved from

Rajagopalan, J. (2014). How to Respond to Peer Reviewers’ Comments: Some Do’s and Don’ts. 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.

Scott-Lichter, D. (2012). CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update (3rd Revise). Wheat Ridge, CO. Retrieved from

Taylor & Francis. (2016). How to Get Involved in Peer Review (And Why You Should). Retrieved from

Taylor & Francis. (2016). Infographic: Understanding Peer Review. Retrieved from

Taylor & Francis. (2016). What to Expect During Peer Review. 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

What Are the Characteristics You Need to Be a Peer Reviewer? (2013). AHRC Press. Retrieved from

What is Peer Review? (2012). AHRC Press. Retrieved from

Wiley. (2016). Infographic: The Peer Review Process. Retrieved from

Wiley. (2016). Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript. Retrieved from

Wiley. (2016). The Peer Review Process. 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.

Best Practices for Peer Review. (2016). New York, N.Y.: Association of American University Presses. Retrieved from

Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics: A Publisher’s Perspective. (2014) (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons Inc. Retrieved from

Carpenter, T. A. (2017). What Constitutes Peer Review of Data? A Survey of Peer Review Guidelines. Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from

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

Citrome, L. (2014). Navigating Through Peer Review, Selecting Preferred Reviewers, and More. 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.

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.

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

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

Kulkarni, S. (2014). What Is Peer Review: The Basics and Guidelines for Authors. Retrieved from

Majumder, K. (2015). Tips for First Time Peer Reviewers: Accepting a Peer Review Invitation. Retrieved from

Majumder, K. (2015). Tips for First Time Peer Reviewers: Reviewing a Scientific Manuscript Responsibly. Retrieved from

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.

Supporting the Peer Review Process. (2016). Elsevier. Retrieved from

Taylor & Francis. (2016). Reviewer Guidelines and Best Practice. Retrieved from

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

Who “Owns” Peer Reviews? (2015). Retrieved from from FORUM discussion topic_Who owns peer review_final.pdf

Wiley. (2016). General and Ethical Guidelines. Retrieved from

Wiley. (2016). Useful Peer Review Resources. Retrieved from


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

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

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

Expert Opinions on Peer Review. (2016). Digital Science. Retrieved from

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.

Gilroy, P. (2015). Seven Tips for Recruiting and Retaining Referees. Retrieved from

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

Goldman, H. V. (2015). More Delays in Peer Review: Finding Reviewers Willing to Contribute. Retrieved from

Goldman, H. V. (2015). The Scarce Peer Reviewer and Challenges Journal Editors Face. Retrieved from

Goldman, H. V. (2015). Why Is Peer Review So Slow? The First Step: Identifying Peer Reviewers. Retrieved from

Hoke, T., & Moylan, E. (2016). Who “Owns” Peer Reviews? COPE Discussion Document. Retrieved from

Johnson, C. (2016). Awards for Outstanding Reviewers. Retrieved from

Johnston, D. (2016). Why Peer Review Recognition Matters to Universities. 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

Kulkarni, S. (2014). Is the Publons System of Recognition the Way Forward for Peer Review? Retrieved from

Kulkarni, S. (2014). Peer Reviewing: A Thankless Job or a Duty to the Academic Community? Retrieved from

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.

Overstreet, K. (2011). Retaining Reviewers. EON, (June), 2–4. Retrieved from

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

Peer Review and Research Misconduct. (2016). COPE. Retrieved from

Peer Review is Dead! Long Live Peer Review! Panel. (2016). ALPSP. Retrieved from

Peer Review: Why It Matters & What Lies Ahead. (2016). Association of American University Presses. Retrieved from

Publons. (2015). How Is Publons Changing Peer Review(ers)? Retrieved from

Recognising Review: New and Future Approaches to Acknowledging the Peer Review Process. (2016). ScienceOpen. Retrieved from

Recognition for Peer Reviewers: Building a Culture of Credit in Scholarly Publishing. (2016). Council of Scientific Editors. Retrieved from

Recognizing Peer Reviewers: a Webinar to Celebrate Editors and Researchers. (n.d.). Elsevier. Retrieved from

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

Roberts, J. (2008). Efforts to Improve the Quality of Reviews: Part I: Rating, Rewarding, and Educating Reviewers. EON, (June), 8–14. Retrieved from

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.

Van Noorden, R. (2014). The Scientists Who Get Credit for Peer Review. Nature.

Warne, V. (2016). Rewarding Reviewers – Sense or Sensibility? A Wiley Study Explained. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 41–50.

Who Owns Peer Reviews? (2016). COPE. Retrieved from

Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). Evaluating Research: From Informed Peer Review to Bibliometrics. Scientometrics.

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.

Andersen, L. E. (2017). On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics. Accountability in Research, 24(3), 177–192.

Bammer, G. (2016). What Constitutes Appropriate Peer Review for Interdisciplinary Research? Palgrave Communications, 2, 16017. Retrieved from

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cormode, G. (2016). Behind the Scenes: How a Journal Editor Selects Peer Reviewers. Retrieved from

Couzin-Frankel, J. (2013). Secretive and Subjective, Peer Review Proves Resistant to Study. Science, 341(6152), 1331.

Cowley, S. J. (2015). How peer review constrains cognition: on the frontline in the knowledge sector. Frontiers in Psychology.

DeCoursey, T. E. (2015). Double-Blind Peer Review a Double Risk. Nature, 520, 623.

Derricourt, R. (2012). Peer Review: Fetishes, Fallacies, and Perceptions. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(2), 137–147.

Devine, E., & Smith, M. J. (2014). What I Wish I’d Known When I First Started Editing a Journal. Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2015a). Can I Withdraw My Paper After Reviewers Have Been Assigned? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2015b). How Long Does a Second Round of Peer Review Take? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2015c). Infographic: Possible Outcomes of Peer Review. Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2016a). How Long Does It Take for the Status to Change from “Reviewers Assigned” to “Under Review”? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2016b). What Does the Status “Reviewer Assignment Pending” Mean? Retrieved from

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

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\n

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

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

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.

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

Hames, I. (2014). The Changing Face of Peer Review. Science Editing, 1(1), 9.

Hames, I. (2014). The Peer Review Process: Challenges and Progress. Retrieved from

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

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

Horn, S. A. (2016). The Social and Psychological Costs of Peer Review. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(1), 11–26.

Important Outcomes of Peer Review. (2015). Wiley. Retrieved from

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Kulkarni, S. (2016a). “Gotcha Reviewing”: Do Journals Err on the Side of Rejection Rather Than Acceptance? Retrieved from

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.

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.

McCulloch, G. (2014). What I Wish I’d Known When I First Started Editing a Journal. Retrieved from

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.

Mulligan, A. (2004). Is Peer Review in Crisis? Perspectives in Publishing, (2), 1–6. Retrieved from

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.

Mungra, P., & Webber, P. (2010). Peer Review Process in Medical Research Publications: Language and Content Comments. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 43–53.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Riley, E. (2016). Why Peer Review Needs You – And You Need Peer Review. Retrieved July 12, 2016, from

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.

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

Shamseer, L., & Roberts, J. (2016). Disclosure of data and statistical commands should accompany completely reported studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 70, 272–4.

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.

Taylor & Francis. (2016). Understanding Different Types of Peer Review. Retrieved from

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.

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

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

Walker, R., & Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging Trends in Peer Review—A Survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, 169.

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

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

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

Wiley. (2016). Infographic: 6 Tips For Authors On Surviving Peer Review. Retrieved from

Wiley. (2016). Working with Editors. Retrieved from

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.

Zaharie, M. A., & Osoian, C. L. (2016). Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach. European Management Journal, 34(1), 69–79.

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.

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.

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.

Colquhoun, D. (2011, September 5). Publish-or-Perish: Peer Review and the Corruption of Science. The Guardian. Retrieved from

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

Editage Insights. (2015a). Is It Possible to Find Out the Identity of a Reviewer? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2015b). Should I Thank the Editor and Reviewers for Accepting My Paper? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2016a). Can Reviewers’ Refusal to Review a Manuscript Influence the Editor’s Decision? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2016b). How to Tackle Errors that Have Not Been Mentioned by the Peer Reviewers? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2016c). What to Do If the Reviewer Comments on a Method I Have Not Used in My Paper? Retrieved from

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

Hailiang, Y. (2014). 4 Basic Reasons a Peer Reviewer Might Reject Your Manuscript. Retrieved from

Kulkarni, S. (2014b). Peer Review Rigging: What Can Journals Do to Tackle this Problem? Retrieved from

Kulkarni, S. (2014s). Peer Review Rigging: Should Authors Be Allowed to Suggest Peer Reviewers? Retrieved from

Kulkarni, S. (2015). Why Peer Reviewers Refuse Review Requests. Retrieved from

Kulkarni, S. (2016). What Causes Peer Review Scams and How Can They Be Prevented? Learned Publishing, 29(3), 211–213.

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.

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

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

Majumder, K. (2014). Do Rules of Publication Ethics Apply to Peer Reviewers? Retrieved from

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

Overstreet, K. (2015). ISMTE: Establishing Best Practices for Ethical Peer Review Management for Editorial Office Professionals. Retrieved from

Ploegh, H. (2011). End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments. Nature, 472.

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.

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.

Retractions, Post-Publication Peer Review, and Fraud: Scientific Publishing’s Wild West. (2017). McGill University. Retrieved from

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

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

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

Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the Effectiveness of Scientific Gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), 360–365.

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.

Taylor & Francis. (2016). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Retrieved from

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).

Wiley. (2016). 10 Types of Plagiarism in Research. Retrieved from

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

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

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.

Bakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. (1989). Mixed Messages: Referees’ Comments on the Manuscripts They Review. The Sociological Quarterly, 30(4), 639–654.

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

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

Bornmann, L. (2012). The Hawthorne Effect in Journal Peer Review. Scientometrics, 91(3), 857–862.

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.

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

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.

Challenges for Scientific Peer Review and Some Possible Solutions. (2016). University of Sydney Libraries. Retrieved from

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

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.

Coupé, T. (2013). Peer Review versus Citations – An Analysis of Best Paper Prizes. Research Policy, 42(1), 295–301.

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

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.

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

Editage Insights. (2015). Is It Normal for Peer Review to Be Completed in Two Days? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2016a). Does an Unusually Quick Peer Review Indicate Rejection? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2016b). What Are the Components of a Good Review? Retrieved from

Editage Insights. (2016c). Why Is the Journal Sending My Paper for Further Review When the Reviewer Has Recommended Acceptance? Retrieved from

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Kennison, R. (2016). Back to the future: (re)turning from peer review to peer engagement. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 69–71.

Kulkarni, S. (2014). Is Reviewers’ Demand for More Experiments Justified? Retrieved from

Kulkarni, S. (2015). Can Metrics Replace Peer Review in Indicating the Quality & Impact of Research? Retrieved from

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

Majumder, K. (2015). Quiz: Do You Know What It Takes to Be a Good Peer Reviewer? Retrieved from

Meadows, A. (2015). Peer Review — Recognition Wanted! Retrieved from

Moffat, L. E. F. (2003). On Publication in Peer Reviewed Journals. UroOncology, 3(2), 81–83.

Moore, A. (2015). How, when and why to say no to a review request. Retrieved from

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

Newcombe, N. S., & Bouton, M. E. (2009). Masked Reviews Are Not Fairer Reviews. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 4 (1 ), 62–64.

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. (2014). A Core-Item Reviewer Evaluation (CoRE) System for Manuscript Peer Review. Accountability in Research, 21(2), 109–121.

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

Paltridge, B. (2017). The Discourse of Peer Review: Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

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.

Ravindran, S. (2016). Getting Credit for Peer Review. Retrieved from

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.

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.

Siler, K., & Strang, D. (2017). Peer Review and Scholarly Originality. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(1), 29–61.

Smith, D. R. (2016). Will Publons Popularize the Scientific Peer-Review Process? BioScience.

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

Stevenson, J. (2015). The Importance of Training in Peer Review. Retrieved from

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.

Wolters Kluwer. (2016). Accept, Reject, or Revise? Improving Scholarship by Improving Peer Review. Retrieved from

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Burgess, I. (2015). Using Peer Review Comments in a Constructive Way. Retrieved from

Callaghan, S. (2016). Starting Something New: The Beginnings of Peer Review of Data. Retrieved from

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Haak, L. (2015). The Practice of Acknowledging Peer Review. Retrieved from

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Kulkarni, S. (2014a). Post-publication Peer Review—An Unexplored Avenue. Retrieved from

Kulkarni, S. (2014b). Post-publication Peer Review and Legal Clashes: Should Researchers Be Wary of Commenting Publicly? Retrieved from

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

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

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

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.

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

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).

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

MRC Peer Review Explained. (2016). Medical Research Council. Retrieved from

Peer Review in 2015: A Global View. (2015a) (p. 47 slides). Retrieved from

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.

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.

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.

Preston, A. (2014). A Mission to Speed up Science: Publons. Retrieved from

Rajagopalan, J. (2014). What Are the Types of Peer Review? Retrieved from

Rajagopalan, J. (2015). Patient Peer Reviews: An Unorthodox Approach to Clinical Trial Publication. Retrieved from

Results-Free Review: A New Model of Peer Review. (2016). 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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Wiley. (2016). Reviewing Revised Manuscripts. Retrieved from

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.

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.

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

Spier, R. (2002). The History of the Peer-Review Process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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., & 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

Kratz, J. E., & Strasser, C. (2015). Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0117619.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Wiley. (2016). Wiley Peer Reviewer Study: Key Findings. Retrieved from

Kivisto, P. (2016). Advice to Young Authors: Think Like an Editor. Retrieved from

Kulkarni, S. (2015b). How Authors, Reviewers, and Editors Perceive Peer Review: An Overview of the Taylor & Francis Report. Retrieved from

Meadows, A. (2015). Peer Review Around the World. Retrieved from

Review in 2015: A Global View. (2015b). Retrieved from

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: A Global View. (2016). Retrieved from

Peer Review: A Global View. (2016). Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from

Peer Review: A Guide for Researchers. (2010). London: Research Information Network. Retrieved from

Taylor, G. (2016). What Are the Current Attitudes Toward Peer Review?: Publishing Research Consortium Survey Results. Retrieved from

Ware, M. (2008). Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium, 20. Retrieved from

Ware, M. (2016). Peer Review Survey 2015. Retrieved from

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

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

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

What Might Peer Review Look Like in 2030?: A Report from BioMed Central and Digital Science. (2017). 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