This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
Baker, M. (2016). Statisticians issue warning over misuse of P values. Nature, 531(7593), 151.BakerM.2016Statisticians issue warning over misuse of P valuesNature531759315110.1038/nature.2016.1950326961635Search in Google Scholar
Bartholomew, R.E. (2014). Science for sale: The rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107(10), 384–385.BartholomewR.E.2014Science for sale: The rise of predatory journalsJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine1071038438510.1177/0141076814548526420663925271271Search in Google Scholar
Björk, B.C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914–923.BjörkB.C.SolomonD.2013The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journalsJournal of Informetrics7491492310.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001Search in Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65.BohannonJ.2013Who’s afraid of peer review?Science3426154606510.1126/science.2013.342.6154.342_6024092725Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., Wolf, M., & Daniel, H.D. (2012). Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: How far do comments differ in language use? Scientometrics, 91, 843–856.BornmannL.WolfM.DanielH.D.2012Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: How far do comments differ in language use?Scientometrics9184385610.1007/s11192-011-0569-5Search in Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. (2016). Outcome of the council meeting, 3470th council meeting: Competitiveness (internal market, industry, research and space), Brussels, 26 and 27 May 2016. Retrieved on July 16, 2016, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/compet/2016/05/st09357_en16_pdf/.Council of the European Union2016Outcome of the council meeting, 3470th council meeting: Competitiveness (internal market, industry, research and space), Brussels, 26 and 27 May 2016Retrieved on July 16, 2016, fromhttp://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/compet/2016/05/st09357_en16_pdf/Search in Google Scholar
Enserink, M. (2016). In dramatic statement, European leaders call for ‘immediate’ open access to all scientific papers by 2020. Science, News, May 27, 2016. Retrieved on July 16, 2016, from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/dramatic-statement-european-leaders-call-immediate-open-access-all-scientific-papers/.EnserinkM.2016In dramatic statement, European leaders call for ‘immediate’ open access to all scientific papers by 2020. Science, News, May 27, 2016Retrieved on July 16, 2016, fromhttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/dramatic-statement-european-leaders-call-immediate-open-access-all-scientific-papers/Search in Google Scholar
Groves, T. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. BMJ, 341, c6424.GrovesT.2010Is open peer review the fairest system? YesBMJ341c642410.1136/bmj.c642421081602Search in Google Scholar
Himmelstein, D. (2015). Publication delays at PLOS and 3,475 other journals. Satoshi Village. Retrieved on April 16, 2016, from http://blog.dhimmel.com/plos-and-publishing-delays/.HimmelsteinD.2015Publication delays at PLOS and 3,475 other journals. Satoshi VillageRetrieved on April 16, 2016, fromhttp://blog.dhimmel.com/plos-and-publishing-delays/Search in Google Scholar
Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 63.HunterJ.2012Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversationFrontiers in Computational Neuroscience66310.3389/fncom.2012.00063343101022969719Search in Google Scholar
Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ, 341, c6425.KhanK.2010Is open peer review the fairest system? NoBMJ341c642510.1136/bmj.c642521081603Search in Google Scholar
Kriegeskorte, N., Walther, A., & Deca, D. (2012). An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 94.KriegeskorteN.WaltherA.DecaD.2012An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishingFrontiers in Computational Neuroscience69410.3389/fncom.2012.00094349874223162460Search in Google Scholar
Laakso, M., & Björk, B.C. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine, 10, 124.LaaksoM.BjörkB.C.2012Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of longitudinal development and internal structureBMC Medicine1012410.1186/1741-7015-10-124347816123088823Search in Google Scholar
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.LeeC.J.SugimotoC.R.ZhangG.CroninB.2013Bias in peer reviewJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology64121710.1002/asi.22784Search in Google Scholar
McCook, A. (2006). Is peer review broken? Submissions are up, reviewers are overtaxed, and authors are lodging complaint after complaint about the process at top-tier journals. What’s wrong with peer review? The Scientist, 20(2), 26–35.McCookA.2006Is peer review broken? Submissions are up, reviewers are overtaxed, and authors are lodging complaint after complaint about the process at top-tier journalsWhat’s wrong with peer review? The Scientist2022635Search in Google Scholar
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. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1371–1376.McNuttR.A.EvansA.T.FletcherR.H.FletcherS.W.1990The effects of blinding on the quality of peer reviewA randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association263101371137610.1001/jama.1990.03440100079012Search in Google Scholar
Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H.R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., Allard, S., & Levine, K. (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28, 15–21.NicholasD.WatkinsonA.JamaliH.R.HermanE.TenopirC.VolentineR.AllardS.LevineK.2015Peer review: Still king in the digital ageLearned Publishing28152110.1087/20150104Search in Google Scholar
Pöschl, U., & Koop, T. (2008). Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance. Information Services & User, 28, 105–107.PöschlU.KoopT.2008Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assuranceInformation Services & User2810510710.3233/ISU-2008-0567Search in Google Scholar
Rennie, D. (2016). Make peer review scientific. Nature, 535 (July 7), 31–33.RennieD.2016Make peer review scientificNature535July 7313310.1038/535031a27383970Search in Google Scholar
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.SmithR.2006Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journalsJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine99417818210.1177/014107680609900414Search in Google Scholar
Soergel, D., Saunders, A., & McCallum, A. (2013). Open scholarship and peer review: A time for experimentation. Retrieved on April 17, 2016, from http://tinyurl.com/h3jbkdz/.SoergelD.SaundersA.McCallumA.2013Open scholarship and peer reviewA time for experimentationRetrieved on April 17, 2016, fromhttp://tinyurl.com/h3jbkdz/Search in Google Scholar
Sumner, T., & Shum, S.B. (1996). Open peer review & argumentation: Loosening the paper chains on journals. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from https://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/jime/.SumnerT.ShumS.B.1996Open peer review & argumentationLoosening the paper chains on journalsRetrieved on July 17, 2016, fromhttps://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/jime/Search in Google Scholar
Taylor & Francis Group. (2015). Peer review in 2015: A global view. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Peer-Review-2015-white-paper.pdf/.Taylor & Francis Group2015Peer review in 2015A global viewRetrieved on July 17, 2016, fromhttp://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Peer-Review-2015-white-paper.pdf/Search in Google Scholar
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, 341, c5729.van RooyenS.DelamotheT.EvansS.J.W.2010Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the Web: Randomised controlled trialBMJ341c572910.1136/bmj.c5729298279821081600Search in Google Scholar
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. British Medical Journal, 318(7175), 23–27.van RooyenS.GodleeF.EvansS.BlackN.SmithR.1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: A randomised trialBritish Medical Journal3187175232710.1136/bmj.318.7175.23276709872878Search in Google Scholar
Wang, P., Rath, R., Deike, M., & Wu, Q. (2016). Open post publication peer review: An innovation in scientific publishing. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/89432.WangP.RathR.DeikeM.WuQ.2016Open post publication peer reviewAn innovation in scientific publishingRetrieved on July 17, 2016, fromhttps://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/89432Search in Google Scholar
Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176(1), 47–51.WalshE.RooneyM.ApplebyL.WilkinsonG.2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trialThe British Journal of Psychiatry1761475110.1192/bjp.176.1.4710789326Search in Google Scholar
Whither Science Publishing. (2012). As we stand on the brink of a new scientific age, how researchers should best communicate their findings and innovations is hotly debated in the publishing trenches. The Scientist, August 1. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32378/title/Whither-Science-Publishing/.Whither Science Publishing2012As we stand on the brink of a new scientific age, how researchers should best communicate their findings and innovations is hotly debated in the publishing trenchesThe Scientist, August 1. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, fromhttp://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32378/title/Whither-Science-Publishing/Search in Google Scholar
Woosen, P. (2015). Journal publishers rethink a research mainstay: Peer review. The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 11. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publishing-Toward-a/236526.WoosenP.2015Journal publishers rethink a research mainstay: Peer reviewThe Chronicle of Higher Education, October 11. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, fromhttp://www.chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publishing-Toward-a/236526Search in Google Scholar
Zielinska, E. (2013). Open-review journal launched. The Scientist, February 13. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34367/title/Open-Review-Journal-Launched/.ZielinskaE.2013Open-review journal launchedThe Scientist, February 13. Retrieved on July 17, 2016, fromhttp://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34367/title/Open-Review-Journal-Launched/Search in Google Scholar
