Peer review: A system under stress

BioScience

Volumn 67, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 407-410

  Gropp, Robert E ^a   Glisson, Scott ^a   Gallo, Stephen ^a   Thompson, Lisa ^a  

^a AIBS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85020215974     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: 15253244     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/biosci/bix034     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Bohannon J. 2013. Who's afraid of peer review? Science 342: 60-65.
2. Carpenter AS, Sullivan JH, Deshmukh A, Glisson SR, Gallo SA. 2015. A retrospective analysis of the effect of discussion in teleconference and face-to-face scientific peer-review panels. BMJ Open 5 ( e009138).
3. Dwan K, et al. 2008. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLOS ONE 3 (e3081).
4. Escobar-Alvarez SN, Myers ER. 2013. The Doris Duke Clinical Scientist Development Award: Implications for early-career physician scientists. Academic Medicine 88: 1740-1746.
5. Gallo SA, Carpenter AS, Irwin D, McPartland CD, Travis J, Reynders S, Thompson LA, Glisson SR. 2014. The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies. PLOS ONE 9 (art. e106474).
6. Gallo SA, Sullivan JH, Glisson SR. 2016. The influence of peer reviewer expertise on the evaluation of research funding applications. PLOS ONE 11 (art. e0165147). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165147.
7. Ginther DK, Schaffer WT, Schnell J, Masimore B, Liu F, Haak LL, Kington R. 2011. Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science 333: 1015-1019.
8. Ioannidis JPA. 2011. More time for research: Fund people not projects. Nature 477: 529-531.
9. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. 2016. The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLOS ONE 11 (e0166387).
10. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. 2013. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 2-17.
11. Rennie D. 2016. Let's make peer review scientific. Nature 535: 31-33. doi:10.1038/535031a.
12. Rockey S. 2014. Retention Rates for First-Time R01 Awardees. National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research. (7 March 2017; https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2014/10/28/retention-of-first-time-r01-awardees).
13. Snell RR. 2015. Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers. PLOS ONE 10 (art. e0120838).