“‘Peer Review’ Tag”,2019-09-03 (cognitive bias, publication bias)⁠:

Bibliography for tag statistics/peer-review, most recent first: 1 related tag, 48 annotations, & 19 links (parent).

• See Also
• Links
  • “The Early Days of Peer Review: 5 Insights from Historic Reports”
  • “Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews”, Liang et al 2024
  • “Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis”, Liang et al 2023
  • “ARIES: A Corpus of Scientific Paper Edits Made in Response to Peer Reviews”, D’Arcy et al 2023
  • “Saving Time and Money in Biomedical Publishing: the Case for Free-Format Submissions With Minimal Requirements”, Clotworthy et al 2023
  • “Comparing Analysis Blinding With Preregistration in the Many-Analysts Religion Project”, Sarafoglou et al 2023
  • “Nobel and Novice: Author Prominence Affects Peer Review”, Huber et al 2022
  • “Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS Experiment”, Cortes & Lawrence2021
  • “An Excess of Positive Results: Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered Reports”, Scheel et al 2021
  • “Honest Signaling in Academic Publishing”, Tiokhin et al 2021
  • “Peer Review As an Evolving Response to Organizational Constraint: Evidence from Sociology Journals, 1952^–₆₆2018”, Merriman2020
  • “Expert Consensus Procedure (ECO): Facilitating Robust Scientific Outputs”, Kekecs et al 2020
  • “Are Peer-Reviews of Grant Proposals Reliable? An Analysis of Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Funding Applications”, Jerrim & Vries2020
  • “Is Scholarly Refereeing Productive (at the Margin)?”, Hadavand et al 2020
  • “The Meaningfulness of Effect Sizes in Psychological Research: Differences Between Sub-Disciplines and the Impact of Potential Biases”, Schäfer & Schwarz2019
  • “Registered Reports: an Early Example and Analysis”, Wiseman et al 2019
  • “The Sociology of Scientific Validity: How Professional Networks Shape Judgement in Peer Review”, Teplitskiy et al 2018
  • “Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of ‘Peer Review’ in the Cold War United States”, Baldwin2018
  • “Low Agreement among Reviewers Evaluating the Same NIH Grant Applications”
  • “Uncertainty and Individual Discretion in Allocating Research Funds”, Goldstein & Kearney2017
  • “Can Results-Free Review Reduce Publication Bias? The Results and Implications of a Pilot Study”
  • “To Apply or Not to Apply: A Survey Analysis of Grant Writing Costs and Benefits”, Hippel & Hippel2015
  • “Protocol Review at The Lancet: 1997^–₁₈2015”, Lancet2015
  • “Converting Rejections into Positive Stimuli”, Rubin2014
  • “A Two-Step Manuscript Submission Process Can Reduce Publication Bias”, Smulders2013
  • “On the Time Spent Preparing Grant Proposals: an Observational Study of Australian Researchers”, Herbert et al 2013
  • “A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants”, Bornmann et al 2010
  • “Peer-Review in a World With Rational Scientists: Toward Selection of the Average”, Thurner & Hanel2010
  • “Telescope Time Without Tears: A Distributed Approach to Peer Review”, Merrifield & Saari2009
  • “Science in the 21^st Century: Social, Political, and Economic Issues”, González-Álvarez 2008
  • “Is Tenure Justified? An Experimental Study of Faculty Beliefs about Tenure, Promotion, and Academic Freedom”, Ceci et al 2007
  • “Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance”, Ross2006
  • “Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review”, Jefferson2002
  • “A Letter from the Frustrated Author of a Journal Paper”, Glass2000
  • “Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports: A Randomized Controlled Trial”, Godlee1998
  • “Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation”
  • “Reflections After Refereeing Papers for NIPS”, Breiman1995
  • “How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists”, Gans & Shepherd1994
  • “The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality”, Koehler1993
  • “Reviewer Bias”, Ernst et al 1992
  • “The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation”, Horrobin1990
  • “The Story of the NIH Grants Programs”, Strickland1989
  • “Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System”
  • “Editorial [EJP Editorial on Registered Reports]”, Johnson1975b
  • “Models of Control and Control of Bias”, Johnson1975
  • “A Proposal for a New Editorial Policy in the Social Sciences”
  • “Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures”, Breiman2024
  • “Real Peer Review Has Never Been Tried”
  • Sort By Magic
    • rejection-analysis
    • grant-writing
    • review-reliability
• Miscellaneous
• Bibliography