APA (2018). Summary report of journal operations. American Psychologist, 73(5), 683–684.
Bauerlein, M., Gad-el-Hak, M., Grody, W., McKelvey, B., & Trimble, S. (2010). We must stop the avalanche of low-quality research. The Chronicle of Higher Education. June13, 2010.
Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 161, 1–22.
Bornman, L., & Mutz, L. (2014). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1288–1292.
Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science, Oct.25, 2018.
Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D., & de Mazancourt, C. (2012). Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science, October 2012.
Callaham, M. L., & Tercier, J. (2007). The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 4(1), e40.
Cassey, P., & Blackburn, T. M. (2003). Publication rejection among ecologists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 181, 375–376.
Coniam, D. (2012). Exploring reviewer reactions to papers submitted to academic journals. System. 401, 544–553.
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.
DeCoursey, T. (2006). The pros and cons of open peer review: Should authors be told who their reviewers are?Nature. 2006.
Ernst, E., & Resch, K. L. (1994). Reviewer bias: A blinded experimental study. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 124(2), 178–82.
Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (2003). The effectiveness of editorial peer review. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp. 62–75). London: BMJ Books.
Fortanet, I. (2008). Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 27–37.
Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., & Martyn, C. N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA 2801, 237–240.
Grove, J. (2018). Half of UK academics ‘suffer stress-linked mental health problems’. Times Higher Education Supplement, 6July, 2018. <[URL]> (20February, 2020).
Haffar, S., Bazerbachi, F., & Murad, M. H. (2019). Peer review bias: A critical review. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(4), 670–676.
Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud – Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 3731, 2393–2395.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2011). Peer review in scientific communications. Eighth Report of Session 2010–2012. London: The Stationary Office.
Howard, G. (2012). Peer review as boundary work. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(3), 322–335.
Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the production of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic disadvantage. Journal of Second Language Writing, 311, 58–69.
Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., & Davidoff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007(Issue 2), Art. No.: MR000016.
Kwan, B. (2013). Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond. Studies in Higher Education, 381, 207–225.
Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, 641, 2–17.
Merton, R. (1973). The normative structure of science. In R. Merton (ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–280). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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, 641, 132–161.
National Library of Medicine (NLM) Catalogue. <[URL]> (15June2019).
O’Connor, E., Cousar, M., Lentini, J., Castillo, M., Halm, K., & Zeffiro, T. (2017). Efficacy of double-blind peer review in an imaging subspecialty journal. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 381, 230–235.
Okike, K., Kocher, M. S., Mehlman, C. T., Heckman, J. D., & Bhandari, M. (2008). Nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 90(11), 2432–2437.
Paltridge, B. (2013). Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it?International Journal for Researcher Development, 4(1) 6–18.
Paltridge, B. (2017). The discourse of peer review. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Perez-Llantada, C. (2014). Scientific discourse and the rhetoric of globalization. London: Bloomsbury.
Prechelt, L., Graziotin, D., & Méndez Fernández, D. (2017). A community’s perspective on the status and future of peer review in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 30October, 2017. <[URL]> (20February, 2020).
Preston, A., & Culley, T. (2017). Formal recognition for peer review will propel research forward. LSE Impact Blog, 1June, 2017. <[URL]> (20February, 2020).
Publishing Research Consortium. (2016). Peer review survey 2015. Bristol: Mark Ware Consulting.
Reller, T. (2016). Elsevier publishing – A look at the numbers, and more. Elsevier Connect. <[URL]> (20February, 2020).
Research Information Network. (2008). Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK. <[URL]> (20February, 2020).
Rigby, J., Cox, D., & Julian, K. (2018). Journal peer review: A bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper’s revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1087–1105.
Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., Hong, Y., Grant, A. O., & Daniels, S. R. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA, 2951, 1675–1680.
Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?Brain, 1231, 1964–1969.
Rozycki, W., & Johnson, N. (2013). Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32(3): 157–169.
Saposnik, C., Ovbiagele, C., Raptis, C., Fisher, C., & Johnston, C. (2014). Effect of English proficiency and research funding on acceptance of submitted articles to Stroke journal. Stroke, 45(6), 1862–1868.
Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R. (2008). What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(10): 507–514.
Sciullo, N., & Duncan, M. (2019). Professionalizing peer review: Suggestions for a more ethical and pedagogical review process. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 501, 248–264.
Sense About Science. (2009). Peer Review Survey 2009: Full Report. <[URL]> [author query, link no longer available]
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.
Tardy, C. (2019). We are all reviewer 2: A window into the secret world of peer review. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds), Novice writers and scholarly publication (pp. 271–290). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Taylor & Francis. (2015). Peer review in 2015: A global view. A white paper. London: Taylor & Francis.
Waggenknecht, D. (2018). Unhelpful, caustic and slow: The academic community should rethink the way publications are reviewed. LSE Impact Blog, 22June, 2018. <[URL]> (20February, 2020).
Ward, J. E., & Donnelly, N. (1998). Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC?Medical Journal of Australia, 1691, 623–624.
Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2015). The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing (4th ed.). Oxford: STM, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
Warne, V. (2016). Rewarding reviewers – Sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing, 291, 41–50.
2023. The challenge of publishing a paper: an autoethnographic study. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management 21:1 ► pp. 76 ff.
Guinda, Carmen Sancho
2022. The Tug-Of-War of Journal Editing: Trust and Risk in Focus. In The Inner World of Gatekeeping in Scholarly Publication, ► pp. 185 ff.
Hultgren, Anna Kristina
2022. Certifying Knowledge Under Neoliberalism: Global Inequality and Academic Wellbeing. In The Inner World of Gatekeeping in Scholarly Publication, ► pp. 163 ff.
Hyland, Ken
2022. Preface: Gatekeepers or Facilitators?. In The Inner World of Gatekeeping in Scholarly Publication, ► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.