(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.
(2007) The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 4(1), e40. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040
(2015) Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research, 22(1), 22–40. 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909
(2003) The effectiveness of editorial peer review. InF. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp.62–75). London: BMJ Books.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011) Peer review in scientific communications. Eighth Report of Session 2010–2012. London: The Stationary Office.
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.
(2013) Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 207–225. 10.1080/03075079.2011.576755
(1973) The normative structure of science. InR. Merton (ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp.267–280). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
(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, 132–161. 10.1002/asi.22798
(2013) Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it?International Journal for Researcher Development, 4(1) 6–18. 10.1108/IJRD‑07‑2013‑0011
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 <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.07196.pdf (20February 2020).
(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. 10.1007/s11192‑017‑2630‑5
(2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?Brain, 123, 1964–1969. 10.1093/brain/123.9.1964
(2014) Effect of English proficiency and research funding on acceptance of submitted articles to Stroke journal. Stroke, 45(6), 1862–1868. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.005413
(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. 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062
(2019) Professionalizing peer review: Suggestions for a more ethical and pedagogical review process. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50, 248–264. 10.3138/jsp.50.4.02
(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.
(2019) We are all reviewer 2: A window into the secret world of peer review. InP. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds), Novice writers and scholarly publication (pp.271–290). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95333‑5_15
(1998) Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC?Medical Journal of Australia, 169, 623–624. 10.5694/j.1326‑5377.1998.tb123438.x
(2015) The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing (4th ed.). Oxford: STM, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.