Peer reviewthe attitudes and behaviours of Covid-19 pandemic-era early career researchers

  1. Nicholas, David 1
  2. Herman, Eti 1
  3. Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca 2
  4. Watkinson, Anthony 1
  5. Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Cherifa 3
  6. Świgoń, Marzena 4
  7. Abrizah, Abdullah 5
  8. Sims, David 6
  9. Xu, Jie 7
  10. Clark, David 1
  11. Serbina, Galina 8
  12. Jamali, Hamid R. 9
  13. Tenopir, Carol 6
  14. Allard, Suzie 6
  1. 1 CIBER Research Ltd (UK)
  2. 2 Universidad de León (Spain)
  3. 3 Claude Bernard University Lyon 1
    info

    Claude Bernard University Lyon 1

    Villeurbanne, Francia

    ROR https://ror.org/029brtt94

  4. 4 University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn
    info

    University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn

    Olsztyn, Polonia

    ROR https://ror.org/05s4feg49

  5. 5 University of Malaya (Malaysia)
  6. 6 University of Tennessee (USA)
  7. 7 Wuhan University (China)
  8. 8 Tomsk State University (Russia)
  9. 9 Charles Sturt University (Australia)
Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
El profesional de la información

ISSN: 1386-6710,  1699-2407

Año de publicación: 2023

Título del ejemplar: Network activisms

Volumen: 32

Número: 3

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3145/EPI.2023.MAY.06 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: El profesional de la información

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Explores science and social science early career researchers’ (ECRs) perceptions and experiences of peer review, seeking also to identify their views of any pandemic-associated changes that have taken place. Data are drawn from the Harbingers-2 project, which investigated the impact of the pandemic on scholarly communications. Peer review, one of the activities covered, is singled out as it proved to be the activity of greatest concern to ECRs. Findings are obtained from interviews, which covered around 167 ECRs from China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Russia, Spain, UK and US, supplemented by an international survey that took the data out to a bigger and wider audience for confirmation and generalisation. Results obtained are enhanced by comparisons with pre-pandemic evidence yielded by Harbingers-1, the forerunner of the present study, and anchored in an extensive review of the literature. Main findings are: 1) most ECRs were experienced in peer review, both as reviewers and authors, but few had formal training; 2) half the ECRs had a lot or some reservations as to whether peer review vouches for the trustworthiness of research; 3) inadequate reviewers and slow processes were the main peer review associated problems; 4) there was a strong feeling that some kind of compensation, whether monetary or reputational, could help in dealing with these problems; 5) the pandemic impacted most on the speed of processing, with the majority of ECRs saying it had slowed the process; 6) nearly everyone thought that any pandemic-induced impacts would be temporary.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Allen, Kelly-Ann; Reardon, Jonathan; Lu, Yumin; Smith, David V.; Rainsford, Emily; Walsh, Lucas (2022). “Towards improving peer review: Crowd-sourced insights from Twitter”. Journal of university teaching & learning practice, v. 19, n. 3. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol19/iss3/02
  • Anderson, Caleb; Nugent, Kenneth; Peterson, Christopher (2021). “Academic journal retractions and the COVID-19 pandemic”. Journal of primary care & community health, v. 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/21501327211015592
  • Barroga, Edward (2020). “Innovative strategies for peer review”. Journal of Korean medical science, v. 35, n. 20, e138. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138
  • Bartneck, Christoph (2017). “Reviewers’ scores do not predict impact: Bibliometric analysis of the proceedings of the human-robot interaction conference”. Scientometrics, n. 110, 179-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2176-y
  • Berkenkotter, Carol (1995). “The power and the perils of peer review”. Rhetoric review, v. 13, n. 2, pp. 245-248. https://www.jstor.org/stable/465828
  • Blankstein, Melissa; Wolff‐Eisenberg, Christine (2019). U.S. faculty survey 2018. New York, NY: Ithaka S+R. https://sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SR-Report-US-Faculty-Survey-2018-04122019.pdf
  • Bonaccorsi, Andrea (2023). “Towards peer review as a group engagement”. JLIS.it, v. 14, n. 1, pp. 46-59. https://doi.org/10.36253/jlis.it-511
  • Brainard, Jeffrey; You, Jia (2018). “What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’”. Science. October 25. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty
  • Brezis, Elise S.; Birukou, Aliaksandr (2020). “Arbitrariness in the peer review process”. Scientometrics, v. 123, n. 1, pp. 393-411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1
  • Burstein, David D. (2013). Fast future: How the millennial generation is shaping our world. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN: 978 0 807033227
  • Christian, Katherine; Johnstone, Carolyn; Larkins, Jo-ann; Wright, Wendy; Doran, Michael R. (2021). “Research culture: A survey of early-career researchers in Australia”. ELife, n. 10, e60613. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60613
  • Christie, Alec P.; White, Thomas B.; Martin, Philip A.; Petrovan, Silviu O.; Bladon, Andrew J.; Bowkett, Andrew E.; Littlewood, Nick A.; Mupepele, Anne-Christine; Rocha, Ricardo; Sainsbury, Katherine A.; Smith, Rebecca K.; Taylor, Nigel G.; Sutherland, William J. (2021). “Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science”. PeerJ, n. 9, e12245. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12245
  • De-Araújo-Grisi, Gabriel; De-Deus-Barreto-Segundo, João; Freire, Camila-Verônica-Souza; Matias, Denise-Silva; Cruz, Mariana-Correia-Moreira; Laporte, Larrie-Rabelo; Medina-da-Silva, Daniel-Oliveira; Taniguchi, Thiago-Masashi; Requião, Letícia-Escorse; Goes, Bruno-Teixeira; Correia, Luis-Claudio-Lemos (2022). Evidence on the role of journal editors in the COVID19 infodemic - metascientific study analyzing COVID19 publication rates and patterns, medRxiv, 2022-01. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.23.22269716
  • Demarest, Bradford; Freeman, Guo; Sugimoto, Cassidy R. (2014). “The reviewer in the mirror: Examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review”. Scientometrics, v. 101, pp. 717-735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1354-z
  • Douglas, Hannah M.; Settles, Isis H.; Cech, Erin A.; Montgomery, Georgina M.; Nadolsky, Lexi R.; Hawkins, Arika K.; Ma, Guizhen; Davis, Tangier M.; Elliott, Kevin C.; Cheruvelil, Kendra-Spence (2022). “Disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on marginalized and minoritized early-career academic scientists”. PloS one, v. 17, n. 9, e0274278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274278
  • Duffy, Bobby; Shrimpton, Hannah; Clemence Michael (2017). Millennial myths and realities. London: Ipsos Mori. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/millennial-myths-and-realities
  • Evason, Nina (2016). Malaysian culture: Core concepts. Cultural Atlas. https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/malaysian-culture/malaysian-culture-core-concepts
  • Eve, Martin-Paul; Neylon, Cameron; O’Donnell, Daniel-Paul; Moore, Samuel; Gadie, Robert; Odeniyi, Victoria; Parvin, Shahina (2021). Reading peer review: PLoS one and institutional change in academia. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108783521
  • Fanelli, Daniele; Glänzel, Wolfgang (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS one, v. 8, n. 6, e66938. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066938
  • FEPS (Foundation for European Progressive Studies); ThinkYoung, (2018). The millennial dialogue: Engaging and creating a better understanding of the priorities and values of millennials. https://www.millennialdialogue.com/#download
  • Flaherty, Colleen (2022). “The peer review crisis”. Inside higher ed., June 13. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/13/peer-review-crisis-creates-problems-journals-and-scholars
  • Fraser, Nicholas; Brierley, Liam; Dey, Gautam; Polka, Jessica K.; Pálfy, Máté; Nanni, Federico; Coates, Jonathon-Alexis (2021). “The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape”. PLoS biology, v. 19, n. 4, e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959
  • García, José A.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, Rosa-María; Fernández-Valdivia, Joaquín (2022). “The cross-subsidy and buy-one-give-one models of compensated peer review: A comparative study for mission-driven journals”. Journal of information science, Online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221125321
  • Haffar, Samir; Bazerbachi, Fateh; Murad, M. Hassan (2019). “Peer review bias: A critical review”. Mayo Clinic proceedings, v. 94, n. 4, pp. 670-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004
  • Helliwell, Jack A.; Bolton, William S.; Burke, Joshua R.; Tiernan, Jim P.; Jayne, David G.; Chapman, Stephen J. (2020). “Global academic response to COVID-19: cross-sectional study”. Learned publishing, v. 33, n. 4, pp. 385-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1317
  • Herman, Eti (2018). “Scholarly reputation”. FEMS microbiology letters, v. 365, n. 18, fny200. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny200
  • Herman, Eti; Nicholas, David (2019). “Scholarly reputation building in the digital age: An activity-specific approach. Review article”. El profesional de la información, v. 28, n. 1, e280102. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.ene.02
  • Herman, Eti; Nicholas, David; Watkinson, Anthony; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Abdullah, Abrizah; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Jamali, Hamid R.; Sims, David; Allard, Suzie; Tenopir, Carol; Xu, Jie; Świgoń, Marzena; Serbina, Galina; Parke-Cannon, Leah (2021). “The impact of the pandemic on early career researchers: what we already know from the internationally published literature”. Profesional de la información, v. 30, n. 2, e300208. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.mar.08
  • Hesselmann, Felicitas; Graf, Verena; Schmidt, Marion; Reinhart, Martin (2017). “The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles”. Current sociology, v. 65, n. 6, pp. 814-845. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116663807
  • Homolak, Jan; Kodvanj, Ian; Virag, Davor (2020). “Preliminary analysis of COVID-19 academic information patterns: A call for open science in the times of closed borders”. Scientometrics, n. 124, pp. 2687-2701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03587-2
  • Horbach, Serge P. J. M.; Halffman, Willem (2018). “The changing forms and expectations of peer review”. Research integrity and peer review, v. 3, n. 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
  • Horbach, Serge P. J. M.; Halffman, Willem (2019). “The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications”. Scientometrics, n. 118, pp. 339-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2
  • Horbach, Serge P. J. M. (2020). “Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19”. Quantitative science studies, v. 1, n. 3, pp. 1056-1067. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00076
  • Horbach, Serge P. J. M. (2021). “No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the COVID-19 pandemic”. Research evaluation, v. 30, n. 3, pp. 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa037
  • Jamali, Hamid R.; Nicholas, David; Watkinson, Anthony; Abrizah, Abdullah; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Xu, Jie; Polezhaeva, Tatiana; Herman, Eti; Swigon, Marzena (2020). “Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: An international study”. Learned publishing, v. 33, n. 2, pp. 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1286
  • Jamali, Hamid R.; Nicholas, David; Sims, David; Watkinson, Anthony; Herman, Eti; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Świgon, Marzena; Abrizah, Abdullah; Xu, Jie; Tenopir, Carol; Allard, Susie (2023a). “The pandemic and changes in early career researchers’ career prospects, research and publishing practices”. PLoS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281058
  • Jiang, Xiaoli; Borg, Erik; Borg, Michaela (2017). “Challenges and coping strategies for international publication: Perceptions of young scholars in China”. Studies in higher education, v. 42, n. 3, pp. 428-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1049144
  • Johnson, Timothy P.; Feeney, Mary K.; Jung, Heyjie; Frandell, Ashlee; Caldarulo, Mattia; Michalegko, Lesley; Islam, Shaika; Welch, Eric W. (2021). “COVID-19 and the academy: opinions and experiences of university-based scientists in the US”. Humanities and social sciences communications, v. 8, n. 1. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00823-9
  • Jubb, Michael (2016). “Peer review: The current landscape and future trends”. Learned publishing, v. 29, n. 1, pp. 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1008
  • Jung, Richard G.; Di-Santo, Pietro; Clifford, Cole; Prosperi-Porta, Graeme; Skanes, Stephanie; Hung, Annie; Parlow Simon; Visintini, Sarah; Ramírez F. Daniel; Simard, Trevor; Hibbert, Benjamin (2021). “Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research”. Nature communications, v. 12, n. 1, 943. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5
  • Kodvanj, Ivan; Homolak, Jan; Virag, Davor; Trkulja, Vladimir (2022). “Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues”. Scientometrics, n. 127, pp. 1339-1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04249-7
  • Lee, Carole J.; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Zhang, Guo; Cronin, Blaise (2013). “Bias in peer review”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 64, n. 1, pp. 2-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
  • Levine, Felice J.; Nasir, Na’ilah-Suad; Ríos-Aguilar, Cecilia; Gildersleeve, Ryan-Evely; Rosich, Katherine J.; Bang, Megan; Bell, Nathan E.; Holsapple, Matthew A. (2021). Voices from the field: The impact of COVID-19 on early career scholars and doctoral students [Focus group study report]. American Educational Research Association; Spencer Foundation. https://doi.org/10.3102/aera20211
  • Morin, Andréanne; Helling, Britney A.; Krishnan, Seetha; Risner, Laurie E.; Walker, Nykia D.; Schwartz, Nancy B. (2022). “Research culture: Surveying the experience of postdocs in the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic”. Elife, v. 11, e75705. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75705
  • Mulligan, Adrian; Hall, Louise; Raphael, Ellen (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, v. 64, n. 1, pp. 132-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
  • Neylon, Cameron (2018). Arenas of productive conflict: Universities, peer review, conflict and knowledge. https://doi.org/10.17613/fkrd-ef72
  • Nicholas, David; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Herman, Eti; Abrizah, Abdullah; Clark, David; Serbina, Galina; Sims, David; Świgon, Marzena; Xu, Jie; Watkinson, Anthony; Jamali, Hamid R.; Tenopir, Carol; Allard, Susie (2023). “‘Cracks’ in the scholarly communications system: Insights from a longitudinal international study of early career researchers”. Learned publishing, Early view. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1539
  • Nicholas, David; Herman, Eti; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Watkinson, Anthony; Sims, David; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Świgoń, Marzena; Abrizah, Abdullah; Xu, Jie; Serbina, Galina; Jamali, Hamid R. (2022a). Early career researchers in the pandemic-fashioned ‘new scholarly normality’: Voices from the research frontline. Profesional de la información, v. 31, n. 5. https://doi.org/0.3145/epi.2022.sep.10
  • Nicholas, David; Herman, Eti; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Watkinson, Anthony; Sims, David; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Świgoń, Marzena; Abrizah, Abdullah; Xu, Jie; Serbina, Galina; Jamali, Hamid R.; Tenopir, Carol; Allard, Suzie (2022b). “Early career researchers in the pandemic-fashioned ‘new scholarly normality’: a first look into the big changes and long-lasting impacts (international analysis)”. Profesional de la información, v. 31, n. 4, e310418. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2022.jul.18
  • Nicholas, David; Herman, Eti; Jamali, Hamid R.; Abrizah, Abdullah; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Xu, Jie, Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Watkinson, Anthony; Polezhaeva, Tatiana; Świgoń, Marzena (2020a). “Millennial researchers in a metric-driven scholarly world: An international study”. Research evaluation, v. 29, n. 3, pp. 263-274. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa004
  • Nicholas, David; Herman, Eti; Jamali, Hamid R.; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Cherifa; Dobrowolski, Tom; Pouchot, Stephanie (2015a). “New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation”. Learned publishing, v. 28, n. 3, pp. 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150303
  • Nicholas, David; Herman, Eti; Xu, Jie; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Cherifa; Abrizah, Abdullah; Watkinson, Anthony; Świgoń, Marzena; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca (2018a). “Early career researchers’ quest for reputation in the digital age”. Journal of scholarly publishing, v. 49, n. 4, pp. 375-396. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.4.01
  • Nicholas, David; Jamali, Hamid R.; Herman, Eti; Watkinson, Anthony; Abrizah, Abdullah; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Xu, Jie; Świgoń, Marzena; Polezhaeva, Tatiana (2020b). “A global questionnaire survey of the scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers”. Learned publishing, v. 33, n. 3, pp. 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1286
  • Nicholas, David; Jamali, Hamid R.; Herman, Eti; Xu, Jie; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Watkinson, Anthony; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Abrizah, Abdullah; Świgoń Marzena; Polezhaeva, Tatiana (2020c). How is open access publishing going down with early career researchers? An international, multi-disciplinary study. Profesional de la información, v. 29, n. 6. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.nov.14
  • Nicholas, David; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Watkinson, Anthony; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Herman, Eti; Xu, Jie; Abrizah, Abdullah; Świgoń, Marzena (2017a). “Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices”. Learned publishing, v. 30, n. 3, pp. 205-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1102
  • Nicholas, David; Watkinson, Anthony; Abrizah, Abdullah; Boukacem‐Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Xu, Jie; Rodríguez‐Bravo, Blanca; Świgoń, Marzena; Herman, Eti (2018b). “What publishers can take away from the latest early career researcher research”. Learned publishing, v. 31, n. 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1165
  • Nicholas, David; Watkinson, Anthony; Abrizah, Abdullah; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Boukacem‐Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Xu, Jie; Świgoń, Marzena; Herman, Eti (2020d). “Does the scholarly communication system satisfy the beliefs and aspirations of new researchers? Summarizing the Harbingers research”. Learned publishing, v. 33, n. 2, pp. 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1284
  • Nicholas, David; Watkinson, Anthony; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Xu, Jie; Abrizah, Abdullah; Świgoń, Marzena; Clark, David; Herman, Eti (2019). “So, are early career researchers the harbingers of change?”. Learned publishing, v. 32, n. 3, pp. 237-247. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1232
  • Nicholas, David; Watkinson, Anthony; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca; Xu, Jie; Abrizah, Abdullah; Świgoń, Marzena; Herman, Eti (2017b). “Early career researchers: Scholarly behaviour and the prospect of change”. Learned publishing, v. 30, n. 2, pp. 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1098
  • Nicholas, David; Watkinson, Anthony; Jamali, Hamid R.; Herman, Eti; Tenopir, Carol; Volentine, Rachel; Allard, Suzie; Levine, Kenneth (2015b). “Peer review: Still king in the digital age”. Learned publishing, v. 28, n. 1, pp. 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150104
  • Niles, Meredith T.; Schimanski, Lesley A.; McKiernan, Erin C.; Alperin, Juan-Pablo (2020). “Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations”. Plos one, v. 15, n. 3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228914
  • O’Brien, Anna; Graf, Chris; McKellar, Kate (2019). “How publishers and editors can help early career researchers: Recommendations from a roundtable discussion”. Learned publishing, v. 32, n. 4, pp. 383-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1249
  • Pew Research Center (2010a). Millennials: A portrait of generation next. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change
  • Pew Research Center (2010b). Millennials will make online sharing in networks a lifelong habit. https://www.pewinternet.org/2010/07/09/millennials-will-make-online-sharing-in-networks-a-lifelong-habit
  • Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) (2016). Peer review survey 2015. London, UK: Mark Ware Consulting. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/655756/PRC-peer-review-survey-report-Final-2016-05-19.pdf
  • Rodríguez‐Bravo, Blanca; Nicholas, David; Herman, Eti; Boukacem‐Zeghmouri, Chérifa; Watkinson, Anthony; Xu, Jie; Abrizah, Abdullah; Świgoń, Marzena (2017). “Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers”. Learned Publishing, v. 30, n. 4, pp. 269-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1111
  • Ross-Hellauer, Tony (2017). “What is Open Peer Review? A systematic review”. F1000Research, v. 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
  • Roumbanis, Lambros (2022). “Disagreement and agonistic chance in peer review”. Science, technology and human values, v. 47, n. 6, pp. 1302-1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211026
  • Scroope, Chara (2017). “French culture: Business culture”. Cultural atlas. https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/french-culture/french-culture-business-culture
  • Seeber, Marco (2022). “Efficacy, efficiency, and models of journal peer review: The known and unknown in the social sciences”. In T.C.E. Engels; E. Kulczycki (eds.). Handbook on research assessment in the social sciences, pp. 67-82. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://10.4337/9781800372559.00011
  • Sevryugina, Yulia V.; Dicks, Andrew J. (2021). Publication practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Biomedical preprints and peer-reviewed literature. Preprint. BioRxiv, 427563. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.21.427563
  • Sevryugina, Yulia V.; Dicks, Andrew J. (2022). “Publication practices during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Expedited publishing or simply an early bird effect?”. Learned publishing, v. 35, n. 4, pp. 563-573. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1483
  • Sharma, Kiran (2021). “Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020”. Scientometrics, n. 126, pp. 8363-8374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04125-4
  • Schewe, Charles D.; Debevec, Kathleen; Madden, Thomas J.; Diamond, William D.; Parment, Anders; Murphy, Andrew (2013). “’If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all!’” Are young Millennials the same worldwide?”. Journal of international consumer marketing, v. 25, n. 1, pp. 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2013.751791
  • Shimray, Somipam R. (2022). “Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19”. Accountability in research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.2014327
  • Silbiger, Nyssa J.; Stubler, Amber D. (2019). “Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM”. PeerJ, n. 7, e8247. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247
  • Siler, Kyle; Lee, Kirby; Bero, Lisa (2015). “Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 112, n. 2, pp. 360-365. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112
  • Sørensen, Lene-Tolstrup; Williams, Idongesit; Khajuria, Samant; Skouby, Knud-Erik (2017). “Millennial users in a 5G context”. In: Wireless World Research Forum outlook series, n. 18. https://wwrf.ch/wp-content/publications/outlook/Outlook18.pdf
  • Squazzoni, Flaminio; Gandelli, Claudio (2013). “Opening the black-box of peer review: An agent-based model of scientist behaviour”. Journal of artificial societies and social simulation, v. 16, n. 2, 3. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.2128
  • Steen, R. Grant; Casadevall, Arturo; Fang, Ferric C. (2013). “Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?”. PLoS one, v. 8, n. 7, e68397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397
  • Tennant, Jonathan; Dugan, Jonathan M.; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien C.; Waldner, François; Mietchen, Daniel; Elkhatib, Yehia; Collister, Lauren B.; Pikas, Christina K.; Crick, Tom; Masuzzo, Paola; Caravaggi, Anthony; Berg, Devin R.; Niemeyer, Kyle E.; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Mannheimer, Sara; Rigling, Lilian; Katz, Daniel S.; Greshake-Tzovaras, Bastian; Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel; Fatima, Nazeefa; Poblet, Marta; Isaakidis, Marios; Irawan, Dasapta-Erwin; Renaut, Sébastien; Madan, Christopher R.; Matthias, Lisa; Kjaer, Jesper-Norgaard; O’Donnell, Daniel-Paul; Neylon, Cameron; Kearns, Sarah; Selvaraju, Manojkumar; Colomb, Julien (2017). “A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review”. F1000 Research, n. 6, 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
  • Tennant, Jonathan P.; Ross-Hellauer, Tony (2020). “The limitations to our understanding of peer review”. Research integrity and peer review, v. 5, n. 1, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
  • Teixeira-da-Silva, Jaime A.; Bornemann-Cimenti, Helmar; Tsigaris, Panagiotis (2021). “Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature”. Medicine, health care and philosophy, v. 24, pp. 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-020-09990-z
  • Teixeira-da-Silva, Jaime A. (2021). “Challenges that early career researchers face in academic research and publishing: pre-and post-COVID-19 perspectives”. Exchanges: The interdisciplinary research journal, v. 9, n. 1, pp. 77-106. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v9i1.882
  • Tomkins, Andrew; Zhang, Min; Heavlin, William D. (2017). “Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 114, n. 48, pp. 12708-12713. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114
  • Van-Dalen, Hendrik P.; Henkens, Kène (2012). “Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 63, m. 7, pp. 1282-1293. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22636
  • Willis, Jessie V.; Cobey, Kelly D.; Ramos, Janina; Chow, Ryan; Ng, Jeremy Y.; Alayche, Mohsen; Moher, David (2022a). Online training in manuscript peer review: A systematic review. medRxiv, 2022-09. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.02.22279345
  • Willis, Jessie V.; Ramos, Janina; Cobey, Kelly D.; Ng, Jeremy Y.; Khan, Hassan; Albert, Marc A.; Alayche, Mohsen; Moher, David (2022b). Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey, medRxiv, 2022-09. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.03.22279564
  • Woods, Hellen-Buckley; Brumberg, Johanna; Kaltenbrunner, Wolfgang; Pinfield, Stephen; Waltman, Ludo (2023). “An overview of innovations in the external peer review of journal manuscripts”. Wellcome Open Research, v. 7, n. 82 [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved]. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17715.2
  • Ziman, John M. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. London, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978 0 521095198
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet