References

• 2012Bias in peer review997 cited
• 2014Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping337 cited
• 2016Does it take too long to publish research?267 cited
• 2016Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors255 cited
• 2014Publishing: The peer-review scam228 cited
• 2015Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process163 cited
• 2014Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review158 cited
• 2006Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors147 cited
• 2014Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system103 cited
• 2006Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study88 cited
• 2015Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models64 cited
• 2011A Troubled Tradition56 cited
• 2016What Rights Do Authors Have?49 cited
• 2010Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics43 cited