References
Aagaard K, Kladakis A, Nielsen MW. 2019. Concentration or dispersal of research funding? Quantitative Science Studies 1:117–149. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00002.
Abalkina A. 2021. Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive. Scientometrics 126:7123–7148. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04056-0.
Abalkina A. 2022.Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.13322 (accessed February 12, 2023). DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2112.13322.
Abbott A. 2019. Germany’s prestigious Max Planck Society conducts huge bullying survey. Nature 571:14–15. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02052-2.
Abbott A. 2023. Strife at eLife: Inside a journal’s quest to upend science publishing. Nature 615:780–781. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00831-6.
Abdill RJ, Blekhman R. 2019. Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints. eLife 8:e45133. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.45133.
Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Soldatenkova A. 2016. The dispersion of the citation distribution of top scientists’ publications. Scientometrics 109:1711–1724. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2143-7.
Adam D. 2002. The counting house. Nature 415:726–729. DOI: 10.1038/415726a.
Adams J. 2012. The rise of research networks. Nature 490:335–336. DOI: 10.1038/490335a.
Aksnes DW. 2003. A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics 56:235–246. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021919228368.
Althouse BM, West JD, Bergstrom CT, Bergstrom T. 2009. Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60:27–34. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20936.
Amano T, Sutherland WJ. 2013. Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: Wealth, language, geographical location and security. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:20122649. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2649.
Anderson JGT. 2017. Why Ecology Needs Natural History. American Scientist 105:290. DOI: DOI: 10.1511/2017.105.5.290.
Anderson K. 2021.Altmetric Devalues Twitter, Tells Nobody. Available at https://thegeyser.substack.com/p/altmetric-quietly-devalues-twitter (accessed August 23, 2021).
Anderson MS, Martinson BC, De Vries R. 2007. Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of US scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2:3–14. DOI: DOI: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.3.
Anon. 2018. Retraction. Behavioral Ecology 29:508–508. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ary014.
Armeni K, Brinkman L, Carlsson R, Eerland A, Fijten R, Fondberg R, Heininga VE, Heunis S, Koh WQ, Masselink M, Moran N, Baoill AÓ, Sarafoglou A, Schettino A, Schwamm H, Sjoerds Z, Teperek M, van den Akker OR, Veer A van’t, Zurita-Milla R. 2021. Towards wide-scale adoption of open science practices: The role of open science communities. Science and Public Policy 48:scab039–. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scab039.
Baglini R, Parsons C. 2020.If you can’t be kind in peer review, be neutral. Available at http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03394-y (accessed March 27, 2021).
Baker M. 2016. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility : Nature News & Comment. Nature 533:452–454. DOI: doi:10.1038/533452a.
Baković E. 2017.Language Log » More Zombie Lingua shenanigans. Available at https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=34106 (accessed June 1, 2021).
Banobi JA, Branch TA, Hilborn R. 2011. Do rebuttals affect future science? Ecosphere 2:art37. DOI: 10.1890/ES10-00142.1.
Barbour V, Kleinert S, Wager E, Yentis S. 2009. Guidelines for retracting articles. Committee on Publication Ethics. DOI: 10.24318/cope.2019.1.4.
Bar-Ilan J, Halevi G. 2017. Post retraction citations in context: A case study. Scientometrics 113:547–565. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0.
Barnett A, Mewburn I, Schroter S. 2019. Working 9 to 5, not the way to make an academic living: Observational analysis of manuscript and peer review submissions over time. BMJ 367:l6460. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6460.
Barto EK, Rillig MC. 2012. Dissemination biases in ecology: Effect sizes matter more than quality. Oikos 121:228–235. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19401.x.
Baskin PK, Gross RA. 2011. Honorary and ghost authorship. BMJ 343:d6223. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d6223.
Baxter-Gilbert J, Riley JL, Wagener C, Mohanty NP, Measey J. 2020. Shrinking before our isles: The rapid expression of insular dwarfism in two invasive populations of guttural toad (Sclerophrys gutturalis): Insular Dwarfism in an Invasive Toad. Biology Letters 16. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2020.0651rsbl20200651.
Beaumont LJ. 2019. Peer reviewers need a code of conduct too. Nature 572:439–439. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02492-w.
Begley CG, Ellis LM. 2012. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:531–533. DOI: 10.1038/483531a.
Berenbaum MR. 2021. Editorial Expression of Concern: New class of transcription factors controls flagellar assembly by recruiting RNA polymerase II in Chlamydomonas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2108930118.
Bett HK. 2020. Predatory publishing through McCornarck’s information manipulation theory. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication 69:331–339. DOI: 10.1108/GKMC-07-2019-0078.
Bik EM. 2020.The Tadpole Paper Mill. Available at https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2020/02/21/the-tadpole-paper-mill/ (accessed June 17, 2021).
Bik EM, Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2016. The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications. mBio 7:e00809–16. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00809-16.
Björk B-C, Solomon D. 2015. Article processing charges in OA journals: Relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics 103:373–385. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1556-z.
Bolnick D. 2021.17 months. Available at https://ecoevoevoeco.blogspot.com/2021/05/17-months.html (accessed May 14, 2021).
Bonnet X, Shine R, Lourdais O. 2002. Taxonomic chauvinism. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:1–3. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02381-3.
Bordewijk EM, Li W, Eekelen R van, Wang R, Showell M, Mol BW, Wely M van. 2021. Methods to assess research misconduct in health-related research: A scoping review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 136:189–202. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.012.
Bornmann L, Marx W. 2012. The Anna Karenina principle: A way of thinking about success in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63:2037–2051. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22661.
Bornmann L, Mutz R, Haunschild R. 2021. Growth rates of modern science: A latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases.
Bornmann L, Wolf M, Daniel H-D. 2012. Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: How far do comments differ in language use? Scientometrics 91:843–856. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0569-5.
Brainard J. 2019. U.S. Judge rules deceptive publisher should pay $50 million in damages. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.aax5720.
Brainard J, You J. 2018. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s “death penalty.” Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav8384.
Braun T, Dióspatonyi I. 2005. Counting the gatekeepers of international science journals a worthwhile science indicator. Current Science 89:1548–1551.
Brembs B. 2018. Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12:37. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037.
Brembs B, Button K, Munafò MR. 2013. Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7:291. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
Brembs B, Huneman P, Schönbrodt F, Nilsonne G, Susi T, Siems R, Perakakis P, Trachana V, Ma L, Rodriguez-Cuadrado S. 2021. Replacing academic journals. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5526635.
Brock WH. 1980. The development of commercial science journals in Victorian Britain. Development of science publishing in Europe:95–122.
Brown J. 2010. An Introduction to Overlay Journals.
Bucci EM. 2019. On zombie papers. Cell Death & Disease 10:189. DOI: 10.1038/s41419-019-1450-3.
Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23:4–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008.
Budzinski O, Grebel T, Wolling J, Zhang X. 2020. Drivers of article processing charges in open access. Scientometrics 124:2185–2206. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03578-3.
Buranyi S. 2017. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian.
Byrne JA, Christopher J. 2020. Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century—how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills? FEBS Letters 594:583–589. DOI: 10.1002/1873-3468.13747.
Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2012. Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural Reforms. Infection and Immunity 80:891–896. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.06183-11.
Casnici N, Grimaldo F, Gilbert N, Dondio P, Squazzoni F. 2017. Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: The case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. Scientometrics 113:533–546. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2241-1.
Cassey P, Blackburn TM. 2003. Publication rejection among ecologists. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18:375–376. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00160-5.
Cassey P, Blackburn TM. 2004. Publication and Rejection among Successful Ecologists. BioScience 54:234–239. DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0234:PARASE]2.0.CO;2.
Ceci SJ, Peters DP. 1982. Peer Review: A Study of Reliability. Change 14:44–48.
Chapman CA, Bicca-Marques JC, Calvignac-Spencer S, Fan P, Fashing PJ, Gogarten J, Guo S, Hemingway CA, Leendertz F, Li B, Matsuda I, Hou R, Serio-Silva JC, Chr. Stenseth N. 2019. Games academics play and their consequences: How authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 286:20192047. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2019.2047.
Chawla DS. 2021.Scientists at odds on Utrecht University reforms to hiring and promotion criteria. Available at https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/scientists-argue-over-use-of-impact-factors-for-evaluating-research (accessed August 12, 2021).
Chloros GD, Giannoudis VP, Giannoudis PV. 2021. Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish. Annals of surgery. DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000004756.
Cho AH, Johnson SA, Schuman CE, Adler JM, Gonzalez O, Graves SJ, Huebner JR, Marchant DB, Rifai SW, Skinner I, Bruna EM. 2014. Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management. PeerJ 2:e542. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.542.
Chorus C, Waltman L. 2016. A Large-Scale Analysis of Impact Factor Biased Journal Self-Citations. PLOS ONE 11:e0161021. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161021.
Christie AP, White TB, Martin P, Petrovan SO, Bladon AJ, Bowkett AE, Littlewood NA, Mupepele A-C, Rocha R, Sainsbury KA, Smith RK, Taylor NG, Sutherland WJ. 2021. Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science. bioRxiv:2021.03.30.437223. DOI: 10.1101/2021.03.30.437223.
Christl W. 2021. Digitale Überwachung und Kontrolle am Arbeitsplatz. Von der Ausweitung betrieblicher Datenerfassung zum algorithmischen Management? Cracked Labs.
Clance PR, Imes SA. 1978. The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice 15:241–247. DOI: 10.1037/h0086006.
Clark TD, Raby GD, Roche DG, Binning SA, Speers-Roesch B, Jutfelt F, Sundin J. 2020. Ocean acidification does not impair the behaviour of coral reef fishes. Nature 577:370–375. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1903-y.
Clements JC, Sundin J, Clark TD, Jutfelt F. 2022. Meta-analysis reveals an extreme “decline effect” in the impacts of ocean acidification on fish behavior. PLOS Biology 20:e3001511. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001511.
Cohen BA. 2017. How should novelty be valued in science? eLife 6:e28699. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.28699.
COPE. 2017. How to spot potential manipulation of the peer review process. Committee on Publication Ethics.
COPE. 2018a. What to do if you suspect image manipulation in a published article. Committee on Publication Ethics and Springer Nature.
COPE. 2018b. How to recognise potential authorship problems. Committee on Publication Ethics.
COPE. 2018c. Systematic manipulation of the publication process. Committee on Publication Ethics and Springer Nature.
COPE. 2019b. Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article.
Cortegiani A, Ippolito M, Ingoglia G, Manca A, Cugusi L, Severin A, Strinzel M, Panzarella V, Campisi G, Manoj L, Gregoretti C, Einav S, Moher D, Giarratano A. 2020. Citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: The GhoS(t)copus Project. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.23847.2.
Costa-Pereira R, Pruitt J. 2020. Retraction: Behaviour, morphology and microhabitat use: What drives individual niche variation? Biology Letters 16:20190266. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2020.0588.
Crane D. 1967. The Gatekeepers of Science: Some Factors Affecting the Selection of Articles for Scientific Journals. The American Sociologist 2:195–201.
Crew B. 2019.Here’s how to deal with failure, say senior scientists. Available at https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/how-to-deal-with-failure-rejection-academic-research-say-senior-scientists (accessed June 10, 2021).
Crijns TJ, Ottenhoff JSE, Ring D. 2021. The effect of peer review on the improvement of rejected manuscripts. Accountability in Research 0:1–11. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1869547.
Critchlow D, Stefenelli G. 2021. Comment on: ’Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)’ from Oviedo-García.
Crosetto P. 2021.Is MDPI a predatory publisher? Available at https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher/ (accessed December 9, 2021).
Csada RD, James PC, Espie RHM. 1996. The "File Drawer Problem" of Non-Significant Results: Does It Apply to Biological Research? Oikos 76:591–593. DOI: 10.2307/3546355.
Dahl. 2022.5 Anti-Climate Practices Elsevier Must Cease: Scientists Call out Publisher’s Ties to Fossil Fuel Industry. Available at https://blog.ucsusa.org/kristy-dahl/5-anti-climate-practices-elsevier-must-cease-scientists-call-out-publishers-ties-to-fossil-fuel-industry/ (accessed March 21, 2023).
Darwin C. 1859. On the origin of species. London: John Murray.
Davies P. 2019.Is PLOS Running Out Of Time? Financial Statements Suggest Urgency To Innovate. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/11/22/is-plos-running-out-of-time/ (accessed May 27, 2021).
Davies SW, Putnam HM, Ainsworth T, Baum JK, Bove CB, Crosby SC, Côté IM, Duplouy A, Fulweiler RW, Griffin AJ, Hanley TC, Hill T, Humanes A, Mangubhai S, Metaxas A, Parker LM, Rivera HE, Silbiger NJ, Smith NS, Spalding AK, Traylor-Knowles N, Weigel BL, Wright RM, Bates AE. 2021. Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science. PLOS Biology 19:e3001282. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001282.
Day NE. 2011. The Silent Majority: Manuscript Rejection and Its Impact on Scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education 10:704–718. DOI: 10.5465/amle.2010.0027.
de Vrieze J. 2018. Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers. Science. DOI: doi: 10.1126/science.aav3129.
Delikoura E, Kouis D. 2021. Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece. Publications 9:14. DOI: 10.3390/publications9020014.
Demeter M. 2018. Changing Center and Stagnant Periphery in Communication and Media Studies: National Diversity of Major International Journals in the Field of Communication from 2013 to 2017. International Journal of Communication 12:29.
Deutz DB, Drachen TM, Drongstrup D, Opstrup N, Wien C. 2021. Quantitative quality: A study on how performance-based measures may change the publication patterns of Danish researchers. Scientometrics 126:3303–3320. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03881-7.
Devlin H, Marsh S. 2018. Hundreds of academics at top UK universities accused of bullying. the Guardian.
Dickerson D. 2019. How I overcame impostor syndrome after leaving academia. Nature 574:588–588. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03036-y.
Dondio P, Casnici N, Grimaldo F, Gilbert N, Squazzoni F. 2019. The “invisible hand” of peer review: The implications of author-referee networks on peer review in a scholarly journal. Journal of Informetrics 13:708–716. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.018.
Drvenica I, Bravo G, Vejmelka L, Dekanski A, Nedić O. 2019. Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective. Publications 7:1. DOI: 10.3390/publications7010001.
Du Preez LH, Kunene N, Everson GJ, Carr JA, Giesy JP, Gross TS, Hosmer AJ, Kendall RJ, Smith EE, Solomon KR, Van Der Kraak GJ. 2008. Reproduction, larval growth, and reproductive development in African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) exposed to atrazine. Chemosphere 71:546–552. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.09.051.
Ducarme F, Luque G, Courchamp F. 2013. What are "charismatic species" for conservation biologists ? BioSciences Master Reviews 1:1–8.
Editorial. 2005. Not-so-deep impact. Nature 435:1003–1004. DOI: 10.1038/4351003b.
Egghe L. 2006. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 69:131–152. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7.
Eisen MB, Akhmanova A, Behrens TE, Harper DM, Weigel D, Zaidi M. 2020. Implementing a "publish, then review" model of publishing. eLife 9:e64910. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.64910.
Ellender B, Weyl O. 2014. A review of current knowledge, risk and ecological impacts associated with non-native freshwater fish introductions in South Africa. Aquatic Invasions 9:117–132. DOI: 10.3391/ai.2014.9.2.01.
Else H. 2021a. Open-access publisher PLOS pushes to extend clout beyond biomedicine. Nature 593:489–490. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-01907-3.
Else H. 2021b. Scammers impersonate guest editors to get sham papers published. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-021-03035-y.
Else H. 2023. Multimillion-dollar trade in paper authorships alarms publishers. Nature 613:617–618. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00062-9.
Else H, Van Noorden R. 2021. The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature 591:516–519. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5.
Enserink M. 2021. Does ocean acidification alter fish behavior? Fraud allegations create a sea of doubt. Science 372:560–565.
Eve MP, Neylon C, O’Donnell DP, Moore S, Gadie R, Odeniyi V, Parvin S. 2021. Reading Peer Review: PLOS ONE and Institutional Change in Academia. Elements in Publishing and Book Culture. DOI: 10.1017/9781108783521.
Eysenbach G. 2019. Celebrating 20 Years of Open Access and Innovation at JMIR Publications. Journal of Medical Internet Research 21:e17578. DOI: 10.2196/17578.
Fahrig L. 2003. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:487–515. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419.
Fahrig L. 2017a. Ecological Responses to Habitat Fragmentation Per Se. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 48:1–23. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022612.
Fahrig L. 2017b. Forty years of bias in habitat fragmentation research. In: Kareiva P, Marvier M, Silliman B eds. Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma. Oxford University Press, 0. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198808978.003.0005.
Fahrig L. 2019. Habitat fragmentation: A long and tangled tale. Global Ecology and Biogeography 28:33–41. DOI: 10.1111/geb.12839.
Fainra S, Gibbons M. 2022. The Last Refuge of Scoundrels. Science for the People Magazine 25.
Fanelli D. 2010a. “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLOS ONE 5:e10068. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010068.
Fanelli D. 2010b. Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data. PLOS ONE 5:e10271. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.
Fanelli D. 2012. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90:891–904. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7.
Fanelli D, Costas R, Ioannidis JPA. 2017. Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:3714–3719. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1618569114.
Fanelli D, Costas R, Larivière V. 2015. Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity. PLOS ONE 10:e0127556. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127556.
Fanelli D, Larivière V. 2016. Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century. PLOS ONE 11:e0149504. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149504.
Fang FC, Bowen A, Casadevall A. 2016. NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. eLife 5:e13323. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.13323.
Fang FC, Casadevall A. 2011. Retracted Science and the Retraction Index. Infection and Immunity 79:3855–3859. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11.
Fang FC, Casadevall A. 2012. Reforming Science: Structural Reforms. Infection and Immunity 80:897–901. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.06184-11.
Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:17028–17033. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
Farji-Brener AG, Kitzberger T. 2014. Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles? The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 95:238–242. DOI: 10.1890/0012-9623-95.3.238.
Fazackerley A. 2023. “Too greedy”: Mass walkout at global science journal over “unethical” fees. The Observer: Science.
Fernández-Juricic E. 2021. Why sharing data and code during peer review can enhance behavioral ecology research. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 75:103. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-021-03036-x.
Field A. 2013. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE.
Fire M, Guestrin C. 2019. Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: Observing Goodhart’s Law in action. GigaScience 8:giz053. DOI: 10.1093/gigascience/giz053.
Flatt JW, Blasimme A, Vayena E. 2017. Improving the Measurement of Scientific Success by Reporting a Self-Citation Index. Publications 5:20. DOI: 10.3390/publications5030020.
Flynn J. 2023.Guest Post — Addressing Paper Mills and a Way Forward for Journal Security. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/04/04/guest-post-addressing-paper-mills-and-a-way-forward-for-journal-security/ (accessed April 6, 2023).
Forstmeier W, Wagenmakers E-J, Parker TH. 2017. Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings–a practical guide. Biological Reviews 92:1941–1968. DOI: 10.1111/brv.12315.
Fortunato S, Bergstrom CT, Börner K, Evans JA, Helbing D, Milojević S, Petersen AM, Radicchi F, Sinatra R, Uzzi B, Vespignani A, Waltman L, Wang D, Barabási A-L. 2018. Science of science. Science 359:eaao0185. DOI: 10.1126/science.aao0185.
Fowler JH, Aksnes DW. 2007. Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics 72:427–437. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-1777-2.
Fox CW, Duffy MA, Fairbairn DJ, Meyer JA. 2019. Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution 9:13636–13649. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5794.
Fox CW, Paine CET. 2019. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution 9:3599–3619. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4993.
Franck G. 1999. Scientific Communication–A Vanity Fair? Science 286:53–55. DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5437.53.
Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. 2014. Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science 345:1502–1505. DOI: DOI: 10.1126/science.1255484.
Fuchs C, Sandoval M. 2013. The Diamond Model of Open Access Publishing: Why Policy Makers, Scholars, Universities, Libraries, Labour Unions and the Publishing World Need to Take Non-Commercial, Non-Profit Open Access Serious. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 11:428–443. DOI: 10.31269/triplec.v11i2.502.
Galipeau J, Barbour V, Baskin P, Bell-Syer S, Cobey K, Cumpston M, Deeks J, Garner P, MacLehose H, Shamseer L, Straus S, Tugwell P, Wager E, Winker M, Moher D. 2016. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. BMC Medicine 14:16. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2.
Garfield E. 1999. Journal impact factor: A brief review. CMAJ 161:979–980.
Garfunkel JM, Ulshen MH, Hamrick HJ, Lawson EE. 1994. Effect of Institutional Prestige on Reviewers’ Recommendations and Editorial Decisions. JAMA 272:137–138. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020063017.
Gerber M, Brand S, Herrmann C, Colledge F, Holsboer-Trachsler E, Pühse U. 2014. Increased objectively assessed vigorous-intensity exercise is associated with reduced stress, increased mental health and good objective and subjective sleep in young adults. Physiology & Behavior 135:17–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.047.
Glonti K, Cauchi D, Cobo E, Boutron I, Moher D, Hren D. 2019. A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMC Medicine 17:118. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1347-0.
Goodstein D. Sun, 02/21/2010 - 12:00. On Fact and Fraud.
Gopalakrishna G, Riet G ter, Cruyff MJLF, Vink G, Stoop I, Wicherts J, Bouter L. 2021. Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. DOI: 10.31222/osf.io/vk9yt.
Goyanes M, Demeter M. 2020. How the Geographic Diversity of Editorial Boards Affects What Is Published in JCR-Ranked Communication Journals. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 97:1123–1148. DOI: 10.1177/1077699020904169.
Goyes Vallejos J. 2021. What’s in a name? Science 372:754–754. DOI: 10.1126/science.372.6543.754.
Grasdalsmoen M, Eriksen HR, Lønning KJ, Sivertsen B. 2020. Physical exercise, mental health problems, and suicide attempts in university students. BMC Psychiatry 20:1–11. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-020-02583-3.
Gray RJ. 2020. Sorry, we’re open: Golden open-access and inequality in non-human biological sciences. Scientometrics 124:1663–1675. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03540-3.
Grey A, Avenell A, Bolland M. 2021. Timeliness and content of retraction notices for publications by a single research group. Accountability in Research 0:1–32. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1920409.
Grimm D. 2005. Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.309.5743.1974.
Gross K, Bergstrom CT. 2021. Why ex post peer review encourages high-risk research while ex ante review discourages it. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118:e2111615118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2111615118.
Grossmann A, Brembs B. 2021. Current market rates for scholarly publishing services. F1000Research 10:20. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.27468.2.
Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, Ardern C, Balcom L, Barros T, Berger M, Ciro JB, Cugusi L, Donaldson MR, Egger M, Graham ID, Hodgkinson M, Khan KM, Mabizela M, Manca A, Milzow K, Mouton J, Muchenje M, Olijhoek T, Ommaya A, Patwardhan B, Poff D, Proulx L, Rodger M, Severin A, Strinzel M, Sylos-Labini M, Tamblyn R, van Niekerk M, Wicherts JM, Lalu MM. 2019. Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature 576:210–212. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y.
Hagan AK, Topçuoğlu BD, Gregory ME, Barton HA, Schloss PD. 2020. Women Are Underrepresented and Receive Differential Outcomes at ASM Journals: A Six-Year Retrospective Analysis. mBio 11. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01680-20.
Hagve M. 2020. The money behind academic publishing. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening. DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.20.0118.
Hall N. 2014. The Kardashian index: A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology 15:424. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0.
Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution. 2013. Princeton University Press.
Harington RM. 2020. The importance of scholarly societies for research and community support. FASEB BioAdvances 2:573–574. DOI: 10.1096/fba.2020-00053.
Harzing AW. 2007. Publish or Perish.
Hausmann L, Schweitzer B, Middleton FA, Schulz JB. 2018. Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts. Journal of Neurochemistry 146:21–46. DOI: 10.1111/jnc.14314.
Haustein S, Bowman TD, Costas R. 2015. When is an article actually published? An analysis of online availability, publication, and indexation dates.
Hayes TB. 2004. There Is No Denying This: Defusing the Confusion about Atrazine. BioScience 54:1138–1149. DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1138:TINDTD]2.0.CO;2.
Hayes TB, Khoury V, Narayan A, Nazir M, Park A, Brown T, Adame L, Chan E, Buchholz D, Stueve T. 2010. Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:4612–4617.
Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat A-HS, Dellinger EP, Herbosa T, Joseph S, Kibatala PL, Lapitan MCM, Merry AF, Moorthy K, Reznick RK, Taylor B, Gawande AA. 2009. A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population. New England Journal of Medicine 360:491–499. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa0810119.
Heesen R, Bright LK. 2020. Is Peer Review a Good Idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2019:1–31. DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axz029.
Helmer S, Blumenthal DB, Paschen K. 2020. What is meaningful research and how should we measure it? Scientometrics 125:153–169. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03649-5.
Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. 2017. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife 6:e21718. DOI: DOI: 10.7554/eLife.21718.
Heneberg P. 2016. From Excessive Journal Self-Cites to Citation Stacking: Analysis of Journal Self-Citation Kinetics in Search for Journals, Which Boost Their Scientometric Indicators. PLOS ONE 11:e0153730. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153730.
Hirsch JE. 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:16569–16572. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
Hopewell S, Witt CM, Linde K, Icke K, Adedire O, Kirtley S, Altman DG. 2018. Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials. Trials 19:30. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-2395-4.
Huisman J, Smits J. 2017. Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics 113:633–650. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5.
Husemann M, Rogers R, Meyer S, Habel JC. 2017. “Publicationism” and scientists’ satisfaction depend on gender, career stage and the wider academic system. Palgrave Communications 3:1–10. DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.32.
Hussinger K, Pellens M. 2019. Scientific misconduct and accountability in teams. PLOS ONE 14:e0215962. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215962.
Hvistendahl M. 2013. China’s Publication Bazaar. Science 342:1035–1039. DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6162.1035.
Hyland K, Jiang F(Kevin). 2020. This work is antithetical to the spirit of research: An anatomy of harsh peer reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 46:100867. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100867.
Ioannidis JPA. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2:e124. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Ioannidis JPA. 2008. Measuring Co-Authorship and Networking-Adjusted Scientific Impact. PLOS ONE 3:e2778. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002778.
Ioannidis JPA, Boyack K, Wouters PF. 2016. Citation Metrics: A Primer on How (Not) to Normalize. PLOS Biology 14:e1002542. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002542.
Ioannidis JP, Thombs BD. 2019. A user’s guide to inflated and manipulated impact factors. European journal of clinical investigation 49:e13151.
Jalalian M, Dadkhah M. 2015. The full story of 90 hijacked journals from August 2011 to June 2015. Geographica Pannonica 19:73–87. DOI: 10.5937/GeoPan1502073J.
Janicke Hinchliffe L. 2019.Transformative Agreements: A Primer. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/04/23/transformative-agreements/ (accessed August 12, 2021).
Janicke Hinchliffe L. 2021.Explaining the Rights Retention Strategy. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/02/17/rights-retention-strategy/ (accessed June 6, 2021).
Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. 2002. Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA 287:2784–2786. DOI: DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2784.
Jennions MD, Lortie CJ, Rosenberg MS, Rothstein HR. 2013. 14. Publication and Related Biases. In: Publication and Related Biases. Princeton University Press, 207–236. DOI: 10.1515/9781400846184-016.
Jennions MD, Møller AP. 2002. Publication bias in ecology and evolution: An empirical assessment using the “trim and fill” method. Biological Reviews 77:211–222. DOI: 10.1017/S1464793101005875.
Jiang S. 2021. Understanding authors’ psychological reactions to peer reviews: A text mining approach. Scientometrics 126:6085–6103. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04032-8.
Jinha AE. 2010. Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23:258–263. DOI: 10.1087/20100308.
Kelly CD, Jennions MD. 2006. The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:167–170. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.005.
Kenar JA. 2016. Dear Authors: We Do Read Your Cover Letters. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 93:1171–1172. DOI: 10.1007/s11746-016-2889-3.
Khoo S. 2018.There is little evidence to suggest peer reviewer training programmes improve the quality of reviews. Available at https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/05/23/there-is-little-evidence-to-suggest-peer-reviewer-training-programmes-improve-the-quality-of-reviews/ (accessed May 5, 2021).
Khoo S. 2019. Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis. LIBER Quarterly 29:1–18. DOI: 10.18352/lq.10280.
Khoo S. 2021.Why the Plan S Rights Retention Strategy Probably Won’t Work. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/07/27/guest-post-why-the-plan-s-rights-retention-strategy-probably-wont-work/ (accessed July 27, 2021).
Kidwell MC, Lazarević LB, Baranski E, Hardwicke TE, Piechowski S, Falkenberg L-S, Kennett C, Slowik A, Sonnleitner C, Hess-Holden C. 2016. Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS biology 14:e1002456.
Kim B, Moran NP, Reinhold K, Sánchez-Tójar A. 2021. Male size and reproductive performance in three species of livebearing fishes (Gambusia spp.): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Animal Ecology 90:2431–2445. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.13554.
Kincaid AE. 2023a.Article that assessed MDPI journals as “predatory” retracted and replaced. Available at https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/08/article-that-assessed-mdpi-journals-as-predatory-retracted-and-replaced/ (accessed May 10, 2023).
Kincaid AE. 2023b.Spider researcher Jonathan Pruitt faked data in multiple papers, university finds. Available at https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/10/spider-researcher-jonathan-pruitt-faked-data-in-multiple-papers-university-finds/ (accessed May 18, 2023).
Koltun V, Hafner D. 2021. The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLOS ONE 16:e0253397. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253397.
Koppers L, Wormer H, Ickstadt K. 2017. Towards a Systematic Screening Tool for Quality Assurance and Semiautomatic Fraud Detection for Images in the Life Sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 23:1113–1128. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9841-7.
Kramer B, Bosman J. 2016. Innovations in scholarly communication - global survey on research tool usage. F1000Research 5:692. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.8414.1.
Kriegeskorte N, Walther A, Deca D. 2012. An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6:94. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00094.
Krishna A, Soumyaja D. 2020. Playing safe games–thematic analysis of victims’ perspectives on gendered bullying in academia. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 12:197–208. DOI: 10.1108/JACPR-03-2020-0478.
Kun Á. 2018. Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science? Publications 6:18. DOI: 10.3390/publications6020018.
Kwok LS. 2005. The White Bull effect: Abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. Journal of Medical Ethics 31:554–556. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2004.010553.
Lackey RT. 2007. Science, Scientists, and Policy Advocacy. Conservation Biology 21:12–17.
Larivière V, Costas R. 2016. How Many Is Too Many? On the Relationship between Research Productivity and Impact. PLOS ONE 11:e0162709. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162709.
Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P. 2015a. Big Publishers, Bigger Profits: How the Scholarly Community Lost the Control of its Journals. Libraries in Crisis 5:9.
Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P. 2015b. The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE 10:e0127502. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.
Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. 2013. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64:2–17. DOI: DOI: 10.1002/asi.22784.
Leimu R, Koricheva J. 2005. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20:28–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010.
Liang Y. 2018. Should authors suggest reviewers? A comparative study of the performance of author-suggested and editor-selected reviewers at a biological journal. Learned Publishing 31:216–221. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1166.
Link AM. 1998. US and Non-US Submissions: An Analysis of Reviewer Bias. JAMA 280:246. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.246.
Loehle C. 1987. Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Psychological Aspects and the Importance of Theory Maturation. The Quarterly Review of Biology 62:397–409.
Logan CJ. 2017. We can shift academic culture through publishing choices. F1000Research 6:518. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11415.2.
Luc JGY, Archer MA, Arora RC, Bender EM, Blitz A, Cooke DT, Hlci TN, Kidane B, Ouzounian M, Varghese TK, Antonoff MB. 2021. Does Tweeting Improve Citations? One-Year Results From the TSSMN Prospective Randomized Trial. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 111:296–300. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.04.065.
Lund BD, Wang T. 2020. An Analysis of Spam from Predatory Publications in Library and Information Science. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 52:35–45. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.52.1.03.
Macleod M, Collings AM, Graf C, Kiermer V, Mellor D, Swaminathan S, Sweet D, Vinson V. 2021. The MDAR (Materials Design Analysis Reporting) Framework for transparent reporting in the life sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2103238118.
Macmillan A, Jones R. 2022. Elsevier must end its fossil fuel partnerships and subsidies. The Lancet 400:2193. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02418-7.
Mahmoudi M. 2020. A survivor’s guide to academic bullying. Nature Human Behaviour 4:1091–1091. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-00937-1.
Mahmoudi M, Keashly L. 2021. Filling the space: A framework for coordinated global actions to diminish academic bullying. Angewandte Chemie 133:3378–3384. DOI: 10.1002/anie.202009270.
Mahoney MJ. 1977. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1:161–175. DOI: 10.1007/BF01173636.
Malaga-Trillo E, Gerlach G. 2004. Meyer case poses a challenge to the system. Nature 431:505–506. DOI: 10.1038/431505b.
Manca A, Cugusi L, Cortegiani A, Ingoglia G, Moher D, Deriu F. 2020. Predatory journals enter biomedical databases through public funding. BMJ 371:m4265. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m4265.
Marcus AA. 2020.Spider researcher uses legal threats, public records requests to prevent retractions. Available at https://retractionwatch.com/2020/08/20/spider-researcher-uses-legal-threats-public-records-requests-to-halt-correction-of-the-record/ (accessed May 9, 2021).
Marshall BM, Strine CT. 2021. Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology. Herpetological Journal 31:35–45. DOI: 10.33256/31.1.3545.
Martin BR. 2016. Editors’ JIF-boosting stratagems – Which are appropriate and which not? Research Policy 45:1–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.001.
Martin-Martin A, Orduna-Malea E, Thelwall M, Lopez-Cozar ED. 2018. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of informetrics 12:1160–1177. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002.
Martín-Martín A, Thelwall M, Orduna-Malea E, Delgado López-Cózar E. 2021. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics 126:871–906. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4.
Matheson A. 2016. Ghostwriting: The importance of definition and its place in contemporary drug marketing. BMJ 354:i4578. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4578.
Ma Y, Uzzi B. 2018. Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:12608–12615. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1800485115.
Mayden KD. 2012. Peer Review: Publication’s Gold Standard. Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology 3:117–122. DOI: DOI: 10.6004/jadpro.2012.3.2.8.
McKiernan EC, Schimanski LA, Muñoz Nieves C, Matthias L, Niles MT, Alperin JP. 2019. Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. eLife 8:e47338. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.47338.
McPeek MA, Deangelis DL, Shaw RG, Moore AJ, Rausher MD, Strong DR, Ellison AM, Barrett L, Rieseberg L, Breed MD, Sullivan J, Osenberg CW, Holyoak M, Elgar MA. 2009. The golden rule of reviewing. American Naturalist 173:E155–E158. DOI: 10.1086/598847.
Measey J. 2011. The past, present and future of African herpetology. African Journal of Herpetology 60:89–100. DOI: 10.1080/21564574.2011.628413.
Measey J. 2018. Europe’s plan S could raise everyone else’s publication paywall. Nature 562:494–494. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-07152-z.
Measey J. 2021. How to write a PhD in biological sciences: A guide for the uninitiated. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Mekonnen A, Downs C, Effiom EO, Kibaja M, Lawes MJ, Omeja P, Ratsoavina FM, Razafindratsima O, Sarkar D, Stenseth NChr, Chapman CA. 2021. Can I afford to publish? A dilemma for African scholars. Ecology Letters n/a. DOI: 10.1111/ele.13949.
Merton RK. 1968. The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159:56–63. DOI: 10.1126/science.159.3810.56.
Metze K. 2010. Bureaucrats, researchers, editors, and the impact factor: A vicious circle that is detrimental to science. Clinics 65:937–940. DOI: 10.1590/S1807-59322010001000002.
Michael A. 2021.Wiley Acquires Hindawi: An Interview with Judy Verses and Liz Ferguson. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/01/11/wiley-acquires-hindawi-interview/ (accessed July 29, 2021).
Michaels D, Monforton C. 2005. Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment. American Journal of Public Health 95:S39–S48. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.043059.
Milojević S. 2015. Quantifying the cognitive extent of science. Journal of Informetrics 9:962–973. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.10.005.
Mishra S, Fegley BD, Diesner J, Torvik VI. 2018. Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender. PLOS ONE 13:e0195773. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195773.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. 2009. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151:264–269. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.
Morales E, McKiernan EC, Niles MT, Schimanski L, Alperin JP. 2021. How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals. PLOS ONE 16:e0257340. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257340.
Morgan R, Hawkins K, Lundine J. 2018. The foundation and consequences of gender bias in grant peer review processes. CMAJ 190:E487–E488. DOI: DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.180188.
Moustafa K. 2015. Does the Cover Letter Really Matter? Science and Engineering Ethics 21:839–841. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-014-9554-8.
Munafò MR, Matheson IJ, Flint J. 2007. Association of the DRD2 gene Taq1A polymorphism and alcoholism: A meta-analysis of case–control studies and evidence of publication bias. Molecular Psychiatry 12:454–461. DOI: 10.1038/sj.mp.4001938.
Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, Simonsohn U, Wagenmakers E-J, Ware JJ, Ioannidis JPA. 2017. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 1:1–9. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
Munday PL. 2022. Reanalysis shows there is not an extreme decline effect in fish ocean acidification studies. PLOS Biology 20:e3001809. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001809.
Munday PL, Dixson DL, Donelson JM, Jones GP, Pratchett MS, Devitsina GV, Døving KB. 2009. Ocean acidification impairs olfactory discrimination and homing ability of a marine fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:1848–1852. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0809996106.
Nakagawa S, Santos ESA. 2012. Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis. Evolutionary Ecology 26:1253–1274. DOI: 10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5.
Neff BD, Olden JD. 2010. Not So Fast: Inflation in Impact Factors Contributes to Apparent Improvements in Journal Quality. BioScience 60:455–459. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.6.9.
Nielsen MW, Andersen JP. 2021. Global citation inequality is on the rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118:e2012208118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2012208118.
Niles MT, Schimanski LA, McKiernan EC, Alperin JP. 2020. Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations. PLOS ONE 15:e0228914. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228914.
Nissen SB, Magidson T, Gross K, Bergstrom CT. 2016. Publication bias and the canonization of false facts. eLife 5:e21451. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.21451.
Ni J, Zhao Z, Shao Y, Liu S, Li W, Zhuang Y, Qu J, Cao Y, Lian N, Li J. 2021. The influence of opening up peer review on the citations of journal articles. Scientometrics 126:9393–9404. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04182-9.
Nosek B. 2019.Strategy for Culture Change. Available at https://www.cos.io/blog/strategy-for-culture-change (accessed July 24, 2021).
Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. 2018. The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:2600–2606. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708274114.
Nunez MA, Amano T. 2021. Monolingual searches can limit and bias results in global literature reviews. Nature Ecology & Evolution 5:264–264. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-01369-w.
O’Carroll C, Brennan N, Hyllseth B, Kohl U, O’Neill G, Van Den Berg R. 2017. Providing researchers with the skills and competencies they need to practise Open Science: Open Science Skills Working Group Report. European Commission DG-RTG.
Okike K, Hug KT, Kocher MS, Leopold SS. 2016. Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. JAMA 316:1315. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.11014.
Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349:aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716.
Oransky AI. 2011.The Year of the Retraction: A look back at 2011. Available at https://retractionwatch.com/2011/12/30/the-year-of-the-retraction-a-look-back-at-2011/ (accessed May 9, 2021).
Oransky AI. 2021.Elsevier journals ask Retraction Watch to review COVID-19 papers. Available at https://retractionwatch.com/2021/03/09/elsevier-journals-ask-retraction-watch-to-review-covid-19-papers/ (accessed July 29, 2021).
Oviedo-García MÁ. 2021. Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). Research Evaluation 30:405–419. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvab020.
Pannell DJ. 2002. Prose, Psychopaths and Persistence: Personal Perspectives on Publishing. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d’agroeconomie 50:101–115. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2002.tb00422.x.
Parish AJ, Boyack KW, Ioannidis JPA. 2018. Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research. PLOS ONE 13:e0189742. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189742.
Parker TH. 2013. What do we really know about the signalling role of plumage colour in blue tits? A case study of impediments to progress in evolutionary biology. Biological Reviews 88:511–536. DOI: 10.1111/brv.12013.
Parker TH, Griffith SC, Bronstein JL, Fidler F, Foster S, Fraser H, Forstmeier W, Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Seppelt R, Tingley MW, Nakagawa S. 2018. Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:929–935. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z.
Penders B, Shaw DM. 2020. Civil disobedience in scientific authorship: Resistance and insubordination in science. Accountability in Research 27:347–371. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1756787.
Pennisi E. 2020. Embattled spider biologist seeks to delay additional retractions of problematic papers. Science.
Pennisi E. 2021.As data probe concludes, spider biologist placed on leave, has Ph.D. Thesis “withdrawn.” Available at https://www.science.org/content/article/data-probe-concludes-spider-biologist-placed-leave-has-ph-d-thesis-withdrawn (accessed November 24, 2021).
Perry G, Bertoluci J, Bury B, Hansen RW, Jehle R, Measey J, Moon BR, Muths E, Zuffi MAL. 2012. The “peer” in “Peer Review.” African Journal of Herpetology 61:1–2. DOI: 10.1080/21564574.2012.658665.
Peterson AT, Anderson RP, Beger M, Bolliger J, Brotons L, Burridge CP, Cobos ME, Cuervo-Robayo AP, Di Minin E, Diez J. 2019. Open access solutions for biodiversity journals: Do not replace one problem with another. Diversity and Distributions 25:5–8. DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12885.
Piller C. 2021. Disgraced COVID-19 studies are still routinely cited. Science 371:331–332. DOI: 10.1126/science.371.6527.331.
Pinfield S, Salter J, Bath PA. 2016. The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67:1751–1766.
Pinto ÂP, Mejdalani G, Mounce R, Silveira LF, Marinoni L, Rafael JA. 2021. Are publications on zoological taxonomy under attack? Royal Society Open Science 8:201617. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.201617.
Piwowar HA, Day RS, Fridsma DB. 2007. Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate. PLOS ONE 2:e308. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000308.
Piwowar HA, Priem J, Larivière V, Alperin JP, Matthias L, Norlander B, Farley A, West J, Haustein S. 2018. The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ 6:e4375. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4375.
Pooley J. 2021. Surveillance Publishing. DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/j6ung.
Posada A, Chen G. 2018. Inequality in Knowledge Production: The Integration of Academic Infrastructure by Big Publishers. In: Chan L, Mounier P eds. ELPUB 2018. Toronto, Canada,. DOI: 10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.30.
Potvin DA, Burdfield-Steel E, Potvin JM, Heap SM. 2018. Diversity begets diversity: A global perspective on gender equality in scientific society leadership. PLOS ONE 13:e0197280. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197280.
Poulin R. 2000. Manipulation of host behaviour by parasites: A weakening paradigm? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 267:787–792. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1072.
Poulson-Ellestad K, Hotaling S, Falkenberg LJ, Soranno P. 2020. Illuminating a Black Box of the Peer Review System: Demographics, Experiences, and Career Benefits of Associate Editors. Limnology & Oceanography Bulletin 29:11–17. DOI: 10.1002/lob.10362.
Powers SM, Hampton SE. 2019. Open science, reproducibility, and transparency in ecology. Ecological Applications 29:e01822. DOI: 10.1002/eap.1822.
Poynder R. 2019. Open access: Could defeat be snatched from the jaws of victory? Self Published.
Poynder R. 2020. Information Wants To Be Free v.2. Self Published.
Priem J, Groth P, Taraborelli D. 2012. The Altmetrics Collection. PLOS ONE 7:e48753. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048753.
Quan W, Chen B, Shu F. 2017. Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management 69:486–502. DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0014.
Quinn JF, Harrison SP. 1988. Effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation on species richness: Evidence from biogeographic patterns. Oecologia 75:132–140. DOI: 10.1007/BF00378826.
Racimo F, Galtier N, Herde VD, Bonn NA, Phillips B, Guillemaud T, Bourguet D. 2022. Ethical Publishing: How Do We Get There? Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 14. DOI: 10.3998/ptpbio.3363.
Raff J. 2013.How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists. Available at https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/12/13/how-to-become-good-at-peer-review-a-guide-for-young-scientists/ (accessed July 29, 2021).
Raju R, Pietersen J. 2017. Library as Publisher: From an African Lens. Journal of Electronic Publishing 20. DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0020.203.
Ritchie S. 2020. Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. Metropolitan Books.
Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4:155–169. DOI: 10.1007/BF01405730.
Rittman M. 2020.Fast, citable feedback: Peer reviews for preprints and other content types. Available at https://www.crossref.org/blog/fast-citable-feedback-peer-reviews-for-preprints-and-other-content-types/ (accessed April 28, 2021).
Rivara FP, Cummings P, Ringold S, Bergman AB, Joffe A, Christakis DA. 2007. A Comparison of Reviewers Selected by Editors and Reviewers Suggested by Authors. The Journal of Pediatrics 151:202–205. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.02.008.
Rohr JR, McCoy KA. 2010. Preserving environmental health and scientific credibility: A practical guide to reducing conflicts of interest. Conservation Letters 3:143–150. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00114.x.
Ross-Hellauer T. 2017. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research 6:588. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.
Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. 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. DOI: 10.1093/brain/123.9.1964.
Roy S, Edwards MA. 2022. Addressing the preprint dilemma. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 240:113896. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113896.
Sánchez-Tójar A, Nakagawa S, Sánchez-Fortún M, Martin DA, Ramani S, Girndt A, Bókony V, Kempenaers B, Liker A, Westneat DF, Burke T, Schroeder J. 2018a. Meta-analysis challenges a textbook example of status signalling and demonstrates publication bias. eLife 7:e37385. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.37385.
Sánchez-Tójar A, Nakagawa S, Sánchez-Fortún M, Martin DA, Ramani S, Girndt A, Bókony V, Kempenaers B, Liker A, Westneat DF, Burke T, Schroeder J. 2018b. Meta-analysis challenges a textbook example of status signalling and demonstrates publication bias. eLife 7:e37385. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.37385.
Sandström U, van den Besselaar P. 2016. Quantity and/or Quality? The Importance of Publishing Many Papers. PLOS ONE 11:e0166149. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166149.
Schiermeier Q. 2018. Germany vs Elsevier: Universities win temporary journal access after refusing to pay fees. Nature 553:137–137. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-00093-7.
Schiltz M. 2018. Science without publication paywalls: cOAlition S for the realisation of full and immediate Open Access. PLoS Medicine 15:e1002663. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000031.
Schimanski LA, Alperin JP. 2018. The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future. F1000Research 7:1605. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.16493.1.
Schimel D, Strong DR, Ellison AM, Peters DPC, Silver S, Johnson EA, Belnap J, Classen AT, Essington TE, Finley AO, Inouye BD, Stanley EH. 2014. Editors Are Editors, Not Oracles. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 95:342–346. DOI: 10.1890/0012-9623-95.4.342.
Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. 2004. Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 328:673. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE.
Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. 2006. Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors. JAMA 295:314–317. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.3.314.
Sidiropoulos A, Katsaros D, Manolopoulos Y. 2007. Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics 72:253–280. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-1722-z.
Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD. 2019. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ 7:e8247. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8247.
Simberloff D, Abele LG. 1982. Refuge Design and Island Biogeographic Theory: Effects of Fragmentation. The American Naturalist 120:41–50. DOI: 10.1086/283968.
Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22:1359–1366. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417632.
Singh Chawla D. 2022. Five-year campaign breaks science’s citation paywall. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-02926-y.
Smaldino PE, McElreath R. 2016. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science 3:160384. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160384.
Smith EM. 2021. Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals. Clinical and Translational Science. DOI: 10.1111/cts.13050.
Smith N, Cumberledge A. 2020. Quotation errors in general science journals. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 476:20200538. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2020.0538.
Solomon KR, Carr JA, Du Preez LH, Giesy JP, Kendall RJ, Smith EE, Van Der Kraak GJ. 2008. Effects of Atrazine on Fish, Amphibians, and Aquatic Reptiles: A Critical Review. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 38:721–772. DOI: 10.1080/10408440802116496.
Song F, Eastwood A, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton A. 2000. Publication and related biases: A review. Health Technology Assessment 4:1–115. DOI: 10.3310/hta4100.
Sterne JAC, Harbord RM. 2004. Funnel Plots in Meta-analysis. The Stata Journal 4:127–141. DOI: 10.1177/1536867X0400400204.
Strathern M. 1997. “Improving ratings”: Audit in the British University system. European Review 5:305–321. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3<305::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4.
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2021a. The Matthew effect impacts science and academic publishing by preferentially amplifying citations, metrics and status. Scientometrics 126:5373–5377. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03967-2.
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2021b. Abuse of ORCID’s weaknesses by authors who use paper mills. Scientometrics. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03996-x.
Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A, Katavić V, Bornemann-Cimenti H. 2018. Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections. Science and Engineering Ethics 24:1347–1365. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9921-3.
Tennant J. 2017. The open access citation advantage. Collection. DOI: DOI: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.CLPDPZB.v1.
Thurner S, Hanel R. 2011. Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average. The European Physical Journal B 84:707–711. DOI: 10.1140/epjb/e2011-20545-7.
Tiokhin L, Panchanathan K, Lakens D, Vazire S, Morgan T, Zollman K. 2021. Honest signaling in academic publishing. PLOS ONE 16:e0246675. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246675.
Tolsgaard MG, Ellaway R, Woods N, Norman G. 2019. Salami-slicing and plagiarism: How should we respond? Advances in Health Sciences Education 24:3–14. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-019-09876-7.
Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. 2017. Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 2017. DOI: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00502v6.
Toro VP, Padhye AD, Biware MV, Ghaya NA. 2019. Retraction Note to: Larvicidal effects of GC-MS fractions from leaf extracts of Cassia uniflora Mill non Spreng. Journal of Biosciences 44:76. DOI: 10.1007/s12038-019-9892-4.
Travis GDL, Collins HM. 1991. New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16:322–341. DOI: 10.1177/016224399101600303.
Tregenza T. 2002. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:349–350. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02545-4.
Trivers R. 2011. The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Valdez D, Vorland CJ, Brown AW, Mayo-Wilson E, Otten J, Ball R, Grant S, Levy R, Svetina Valdivia D, Allison DB. 2020. Improving open and rigorous science: Ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research. F1000Research 9:1235. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.26594.1.
Vale RD. 2015. Accelerating scientific publication in biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:13439–13446. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1511912112.
Van Dongen S. 2011. Associations between asymmetry and human attractiveness: Possible direct effects of asymmetry and signatures of publication bias. Annals of Human Biology 38:317–323. DOI: 10.3109/03014460.2010.544676.
van Eck NJ, Waltman L. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
Van Noorden R. 2013. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 495:426–429. DOI: 10.1038/495426a.
VanDenBerg R, Nezami N, Nguyen V, Sicklick JK, Weiss CR. 2021. A Solution to Academic Radiology’s Experience With Solicitation E-mails From Predatory Journals. American Journal of Roentgenology 216:233–240. DOI: DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.22923.
Voelkl B, Altman NS, Forsman A, Forstmeier W, Gurevitch J, Jaric I, Karp NA, Kas MJ, Schielzeth H, Van de Casteele T, Würbel H. 2020. Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 21:384–393. DOI: 10.1038/s41583-020-0313-3.
Vogel G. 2014.German University Tells Elsevier ’No Deal’. Available at https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/german-university-tells-elsevier-no-deal (accessed May 10, 2021).
Wager E. 2006c. Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. Committee on Publication Ethics.
Wager E. 2006b. Suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship. Committee on Publication Ethics.
Wager E. 2006a. Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript. Committee on Publication Ethics.
Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. 2006. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine 4:13. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-4-13.
Wager E, Singhvi S, Kleinert S. 2015. Too much of a good thing? An observational study of prolific authors. PeerJ 3:e1154. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1154.
Wagner CS, Horlings E, Whetsell TA, Mattsson P, Nordqvist K. 2015. Do Nobel Laureates Create Prize-Winning Networks? An Analysis of Collaborative Research in Physiology or Medicine. PloS One 10:e0134164. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134164.
Wang P, You S, Manasa R, Wolfram D. 2016. Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of Authors and Reviewers. Journal of Data and Information Science 1:60–80. DOI: 10.20309/jdis.201625.
Wei C, Zhao J, Ni J, Li J. 2023. What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals. Scientometrics 128:2763–2776. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04683-9.
Westervelt A. 2022. Revealed: Leading climate research publisher helps fuel oil and gas drilling. The Guardian: Environment.
Williams CF. 2021. Move !: The New Science of Body Over Mind. Profile Books.
Wilson AE. 2007. Journal Impact Factors Are Inflated. BioScience 57:550–551. DOI: 10.1641/B570702.
Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD. 2011. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. BMJ 343:d6128. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d6128.
Wood KA. 2020. Negative results provide valuable evidence for conservation. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 18:235–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecon.2020.10.007.
Woolston C. 2014. Clash over the Kardashians of science. Nature 512:117–117. DOI: 10.1038/512117e.
Woolston C. 2016. Faking it. Nature 529:555–557. DOI: 10.1038/nj7587-555a.
Xie Y. 2016. Bookdown: Authoring books and technical documents with R markdown. CRC Press.
Xie Y, Allaire JJ, Grolemund G. 2018. R markdown: The definitive guide. CRC Press.
Zong Q, Xie Y, Liang J. 2020. Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ. Scientometrics 125:607–623. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03545-y.
Zvereva EL, Kozlov MV. 2021. Biases in ecological research: Attitudes of scientists and ways of control. Scientific Reports 11:226. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80677-4.