References

Abdill RJ, Blekhman R. 2019. Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints. eLife 8:e45133. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.45133.
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: https://doi.org/10.1038/490335a.
Aksnes DW. 2003. A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics 56:235–246. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021919228368.
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 K. 2021. Altmetric Devalues Twitter, Tells Nobody. The Geyser — Hot Takes & Deep Thinking on the Info Economy.
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.
Anderson J, Nicholas S, Smith P. 2021. Campaign to investigate the academic ebook market. Campaign to investigate the academic ebook market.
Anon. 2018. Retraction. Behavioral Ecology 29:508–508. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ary014.
Baglini R, Parsons C. 2020. If you can’t be kind in peer review, be neutral. Nature Careers Community.
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. Language Log.
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.
Baskin PK, Gross RA. 2011. Honorary and ghost authorship. BMJ 343:d6223. DOI: https://doi.org/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). Biology Letters 16:20200651. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2020.0651.
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.
Bergstrom CT, Bergstrom TC. 2006. The economics of ecology journals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:488–495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[488:TEOEJ]2.0.CO;2.
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. Science Integrity Digest.
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. Eco-Evo Evo-Eco.
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. 2020. Growth rates of modern science: A latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.07675.
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, 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.
Bravo G, Farjam M, Moreno FG, Birukou A, Squazzoni F. 2018. Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals. Journal of Informetrics 12:101–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.12.002.
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.
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. UK: Repositories Support Project.
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: https://doi.org/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.
Chawla DS. 2021. Scientists at odds on Utrecht University reforms to hiring and promotion criteria.
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.
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.
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; 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; Springer Nature.
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.
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.
Cronin B. 2001. Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52:558–569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1097.
Davarpanah MR, Amel F. 2009. Author self-citation pattern in science. Library Review 58:301–309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530910952846.
Davies P. 2019. Is PLOS Running Out Of Time? Financial Statements Suggest Urgency To Innovate. The Scholarly Kitchen.
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.
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.
Ducarme F, Luque G, Courchamp F. 2013. What are "charismatic species" for conservation biologists ? BioSciences Master Reviews 1:1–8.
Eck NJ van, Waltman L. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
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. 2021. Open-access publisher PLOS pushes to extend clout beyond biomedicine. Nature 593:489–490. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-01907-3.
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.
Fanelli D. 2010. Positive results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLOS ONE 5:e10068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010068.
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: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9623-95.3.238.
Field A. 2013. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE.
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.
Forstmeier W, Wagenmakers E-J, Parker TH. 2017. Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings–a practical guide. Biological Reviews 92:1941–1968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12315.
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: https://doi.org/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: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4993.
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.
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 ReviewersRecommendations 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.
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: https://doi.org/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.
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.
Harington RM. 2020. The importance of scholarly societies for research and community support. FASEB BioAdvances 2:573–574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1096/fba.2020-00053.
Harzing AW. 2007. Publish or Perish.
Haustein S, Bowman TD, Costas R. 2015. When is an article actually published? An analysis of online availability, publication, and indexation dates. arXiv:1505.00796 [cs].
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: https://doi.org/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: https://doi.org/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.
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: https://doi.org/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 JPA, Thombs BD. 2019. A user’s guide to inflated and manipulated impact factors. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 49:e13151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13151.
Janicke Hinchliffe L. 2019. Transformative Agreements: A Primer. The Scholarly Kitchen.
Janicke Hinchliffe L. 2021. Explaining the Rights Retention Strategy. The Scholarly Kitchen.
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, 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: https://doi.org/10.1087/20100308.
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. Impact of Social Sciences.
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. The Scholarly Kitchen.
Kidwell MC, Lazarević LB, Baranski E, Hardwicke TE, Piechowski S, Falkenberg L-S, Kennett C, Slowik A, Sonnleitner C, Hess-Holden C, Errington TM, Fiedler S, Nosek BA. 2016. Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency. PLOS Biology 14:e1002456. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456.
Koltun V, Hafner D. 2021. The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. arXiv:2102.03234 [cs].
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.
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: https://doi.org/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: https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-03-2020-0478.
Kun Á. 2018. Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science? Publications 6:18. DOI: 10.3390/publications6020018.
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. 2015. Big Publishers, Bigger Profits: How the Scholarly Community Lost the Control of its Journals. Libraries in Crisis 5:9.
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.
Link AM. 1998. US and Non-US Submissions: An Analysis of Reviewer Bias. JAMA 280:246. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.246.
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.
Mahmoudi M. 2020. A survivor’s guide to academic bullying. Nature Human Behaviour 4:1091–1091. DOI: https://doi.org/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: https://doi.org/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: https://doi.org/10.1038/431505b.
Manlove KR, Belou RM. 2018. Authors and editors assort on gender and geography in high-rank ecological publications. PLOS ONE 13:e0192481. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192481.
Marcus AA. 2020. Spider researcher uses legal threats, public records requests to prevent retractions. Retraction Watch.
Marshall BM, Strine CT. 2021. Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology. Herpetological Journal 31:35–45. DOI: https://doi.org/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: https://doi.org/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 OpenCitationsCOCI: 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.
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, Nieves CM, Matthias L, Niles MT, Alperin JP. 2019. Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations.
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.
Mellor D, Roettger T, Schmalz X, Cashin A, Bagg M. 2019. Advocating for Change in How Science is Conducted to Level the Playing Field.
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. The Scholarly Kitchen.
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.
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.
Nosek B. 2019. Strategy for Culture Change.
Nuñez 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.
Oransky AI. 2011. The Year of the Retraction: A look back at 2011. Retraction Watch.
Oransky AI. 2021. Elsevier journals ask Retraction Watch to review COVID-19 papers. Retraction Watch.
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, 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.
Pennisi E. 2020. Embattled spider biologist seeks to delay additional retractions of problematic papers. Science.
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: https://doi.org/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.
Piwowar H, 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: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375.
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.
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: https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.10362.
Powers SM, Hampton SE. 2019. Open science, reproducibility, and transparency in ecology. Ecological Applications 29:e01822. DOI: https://doi.org/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.
Raff J. 2013. How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists. Violent metaphors.
Raju R, Pietersen J. 2017. Library as Publisher: From an African Lens. Journal of Electronic Publishing 20. DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0020.203.
Rennie D, Flanagin A. 1994. Authorship! Authorship!: Guests, Ghosts, Grafters, and the Two-Sided Coin. JAMA 271:469–471. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1994.03510300075043.
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. Crossref.
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.
Sandström U, Besselaar P van den. 2016. Quantity and/or Quality? The Importance of Publishing Many Papers. PLOS ONE 11:e0166149. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166149.
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. 2018. Meta-analysis challenges a textbook example of status signalling and demonstrates publication bias. eLife 7:e37385. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.37385.
Schiltz M. 2018. Science without publication paywalls: cOAlition S for the realisation of full and immediate Open Access. PLoS Medicine 15:e1002663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000031.
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: https://doi.org/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.
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.
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: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.
Smaldino PE, McElreath R. 2016. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science 3:160384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384.
Smith EM. 2021. Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals. Clinical and Translational Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13050.
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.
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2021b. 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. 2021a. 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.
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. arXiv:1702.00502 [cs]. 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.
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 ElsevierNo Deal’. Science Insider.
Wager E. 2006c. Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. Committee on Publication Ethics.
Wager E. 2006b. Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript. Committee on Publication Ethics.
Wager E. 2006a. Suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship. Committee on Publication Ethics.
Wager E, Singhvi S, Kleinert S. 2015. Too much of a good thing? An observational study of prolific authors. PeerJ 3:e1154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1154.
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.
Williams CF. 2021. Move !: The New Science of Body Over Mind. Profile Books.
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.
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: https://doi.org/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.