National Institutes of Health. Breaches of Peer Review. Extramural Nexus. June 25, 2019.
- : Discusses the core values of the NIH peer review process, defines what constitutes a "breach of integrity" and strategies for protecting the integrity of US Biomedical Research.
Rennie D, Flanagin A. Three decades of peer review congresses. JAMA. 2018 January;319(4):350-353.
- : Discusses the problems, improvements, innovations and future direction of the peer review process in biomedicine.
Pain E. How to review a paper. Science Careers. 2016, September 22.
- : Shares insights and advice on how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum.
Rennie D. Let’s make peer review scientific. Nature Comment. 2016, July 5.
- : Reviews the history and offers suggestions for future of the peer review process.
Pain E. Register your study as a new publication option. Science Careers. 2015 December 15.
- : Discusses a new publication format that is designed to improve research transparency and reproducibility by reducing publication bias.
Knoepfler P. Reviewing post-publication peer review (PPPR). Trends in Genetics. 2015 May;31(5):221-223.
- : Discusses the evolution, impact and challenges of PPPR.
Li D, Agha L. Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science. 2015 April 24;348(6233):434-8.
- : Examines the success of peer-review panels in predicting the future quality of proposed research.
Science Careers Staff. Content Collection: Interactive Peer Review. Science Careers. 2013 May 21.
- : Discusses the pros and cons for open methods of peer review.
Bohannon J. Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science. 2013 October; 342(6154):60-65.
- : Describes how a spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open–access journals.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer Review Process.
- : Discusses author, journal and reviewer responsibilities in the publishing process.
Society for Neuroscience Guidelines for Responsible Conduct in Scientific Communication. Section 2: Reviewers of Manuscripts
- : Section 2 (based on guidelines developed by the American Chemical Society and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) provides guidance on reviewing peer-reviewed manuscripts.
- : Publishing resources for the American Chemical Society. Includes Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research. Section C covers Ethical Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts.
- : Mission is to promote excellence in the communication of scientific information. Web site includes many publication-related resources.
Council of Science Editors (CSE) White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications - Section 2.3 Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities
- : Guide for developing and improving effective practices for promoting integrity in scientific journal publishing. This section focuses on reviewer responsibilities.