* Acut DP (2025) Writing the unwritten and owning the incomplete: an autoethnographic reflection on addressing study limitations in scholarly research. Research Ethics, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161251363704
Article Google Scholar
* Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO (2021) A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 6(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Aktipis CA, Thompson-Schill SL (2010) Positive assortment for peer review. Adapt Behav 18(5):448-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712310384281
Article Google Scholar
* Al-Beltagi M (2025) Fishing reviewing: a threat to research integrity and credibility. World J Methodol 15(3):98795. https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.98795
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Allen H, Cury A, Gaston T, Graf C, Wakley H, Willis M (2019) What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice. Learn Publ 32(2):163-175. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1222
Article Google Scholar
* Anderson C, Shrestha P, Bhunia S, Carvalho A, Lee Y-H (2025) Blockchain-based token system for incentivizing peer review: a design science approach. Decis Support Syst 197:114514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2025.114514
Article Google Scholar
* Arboledas-Lérida L (2024) The ‘unpaid’ labour of peer reviewers and the accumulation of capital in the industry of academic publishing. Critique 52(2-3):317-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/03017605.2024.2364454
Article Google Scholar
* Arvan M, Bright LK, Heesen R (2025) Jury theorems for peer review. Br J Philos Sci 76(2):319-344. https://doi.org/10.1086/719117
Article Google Scholar
* Babin BJ, Moulard JG (2018) To what is the review process relevant? What’s right and what’s wrong with peer review for academic business journals. Eur Bus Rev 30(2):145-156. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2017-0162
Article Google Scholar
* Bell K, Kingori P, Mills D (2024) Scholarly publishing, boundary processes, and the problem of fake peer reviews. Sci Technol Hum Values 49(1):78-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439221112463
Article Google Scholar
* Bernstein J (2013) Free for service: the inadequate incentives for quality peer review (with commentary by Wager E, Heckman JD, and Zeller JL). Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(10):3093-3097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3216-z
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Beshyah S, Ali K, Hafidh K (2021) Attitudes of physicians and scientists to peer reviewing for biomedical journals: a survey from the Middle East and Africa. Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences 13(1):32-40. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmbs.ijmbs_141_20
Article Google Scholar
* Bianchi F, Grimaldo F, Bravo G, Squazzoni F (2018) The reviewing dilemma: an agent-based model of scientist strategies in peer review under resource constraints and institutional pressures. Scientometrics 116(3):1401-1420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2825-4
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Bianchi F, Grimaldo F, Squazzoni F (2019) The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals. J Informetr 13(1):78-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.11.007
Article Google Scholar
* Björk B-C (2019) Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: a literature survey. El Profesional De La Información 28(4):e280407. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.07
Article Google Scholar
* Bollen J, Crandall D, Junk D, Ding Y, Börner K (2017) An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions. Scientometrics 110(1):521-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Bonaccorsi A (2023) Towards peer review as a group engagement. JLIS.it 14(1):46-59. https://doi.org/10.36253/jlis.it-511
Article Google Scholar
* Booth CM, Ross JS, Detsky AS (2023) The changing medical publishing industry: economics, expansion, and equity. J Gen Intern Med 38(14):3242-3246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08307-z
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Brainard J (2021) The $450 question: should journals pay peer reviewers? Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh3175
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Breuning M, Backstrom J, Brannon J, Gross BI, Widmeier M (2015) Reviewer fatigue? Why scholars decline to review their peers’ work. PS: Political Science & Politics 48(4):595-600. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515000827
Article Google Scholar
* Bro T, Hammarfelt B (2022) Shared burden is always lighter – peer-review performance in an ophthalmological journal 2010-2020. Acta Ophthalmol 100(5):559-563. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.15033
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Candal-Pedreira C, Rey-Brandariz J, Varela-Lema L, Pérez-Ríos M, Ruano-Ravina A (2023) Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals. An Pediatr (Barc) 99(1):54-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpede.2023.05.006
Article Google Scholar
* Card D, DellaVigna S, Funk P, Iriberri N (2020) Are referees and editors in economics gender neutral? Q J Econ 135(1):269-327. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz035
Article Google Scholar
* Carvalho A, Anderson C, Zavolokina L (2024) Designing incentives for attracting peer reviewers to information system conferences. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 54:1011-1021. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05441
* Chalmers B, Solomon DL (2022) Academic exploitation. Lancet 400(10347):159-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00922-9
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Chamarthi VS, Parsi S, Kashyap R (2025) Effect of monetary incentives on peer review acceptance and completion: a quasi-randomized interventional trial – a welcome step forward. Crit Care Med 53(12):e2784-e2785. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006873
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Chang J-J, Lai C-C (2001) Is it worthwhile to pay referees? South Econ J 68(2):457-463. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2001.tb00430.x
Article Google Scholar
* Cheah PY, Piasecki J (2022) Should peer reviewers be paid to review academic papers? Lancet 399:1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02804-X
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Chloros GD, Giannoudis VP, Giannoudis PV (2022) Peer-reviewing in surgical journals: revolutionize or perish? Ann Surg 275(1):e82-e90. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004756
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Chong SW, Lin T (2024) Feedback practices in journal peer-review: a systematic literature review. Assess Eval High Educ 49(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2164757
Article Google Scholar
* Citrome L (2018a) Rewarding reviewers, part I: contributing an editorial. Int J Clin Pract 72(4):e13210. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13210
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Citrome L (2018b) Rewarding reviewers, part II: receiving CME credit. Int J Clin Pract 72(5):e13214. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13214
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Copeland S, Marin L (2024) “It takes a village to write a really good paper”: a normative framework for peer reviewing in philosophy. Metaphilosophy 55(2):131-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12670
Article Google Scholar
* Copiello S (2018) On the money value of peer review. Scientometrics 115(1):613-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2664-3
Article Google Scholar
* Cotton CS, Alam A, Tosta S, Buchman TG, Maslove DM (2025) Effect of monetary incentives on peer review acceptance and completion: a quasi-randomized interventional trial. Crit Care Med 53(6):e1181-e1189. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006637
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Curfman G (2025) Publishers face antitrust lawsuit with potential implications for peer review, duplicate submission, and dissemination practices. Health Aff Sch 3(2):qxaf018. https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf018
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Dance A (2022) Why early-career researchers should step up to the peer-review plate. Nature 602(7895):169-171. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00216-1
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
* Dance A (2023) Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off. Nature 614(7948):581-583. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00403-8
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
* Dean KL, Forray JM (2018) The long goodbye: can academic citizenship sustain academic scholarship? J Manage Inq 27(2):164-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617726480
Article Google Scholar
* Diamandis EP (2017) The current peer review system is unsustainable-awaken the paid reviewer force! Clin Biochem 50(9):461-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.02.019
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Dickinson H, Smith C (2024) What roles might automation play in the future of public administration journal peer review processes? Aust J Public Adm 83(1):123-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12611
Article Google Scholar
* Didham RK, Leather SR, Basset Y (2017) Don’t be a zero-sum reviewer. Insect Conserv Divers 10(1):1-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12208
Article Google Scholar
* Dobusch L, Plotnikof M, Wenzel M (2025) Reviewing is caring! Revaluing a critical, but invisibilized, underappreciated, and exploited academic practice. Organization, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084251343672
Article Google Scholar
* Drury L (2022) The normalization of preprints. SRELS J Inf Manag 59(2): 79-85. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2022/v59i2/169462
* Eisen MB, Akhmanova A, Behrens TE, Diedrichsen J, Harper DM, Iordanova MD, Weigel D, Zaidi M (2022) Peer review without gatekeeping. eLife 11:e83889. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83889
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Ellwanger JH, Chies JAB (2020) We need to talk about peer-review – experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation. J Clin Epidemiol 125:201-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.02.001
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Else H, Perkel JM (2022) The giant plan to track diversity in research journals. Nature 602:566-570. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00426-7
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
* Elson M (2024) Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers. Nature 629(8013):730. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01465-y
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
* Engers M, Gans JS (1998) Why referees are not paid (enough). Am Econ Rev 88(5):1341-1349
Google Scholar
* Fahnestock J (2025) The controversy behind the controversies: scientific discourse in the twenty-first century. Rhetor Soc Q 55(3):223-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2025.2484162
Article Google Scholar
* Farias Fávaro A, Marcelino R, Cechinel C (2024) Blockchain solutions for scientific paper peer review: a systematic mapping of the literature. Data Technol Appl 58(2):214-242. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTA-01-2022-0010
Article Google Scholar
* Fernandez-Llimos F, Salgado TM, Tonin FS, Pharmacy Practice 2019 peer reviewers (2020) How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? Pharm Pract 18(1):1804. https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2020.1.1804
Article Google Scholar
* Fiedorowicz JG, Kleinstäuber M, Lemogne C, Löwe B, Ola B, Sutin A, Wong S, Fabiano N, Tilburg MV, Mikocka-Walus A (2022) Peer review as a measurable responsibility of those who publish: the peer review debt index. J Psychosom Res 161:110997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.110997
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Floyd RG, Arora PG, Garbacz SA, January S-AA (2020) Reviewing manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals. In: Floyd, R. G., & Eckert, T. L. (eds.) Handbook of University and Professional Careers in School Psychology, Routledge, London, UK, pp. 351-379. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429330964-31
* Fox CW (2017) Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution. Scientometrics 113(1):465-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2489-5
Article Google Scholar
* Fox CW, Meyer J (2021) The influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic on manuscript submissions and editor and reviewer performance at six ecology journals. Funct Ecol 35(1):4-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13734
Article CAS Google Scholar
* Fox CW, Albert AYK, Vines TH (2017) Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Res Integr Peer Rev 2:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Frijters P, Torgler B (2019) Improving the peer review process: a proposed market system. Scientometrics 119(2):1285-1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03076-1
Article Google Scholar
* Fund S, Dyke G (2024a) Is the tail wagging the dog? Understanding the value of incentives in peer review. Inf Serv Use 44(3):229-235. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-240003
Article Google Scholar
* Fund S, Dyke G (2024b) Recognition and reward in peer review: the ReviewerCredits vision. Minerva Cardiol Angiol 72(3):220-224. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06487-6
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* García JA, Rodriguez-Sánchez R, Fdez-Valdivia J (2015) The principal-agent problem in peer review. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 66(2):297-308. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23169
Article Google Scholar
* García JA, Rodriguez-Sánchez R, Fdez-Valdivia J (2020) The author-reviewer game. Scientometrics 124(3):2409-2431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03559-6
Article Google Scholar
* García JA, Rodriguez-Sánchez R, Fdez-Valdivia J (2021a) The interplay between the reviewer’s incentives and the journal’s quality standard. Scientometrics 126(4):3041-3061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03839-1
Article Google Scholar
* García JA, Rodriguez-Sánchez R, Fdez-Valdivia J (2021b) Quality censoring in peer review. Scientometrics 126(1):825-830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03693-1
Article Google Scholar
* García JA, Rodriguez-Sánchez R, Fdez-Valdivia J (2022) Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? Scientometrics 127(3):1491-1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8
Article Google Scholar
* García JA, Montero-Parodi JJ, Rodriguez-Sanchez R, Fdez-Valdivia J (2023) How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder. J Informetr 17(4):101462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101462
Article Google Scholar
* García JA, Montero-Parodi JJ, Rodriguez-Sanchez R, Fdez-Valdivia J (2026) The association of gender, experience, and academic rank in peer-reviewed manuscript evaluation. Accountability in Research 33(1):article 2440098. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2440098
* Garisto D (2019) Diversifying peer review by adding junior scientists. Nature Index. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/diversifying-peer-review-by-adding-junior-scientists (news item)
* Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD (2015) Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci 30(4):360-364. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Geldsetzer P, Heemann M, Tikka P, Wang G, Cusick MM, Lenjani A, Krishnan N (2023) Prevalence of short peer reviews in 3 leading general medical journals. JAMA Netw Open 6(12):e2347607. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.47607
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Gisbert JP, Chaparro M (2023) Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer. Gastroenterología y Hepatología (English Edition) 46(3):215-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastre.2022.03.010
Article Google Scholar
* Gonzalez P, Wilson GS, Purvis AJ (2022) Peer review in academic publishing: challenges in achieving the gold standard. J Univ Teaching Learn Pract 19(5):1-12. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.5.1
Article Google Scholar
* Grossmann A, Brembs B (2021) Current market rates for scholarly publishing services. F1000Research 10:20. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.2
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Gruendler J, Melnyk D, Pourdamghani A, Schmid S (2024) DecentPeeR: a self-incentivised & inclusive decentralized peer review system. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pp. 394-396. https://doi.org/10.1109/icbc59979.2024.10634376
* Hannon L (2022) Reviewer acknowledgment lists as data: low-hanging fruit for analysis. Account Res 29(8):537-538. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1960516
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Hanson MA, Gómez Barreiro P, Crosetto P, Brockington D (2024) The strain on scientific publishing. Quant Sci Stud 5(4):823-843. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327
Article Google Scholar
* Hansson SO (2023) Philosophy without peer review? Theoria 89(3):235-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12480
Article Google Scholar
* Harrison D (2002) Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. Acad Manage J 45(6):1079-1084. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2002.9265944
Article Google Scholar
* Harrison RT (2024) Breaking bad? Playing the fool and constructing the ‘bad researcher’ in entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur Insights 22:e00484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2024.e00484
Article Google Scholar
* Hassan W, Paas F (2025) Dermatology publishing revenues and reviewer compensation: a data-driven study. Clin Dermatol 43(6):868-870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2025.07.007
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Hauser M, Fehr E (2007) An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biol 5(4):e107. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050107
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Heinemann MK, Gottardi R, Henning PT (2021) Select crowd review”: a new, innovative review modality for the thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 69(5):387-388. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1732285
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Horbach SP, Halffman W (2018) The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 3:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Horbach SP, Halffman W (2020) Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work. Res Integr Peer Rev 5:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00097-w
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Horta H, Jung J (2024) The crisis of peer review: part of the evolution of science. High Educ Q 78(4):e12511. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12511
Article Google Scholar
* Horta H, Santos JM (2025) A typology of peer-reviewers: role, characteristics, and egoistic and altruistic perspectives. Res Eval 34:rvaf021. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaf021
Article Google Scholar
* Hu X (2023) Prejudice, interests, jealousy: inappropriate peer reviewers may be exacerbating inequality in academic publication in health research. J Korean Med Sci 38(33):e256. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e256
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Hug SE (2024) How do referees integrate evaluation criteria into their overall judgment? Evidence from grant peer review. Scientometrics 129(3):1231-1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04915-y
Article Google Scholar
* Humphreys H (2022) Payment and progress in peer review. Lancet 400(10347):159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00921-7
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Javed F, Ahmed ZU (2025) Remembering the reviewers. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10459-y
Article Google Scholar
* Jia P, Xie W, Zhang G, Wang X-W (2023) Do reviewers get their deserved acknowledgments from the authors of manuscripts? Scientometrics 128:5687-5703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04790-7
Article Google Scholar
* Jordan PJ (2020) Quality standards and training are important in the peer review process, but what about engagement? Ind Organ Psychol 13(1):61-63. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.10
Article Google Scholar
* Kallmes KM, Brinjikji W, Ahmed AT, Kallmes DF (2017) Difficulty in finding manuscript reviewers is not associated with manuscript acceptance rates: a study of the peer-review process at the journal Radiology. Scientometrics 111(2):971-978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2331-0
Article Google Scholar
* Kaltenbrunner W (2025) Between gift-giving and accumulation: peer review economies in psychology. Minerva, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-025-09582-2
Article Google Scholar
* Kaltenbrunner W, Birch K, Amuchastegui M (2022) Editorial work and the peer review economy of STS journals. Sci Technol Hum Values 47(4):670-697. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211068798
Article Google Scholar
* Kirman CR, Simon TW, Hays SM (2019) Science peer review for the 21st century: assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 103:73-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.003
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
* Klus MF, Dilger A (2020) Success factors of academic journals in the digital age. Bus Res 13:1115-1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00131-z
Article Google Scholar
* Kosmarski A, Gordiychuk N (2020) Token-curated registry in a scholarly journal: can blockchain support journal communities? Learn Publ 33(3):333-339. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1302
Article Google Scholar
* Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L (2016) The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS One 11(11):e0166387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Kovanis M, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Porcher R (2017) Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication. Scientometrics 113(1):651-671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2375-1
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Krausman PR, Knipps ACS (2024) The valuable role of referees. J Wildlife Manage 88(2):e22537. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22537
Article Google Scholar
* Krausman PR, Cox AS, Knipps ACS (2019) A call for reviewers and guidelines for reviewing. J Wildlife Manage 83(3):511-512. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21652
Article Google Scholar
* Kumar NR (2024) Paying for peer review: should or should not? In: Joshi, P. B., Churi, P. P., & Pandey, M. (eds) Scientific Publishing Ecosystem, Springer, Singapore, pp. 379-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4060-4_22
* Künzli N, Berger A, Czabanowska K, Lucas R, Madarasova Geckova A, Mantwill S, von dem Knesebeck O (2022) “I do not have time” – is this the end of peer review in public health sciences? Public Health Rev 43:1605407. https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2022.1605407
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Kwee RM, Almaghrabi MT, Kwee TC (2023) The peer review process: a survey among scientists in radiology. Eur J Radiol 165:110940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110940
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Lam A (2011) What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Res Policy 40(10):1354-1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002
Article Google Scholar
* Lambrechts MJ, Schroeder GD, Kia C, Makanji HS (2023) Is it time to change the peer review process? Clin Spine Surg 36(6):221-223. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001420
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* LaPlant BN, Ponte CD, Vordenberg SE, Murry LT, Rhodes LA, Cavaco AM, Ramachandran S, Lu BE, Covvey JR (2024) Navigating the journey as a peer reviewer: a roadmap to success. J Am Pharm Assoc 64(4):102115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2024.102115
Article Google Scholar
* Laxdal A, Haugen T (2024) Where are the carrots? A proposal to start crediting peer reviewers for their contribution to science. Learned Publ 37(2):154-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1589
Article Google Scholar
* LeBlanc AG, Barnes JD, Saunders TJ, Tremblay MS, Chaput JP (2023) Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling. Res Integr Peer Rev 8(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00128-2
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Lee J, Moroso M, Mackey TK (2023) Unblocking recognition: a token system for acknowledging academic contribution. Front Blockchain 6:1136641. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2023.1136641
Article Google Scholar
* Lindebaum D, Jordan PJ (2023) Publishing more than reviewing? Some ethical musings on the sustainability of the peer review process. Organ Res 30(2):396-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211051047
Article Google Scholar
* Lubinski C, Decker S, MacKenzie N (2024) Revise and resubmit? Peer reviewing business historical research. Bus Hist 66(4):773-792. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2024.2325610
Article Google Scholar
* Macarelli V, Merkle FT (2025) The value of joint peer review between early career researchers and supervisors. Trends Cell Biol 35(5):353-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2025.03.002
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Machin-Mastromatteo JD (2024) Revisiones y decisiones iniciales de los editores de revistas científicas sobre los manuscritos recibidos. Rev Estud Inf 2(2):146-159. https://doi.org/10.54167/rei.v2i2.1785
Article Google Scholar
* Madsen DØ, Sohail SS (2026) AI, reviewer incentives, and questions raised by García et al. Accountability in Research 33(1):1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2445278
* Mahmić-Kaknjo M, Utrobičić A, Marušić A (2021) Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: a scoping review. Account Res 28(5):297-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1822170
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Makemson JB (2024) Disruptive timetables and frameworks within the gamification of critique and peer review. Int J Art Design Educ 43(4):631-645. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12536
Article Google Scholar
* Malički M, Mehmani B (2024) Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals. PeerJ 12:e17514. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17514
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Merrill E, Cox A (2014) Reviewer overload and what can we do about it. J Wildl Manage 78(6):961-962. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.763
Article Google Scholar
* Meyerson LA, Suzzi-Simmons A, Simberloff D (2025) Quantifying reviewer declines in scientific publishing: twenty-one years of data from Biological Invasions 2002-2024. Biol Invasions 27:223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-025-03679-1
Article Google Scholar
* Mills J, Carr J, Taylor N, Cunningham C (2024) Expertise is … never having to say you are sorry. In: King, H. (ed.) The artistry of teaching in higher education, Routledge, London, UK, pp. 62-73. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003437826-6
* Miura C, Ito K (2025) Incentivize peer review without rewarding: using OSS-like citation pull request. In: Delir Haghighi, P., Greguš, M., Kotsis, G., & Khalil, I. (eds) Information Integration and Web Intelligence. iiWAS 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 15342. Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 110-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-78090-5_10
* Mogaji E (2024) Viewpoint: the evolving landscape of peer review. J Serv Mark 38(5):522-529. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-09-2023-0325
Article Google Scholar
* Moher D, Vieira Armond AC (2025) Publisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: not so much. Account Res 32(5):832-837. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Moustafa K (2022) No to paid peer review. Lancet 400:160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01057-1
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Mrowinski MJ, Fronczak A, Fronczak P, Nedic O, Dekanski A (2020) The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study. Scientometrics 125(1):115-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03619-x
Article Google Scholar
* Muhonen R, Himanen L (2025) Evaluation as a source of unhappiness in academia — unpacking the boundaries of responsible research assessment. Res Eval 34:rvaf034. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaf034
Article Google Scholar
* Muller SM (2025) Crowd-sourced peer review: wisdom or tyranny of the crowd? S Afr J Philos 44(1):43-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2025.2462433
Article Google Scholar
* Nane GF, Robinson-Garcia N, van Schalkwyk F, Torres-Salinas D (2023) COVID-19 and the scientific publishing system: growth, open access and scientific fields. Scientometrics 128(1):345-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04536-x
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Nash C (2023) Roles and responsibilities for peer reviewers of international journals. Publications 11(2):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020032
Article Google Scholar
* Nguyen VM, Haddaway NR, Gutowsky LF, Wilson AD, Gallagher AJ, Donaldson MR, Hammerschlag N, Cooke SJ (2015) How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PLoS ONE 10(8):e0132557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Nishikawa-Pacher A (2022) Who are the 100 largest scientific publishers by journal count? A webscraping approach. J Doc 78(7):450-463. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2022-0083
Article Google Scholar
* Noordhof DA, Sandbakk Ø (2024) Introducing IJSPP’s first reviewer incentive: a submission-fee waiver. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 19(8):727-728. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0252
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Northcraft GB, Tenbrunsel AE (2011) Effective matrices, decision frames, and cooperation in volunteer dilemmas: a theoretical perspective on academic peer review. Organ Sci 22(5):1277-1285. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0607
Article Google Scholar
* Ortega JL (2017) Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons. Scientometrics 112(2):947-962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2399-6
Article Google Scholar
* Ott S, Hebenstreit D (2014) Supply and demand: apply market forces to peer review. Nature 506(7488):295. https://doi.org/10.1038/506295b
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
* Oviedo-García MÁ (2024) The review mills, not just (self-)plagiarism in review reports, but a step further. Scientometrics 129(9):5805-5813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05125-w
Article Google Scholar
* Parrish DE (2024) The peer review crisis continues: what comes next? J Soc Work Educ 60(2):171-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2024.2363167
Article Google Scholar
* Piniewski M, Jarić I, Koutsoyiannis D, Kundzewicz ZW (2024) Emerging plagiarism in peer-review evaluation reports: a tip of the iceberg? Scientometrics 129(4):2489-2498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04960-1
Article Google Scholar
* Räsänen J, Louhiala P (2021) Should acknowledgments in published academic articles include gratitude for reviewers who reviewed for journals that rejected those articles? Theoria 87(3):713-728. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12310
Article Google Scholar
* Ravn Sørensen A (2024) Make peer review great (again?). Bus Hist 66(4):799-801. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2024.2324877
Article Google Scholar
* Reichardt JKV, Patrinos GP, Lai PS, Novelli G (2022) J’accuse… or the plight of pro-bono volunteer scientists in academic publishing. Hum Genomics 16:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-022-00413-z
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Reio TG (2025) Publishing quantitative research: exploring the peer-review process and manuscript acceptance rates. Hum Resour Dev Int 28(2):313-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2024.2368084
Article Google Scholar
* Righi S, Takács K (2017) The miracle of peer review and development in science: an agent-based model. Scientometrics 113(1):587-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2244-y
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Ruano-Ravina A, Pérez-Ríos M, Rey-Brandariz J, Candal-Pedreira C (2023) Is it time for a common peer review format for biomedical journals? J Clin Epidemiol 155:129-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.001
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Sangster A (2024) Unethical peer review. Account Hist J 51(1):95-109. https://doi.org/10.2308/AAHJ-2023-029
Article Google Scholar
* Sarigöl E, Garcia D, Scholtes I, Schweitzer F (2017) Quantifying the effect of editor-author relations on manuscript handling times. Scientometrics 113(1):609-631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2309-y
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Schmaling KB, Evenson GR, Marble BK, Gallo SA (2024) Perceptions of grant peer reviewers: a mixed methods study. Res Eval 33:rvae050. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae050
Article Google Scholar
* Seeman JI, House MC (2023) Peer review experiences of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States. Account Res 30(2):63-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1962714
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Seghier ML (2025) Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process. F1000Res 13:439. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148985.1
Article Google Scholar
* Severin A, Chataway J (2021) Purposes of peer review: a qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions. Learn Publ 34(2):144-155. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1336
Article Google Scholar
* Shrestha P, Bhunia S, Carvalho A, Anderson C, & Lee G (2024) A case study on Blockchain-based Anonymous Reviewer Incentive Token (BARIT). In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Kuching, Malaysia, 2024, pp. 1564-1571. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC54092.2024.10831118
* Sizo A, Lino A, Rocha Á, Reis LP (2025) Defining quality in peer review reports: a scoping review. Knowl Inf Syst 67(8):6413-6460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-025-02435-0
Article Google Scholar
* Smith OM, Davis KL, Pizza RB, Waterman R, Dobson KC, Foster B, Jarvey JC, Jones LN, Leuenberger W, Nourn N, Conway EE, Fiser CM, Hansen ZA, Hristova A, Mack C, Saunders AN, Utley OJ, Young ML, Davis CL (2023) Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups. Nat Ecol Evol 7(4):512-523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Spearpoint M (2017) A proposed currency system for academic peer review payments using the blockchain technology. Publications 5(3):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5030019
Article Google Scholar
* Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Takács K (2013) Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Res Policy 42(1):287-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014
Article Google Scholar
* Stoimenov A (2023) Reliability or liability in the contemporary mathematics publishing process? An ethical and technological case study. Cogent Soc Sci 9(2):2244259. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2244259
Article Google Scholar
* Superchi C, González JA, Solà I, Cobo E, Hren D, Boutron I (2019) Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 19(1):48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2013) Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: a status quo inquiry and assessment. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1):6-15
Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2016) On the abuse of online submission systems, fake peer reviews and editor-created accounts. Persona Bioet 20(2):151-158. https://doi.org/10.5294/PEBI.2016.20.2.3
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2017) Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: beware! AME Med J 2:28. https://doi.org/10.21037/amj.2017.02.10
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2019) Challenges to open peer review. Online Inf Rev 43(2):197-200. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2018-0139
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2020) Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons? Int Orthop 44(10):2193-2194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04587-w
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2023a) Is the continued claim of indexing in Publons by journals a predatory publishing characteristic? Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 52(5):448-449. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2023.06.006
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2023b) Why are peer reviewers thinning out, and are there ways to enrich the peer pool? J Sci Med Sport 26(7):336-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2023.06.006
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2023c) Historical assessment of three extinct portable peer review and cascade peer review models. Libr Inf Sci Res E-Journal 33(1):9-27. https://doi.org/10.32655/LIBRES.2023.1.2
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2024a) Recording a historical phenomenon in the editorial quality control of an editorial manager: a ‘manuscript’ file is not explicitly needed for manuscript submission. Publish Res 3:e002. https://doi.org/10.48130/pr-2024-0002
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2024b) The conceptual ‘APC ring’: is there a risk of APC-driven guest authorship, and is a change in the culture of the APC needed? J Sch Publ 55(3):404-425. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0060
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA (2026) Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A Narrative Review Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology (in Press). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-025-04486-0
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A (2018) Should authors be requested to suggest peer reviewers? Sci Eng Ethics 24(1):275-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9842-6
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A (2019) The Clarivate™ analytics acquisition of Publons – an evolution or commodification of peer review? Res Ethics 15(3-4):438-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117739941
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Daly T (2025) No reward without responsibility: focus on peer review reports. Ethics Med Public Health 33:101033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2024.101033
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J (2015) Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Account Res 22(1):22-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.899909
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J (2017) Excessively long editorial decisions and excessively long publication times by journals: causes, risks, consequences, and proposed solutions. Publ Res Q 33(1):101-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9489-9
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J, Tsigaris P, Al-Khatib A (2019) Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: an assessment. J Acad Librariansh 45(6):102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Katavić V (2016) Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry. Ethics & Bioethics 6(3-4):203-209. https://doi.org/10.1515/ebce-2016-0011
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Nazarovets M (2025) Rejected papers in academic publishing: turning negatives into positives to maximize paper acceptance. Learn Publ 38(1):e1649. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1649
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Nazarovets S (2022a) The role of Publons in the context of open peer review. Publ Res Q 38(4):760-781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Nazarovets S (2022b) Publication history: a double DOI-based method to store and/or monitor information about published and corrected academic literature. J Sch Publ 53(2):85-108. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2017-0017
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Nazarovets S (2026) The publish or perish, publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology (in Press). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-025-04651-5
Article Google Scholar
* Teixeira da Silva JA, Tsigaris P (2025) Would artificial intelligence, like ChatGPT, be a good “peer” reviewer in academic publishing? A human versus AI-based SWOT assessment. J Sch Publ 56(1):79-103. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2024-0001
Article Google Scholar
* Tennant JP (2020) Time to stop the exploitation of free academic labour. Eur Sci Ed 46:e51839. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51839
Article Google Scholar
* Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T (2020) The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 5:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, Elkhatib Y, Collister LB, Pikas CK, Crick T, Masuzzo P, Caravaggi A, Berg DR, Niemeyer KE, Ross-Hellauer T, Mannheimer S, Rigling L, Katz DS, Greshake Tzovaras B, Pacheco-Mendoza J, Colomb J (2017) A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Res 6:1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Thompson GD, Aradhyula SV, Frisvold G, Tronstad R (2010) Does paying referees expedite reviews? Results of a natural experiment. South Econ J 76(3):678-692. https://doi.org/10.4284/sej.2010.76.3.678
Article Google Scholar
* Tight M (2024) Critical reflections on the journal peer review process. High Educ Res Dev 43(6):1203-1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2366035
Article Google Scholar
* Tite L, Schroter S (2007) Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Epidemiol Community Health 61:9-12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817
Article Google Scholar
* Treviño LK (2008) Why review? Because reviewing is a professional obligation. Acad Manage Rev 33(1):8-10. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27744831
Article Google Scholar
* Tropini C, Finlay BB, Nichter M, Melby MK, Metcalf JL, Dominguez-Bello MG, Zhao L, McFall-Ngai MJ, Geva-Zatorsky N, Amato KR, Undurraga EA, Poinar HN, Gilbert JA (2023) Time to rethink academic publishing: the peer reviewer crisis. mBio 14(6):e0109123. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01091-23
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Trueblood JS, Allison DB, Field SM, Fishbach A, Gaillard SDM, Gigerenzer G, Holmes WR, Lewandowsky S, Matzke D, Murphy MC, Musslick S, Popov V, Roskies AL, Ter Schure J, Teodorescu AR (2025) The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 122(5):e2401231121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401231121
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Vines T, Mudditt A (2021) What’s wrong with paying for peer review? https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/06/16/whats-wrong-with-paying-for-peer-review/ (16 June 2021; last accessed: 27 December 2025)
* Vines T, Rieseberg L, Smith H (2010) No crisis in supply of peer reviewers. Nature 468(7327):1041. https://doi.org/10.1038/4681041a
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
* Violanti MT (2026) Exemplary narratives about the peer-review process. Rev Commun 26(1):2-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2025.2498910
Article Google Scholar
* Waltman L, Kaltenbrunner W, Pinfield S, Woods HB (2023) How to improve scientific peer review: four schools of thought. Learn Publ 36(3):334-347. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1544
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Warne V (2016) Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learn Publ 29(1):41-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1002
Article Google Scholar
* Weaver ML, Sundland R, Adams AM, Faria I, Feldman HA, Gudmundsdottir H, Marmor H, Miles V, Ochoa B, Ruff SM, Tonelli C, Altieri MS, Cannada L, Dewan K, Etkin Y, Marmor R, Plichta JK, Reyna C, Tatebe L, Drudi LM, Hicks CW (2022) The art of peer review: guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer. Semin Vasc Surg 35(4):470-478. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Wicherts JM (2016) Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS One 11(1):e0147913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Wittau J, Seifert R (2024) How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem. Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 397(12):9281-9294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-024-03272-8
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Ye H (2025) Concerning monetary incentives for peer review, should they be differentiated among various reviewers? Crit Care Med 53(9):e1836-e1837. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006701
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Yeo-Teh NSL, Tang BL (2023) Post-publication peer review with an intention to uncover data/result irregularities and potential research misconduct in scientific research: vigilantism or volunteerism? Sci Eng Ethics 29(4):24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Yoo MJ, Won Y (2020) Smart contract based academic paper review system. In: Park, J., Park, D-S., Jeong, Y-S., & Pan, Y. (eds) Advances in Computer Science and Ubiquitous Computing. CUTE CSA 2018. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 536. Springer, Singapore, pp. 259-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9341-9_44
* Yu H-Q, Liang Y, Xie Y-H (2024) Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11:1557. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04088-w
Article Google Scholar
* Yu H, Liang Y, Xie Y (2025) Understanding the sustainability of supply-demand in peer review system: an analysis based on scholars’ research and review activities. Scientometrics 130(3):1547-1569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05264-8
Article Google Scholar
* Yue M, Tang H, Liu F, Ma T-C (2021) Consistency index: measuring the performances of scholar journal reviewers. Scientometrics 126(8):7183-7195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04013-x
Article Google Scholar
* Zaharie M, Osoian C (2016) Peer review motivation frames: a qualitative approach. Eur Manage J 34(1):69-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.004
Article Google Scholar
* Zaharie MA, Seeber M (2018) Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment. Scientometrics 117(3):1587-1609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2912-6
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
* Zeng T (2025) “Doing reviews is an unpaid service”: why female Chinese novice applied linguistics researchers choose to participate in the peer review process. Int J Appl Linguist 35(1):472-485. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12631
Article Google Scholar
* Zhang G-Y, Xu S-M, Sun Y, Jiang C-L, Wang X-W (2022) Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing. J Informetr 16(2):101264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101264
Article Google Scholar
* Zhang L, Wei Y-H, Huang Y, Sivertsen G (2022) Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research. Scientometrics 127(2):7653-7679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04407-5
Article Google Scholar
* Zhang L, Tu Z-Y, Yu Y-F, Shang Y-Y, Huang Y (2024) Spotting potential reviewers for interdisciplinary research: insights on active reviewers from Publons. Scientometrics 129(9):5533-5556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05129-6
Article Google Scholar
* Zhang G-Y, Wang L-L, Wang X-W (2025) Cultural distance, gender and praise in peer review. Account Res 32(8):1448-1473. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2409310
Article PubMed Google Scholar
* Zheng X, Ni C (2025) Dissecting the global peer review ecosystem: skewness, homophily, and diversity dynamics. Quant Sci Stud 6:463-482. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00358
Article Google Scholar
* Zollman KJS, García J, Handfield T (2024) Academic journals, incentives, and the quality of peer review: a model. Philos Sci 91(1):186-203. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.81
Article Google Scholar
