[N.B.: All readings are available electronically; click on each underlined title to download. Access all others through Hagerty Electronic Journals.]
Abu-Saad, I. (2008). Where inquiry ends: The peer review process and indigenous standpoints. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(12), 1902-1918.
Atkinson, M., (2001). 'Peer Review' Culture, Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 193-204.
Bence V, Oppenheim C, (2004). The influence of peer review on the research assessment exercise, Journal Of Information Science 30 (4): 347-368.
Bledsoe, C., et al., (2007). Regulating Creativity: Research and Survival in the IRB Iron Cage, Northwestern University Law Review 101(2): 593-642.
Charlton, BG, (2004). Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and 'Col consultancy', Medical Hypotheses 63 (2): 181-186
Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly}, 35(1), 121-150}.
Gross, Alan, (1990). Peer Review and Scientific Knowledge, in The Rhetoric of Science, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harrison, C. (2004). Peer review, politics and pluralism, Environmental Science & Policy, 7 (5): 357-368
Mallard, G., Lamont, M., & Guetzkow, J. (2009). Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science Technology Human Values, 34(5), 573-606.
Melero, R., & Lopez-Santovena, F. (2001). Referees' attitudes toward open peer review and electronic transmission of papers. Food Science and Technology International, 7(6), 521-527.
Patton, D. E., & Olin, S. S. (2006). Scientific peer review to inform regulatory decision making: Leadership responsibilities and cautions. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 26(1), 5-16.
Riisgard HU, (2004). Peer review: journal articles versus research proposals. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 277: 301-309
Shimp, CP, (2004). Scientific peer review: A case study from local and global analyses, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82 (1): 103-116.
Singleton, A., (2004). Data protection and peer review. Learned Publishing 17 (3): 195-198.
Souder, L. (2010) A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: Do they really mean it? Science and Engineering Ethics, (Online First).
Spier, R. E., (2002). Peer Review and Innovation, Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 99-108.
Stamps, A.E., (1997). Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review, Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 85-98.
Turcotte, C., Drolet P, Girard M. (2004). Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts, Journal Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie 51 (6): 549-556.
van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. British Medical Journal, 318(7175), 23-27.
Wager, E., Fiack, S., Graf, C., Robinson, A., & Rowlands, I. (2009). Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: Results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(6), 348-353.
Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176(1), 47-51.
Weber, E. J., Katz, P. P., Waeckerle, J. F., & Callaham, M. L. (2002). Author perception of peer review: Impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. Journal of the Amercian Medical Association, 287(21), 2790-2793.
Weisse, A., (2009). I Was a Mole in an IRB.Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(3), 435-41.
Wellington, J., & Nixon, J. (2005). Shaping the field: The role of academic journal editors in the construction of education as a field of study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(5), 643-655.
Williams, HC. (2004). How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 51 (1): 79-83
Wilson, J.R. (2002). Responsible Authorship and Peer Review, Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 155-174.