MoherD.GalipeauJ.AlamS.Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statementBMC Med152017167
2.
GasparyanA.Y.GerasimovA.N.VoronovA.A.KitasG.D.Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communicationJ Korean Med Sci2015; 30:360–364.
3.
Review rewardsNature5142014274
4.
MunkP.L.MurphyK.J.NicolaouS.KlassD.Why should I review journal manuscripts?Can Assoc Radiol J652014193
5.
BernsteinJ.Free for service: the inadequate incentives for quality peer reviewClin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471:3093–3094.
6.
DiamandisE.P.Publishing costs: peer review as a business transactionNature5172015145
7.
FusterV.A praise for reviewers: how do we reward them?J Am Coll Cardiol2015; 65:212–213.
8.
KumarM.N.The ‘peer reviewer as collaborator’ model for publishingLearned Publish2010; 23:17–22.
9.
Rajpert-De MeytsE.LositoS.CarrellD.T.Rewarding peer-review work: the Publons initiativeAndrology2016; 4:985–986.
10.
LeopoldS.S.Editorial: ORCID is a wonderful (but not required) tool for authorsClin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474:1083–1085.
11.
HaakL.L.FennerM.PaglioneL.PentzE.RatnerH.ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchersLearn Publ2012; 25:259–264.
