BridgesDavid. 2009. “Research Quality Assessment in Education: Impossible Science, Possible Art?” British Educational Research Journal35:497–517.
2.
HochbergMichael E.ChaseJonathan M.GotelliNicholas J.HastingsAlanNaeemShahid2008. “The Tragedy of the Reviewer Commons.” Ecology Letters12:2–4.
3.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2011. Peer Review of Scientific Publications. London, England: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.
4.
IoannidisJohn P. A.2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLOS Medicine2(8):e124.
5.
RitzerGeorge. 1975. “Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science.” American Sociological Review10:156–67.
6.
SandstromUlfHallstenMartin2008. “Persistent Nepotism in Peer-review.” Scientometrics74:175–89.
7.
SeidlChristianSchmidtUlrichGroschePeter2005. “The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals.” Estudios de Aplicada23:505–51.
