The pitfalls and rewards of peer review. Lancet2008; 371(9611): 447.
2.
ClarkeVBraunVAdamsJ, et al. “Being really confidently wrong”: qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent peer review feedback. Qual Psychol2024; 12: 7–24.
3.
AczelBSzasziBHolcombeAO.A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev2021; 6(1): 14.
4.
TennantJPRoss-HellauerT.The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev2020; 5(1): 6.
5.
SmithR.Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med2006; 99(4): 178–182.
6.
JeffersonTRudinMBrodney FolseS, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2007; 2007(2): MR000016.
7.
WalsheCBeernaertKChongPH, et al. Writing for the world: enhancing engagement and connection with an international audience. Palliat Med2024; 38(1): 4–6.
