AlonsoSCabrerizoFJHerrera-ViedmaEHerreraF. h-index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J Informetrics. 2009;3:273-289.
2.
CantorMGeroS. The missing metric: quantifying contributions of reviewers. R Soc Open Sci. 2015;2:140540.
3.
FoxJPetcheyOL. Pubcreds: fixing the peer review process by “privatizing” the reviewer commons. Bull Ecol Soc Am. 2010;91(3):325-334.
4.
GraingerDW. Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials. 2007;28(34):5199-5203.
5.
HauserMFehrE. An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biology. 2007;5(4):e107.
6.
KachewarSGSankayeSB. Reviewer index: a new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monogr. 2013;11(1):274-284.
7.
KellyCDJennionsMD. The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006;21(4):167-170.
8.
KooninEV. Swift publication would reward good reviewers [letter]. Nature. 2003;422(6930):374.
9.
LortieCJ. Money for nothing and your referees for free [editorial]. Ideas Ecol Evol. 2011;4:43-47.
10.
VerissimoDRobertsDL. The academic welfare state: making peer-review count. Trends Ecol Evol. 2013;28(11):623-624.
