7. Roumbanis L. Peer review or lottery? A critical analysis of two different forms of decision-making mechanisms for allocation of research grants. Science, Technology & Human Values. 2019 Nov;44(6):994-1019.
8. Lipworth WL, Kerridge IH, Carter SM, Little M. Journal peer review in context: a qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Social Science & Medicine. 2011 Apr 1;72(7):1056-63.
Available from: https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4714&context=sspapers
9. Price, E. The NIPS experiment. 2014. Available from: http://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips-experiment.html
10. Smaldino PE, Turner MA, Contreras Kallens PA. Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science. 2019 Jul 10;6(7):190194. Available from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.190194
11. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Research funding: The case for a modified lottery. mBio. 7(2):e00422-16. 2016.
Available from: https://mbio.asm.org/content/mbio/7/2/e00422-16.full.pdf
12. Resch KI, Ernst E, Garrow J. A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2000 Apr;93(4):164-7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297969/pdf/10844878.pdf
13. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal. 2004 Mar 18;328(7441):673. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC381220/
14. Barnett AG. Funding by lottery: political problems and research opportunities. mBio. 2016 Sep 7;7(4). Available from: https://mbio.asm.org/content/7/4/e01369-16
15. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013 Jan;64(1):132-61. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.22798
16. Haug CJ. Peer-review fraud—hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015 Dec 17;373(25):2393-5. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330
17. Bedessem B. Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer review for the funding of science. Research Evaluation. 2020 Apr 1;29(2):150-7. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/rev/article-abstract/29/2/150/5678703
18. Chan L, Loizides F. New toolkits on the block: Peer review alternatives in scholarly communication. Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices. 2017 Jun 20:62. Available from: https://goedoc.uni-goettingen.de/bitstream/handle/1/14511/Schmidt_Gorogh_ELPUB_2017_STAL9781614997696-0062.pdf?sequence=1
19. Smith R. Peer review: reform or revolution?: Time to open up the black box of peer review. BMJ. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/315/7111/759.full
20. Horrobin DF. Something rotten at the core of science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 2001 Feb 1;22(2):51-2. Available from: https://www.pulsedtechresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Something-Rotten-Horrobin.pdf
21. Smith R. The peer review drugs don’t work. Times Higher Education. 2015 May 28;28. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/content/the-peer-review-drugs-dont-work
22. Richards D. Little evidence to support the use of editorial peer review to ensure quality of published research. Evidence-based Dentistry. 2007 Sep;8(3):88-9. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/6400516
23. Guthrie S. Innovation in the research funding process: Peer review alternatives and adaptations. Available from: https://www.academyhealth.org/sites/default/files/innovatingresearchfundingnovember2019.pdf