A Stronger Post-Publication Culture Is Needed for Better Science

1. CollinsFS, TabakLA (2014) Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505: 612–613 Available: http://www.nature.com/news/policy-nih-plans-to-enhance-reproducibility-1.14586 Accessed 30 October 2014

2. IoannidisJP (2014) How to make more published research true. PLoS Med 11: e1001747 Available: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001747 Accessed 30 October 2014

3. GlasziouP, AltmanDG, BossuytP, BoutronI, ClarkeM, et al. (2014) Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 383: 267–276 Available: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)62228-X/fulltext Accessed 30 October 2014

4. KronickDA (1984) Literature of the life sciences: the historical background. Bull NY Acad Med 60: 857–875 Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1911798/ Accessed 30 October 2014

5. The PLOSMedicine, Editors Getting closer to a fully correctable and connected research literature. PLoS Med 10: e1001408 Available: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001408 Accessed 30 October 2014

6. HaynesRB, CotoiC, HollandJ, WaltersL, WilczynskiN, et al. (2006) Second-order peer review of the medical literature for practitioners. JAMA 295: 1801–1808 Available: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=202708 Accessed 30 October 2014

7. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2002) The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Eff Matters 6: 1–4 Available: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/EM/em62.pdf Accessed 30 October 2014

8. Van Noorden R (2014 Mar 14) The new dilemma of online peer review: too many places to post? Nature News Blog. Available: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/03/the-new-dilemma-of-online-peer-review-too-many-places-to-post.html. Accessed 30 October 2014.

9. National Center for Biotechnology Information (2014) PubMed Commons. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons/. Accessed 30 October 2014.

10. HunterJ (2012) Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front Comput Neurosci 6: 63 Available: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fncom.2012.00063/full Accessed 30 October 2014

11. RennieD (1998) Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. JAMA 280: 300–302 Available: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187765 Accessed 30 October 2014

12. HoffmannTC, GlasziouPP, BoutronI, MilneR, PereraR, et al. (2014) Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 348: g1687 Available: http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1687.long Accessed 30 October 2014

13. JeffersonT, RudinM, Brodney FolseS, DavidoffF (2007) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007: MR000016.

14. HopewellS, CollinsGS, BoutronI, YuLM, CookJ, et al. (2014) Impact of peer review on reports of randomized trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 349: g4145 Available: http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4145.long Accessed 30 October 2014

15. MertonRK (1963) The ambivalence of scientists. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 112: 77–97.

16. Goetz A (2014) Reexamining reviewer anonymity—more costs than benefits. Open Science Collaboration. Available: http://osc.centerforopenscience.org/2014/10/22/reexamining-reviewer-anonymity/. Accessed 30 October 2014.

17. LeaperC, RobnettRD (2011) Women are more likely than men to use tentative language, aren't they? A meta-analysis testing for gender differences and moderators. Psychol Women Q 35: 129–142.

18. LeaperC, AyresMM (2007) A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults' language use: talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 11: 328.

19. JagsiR, GuancialEA, WorobeyCC, HenaultLE, ChangY, et al. (2006) The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med 355: 281–287 Available: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa053910 Accessed 30 October 2014

20. KellyCD, JennionsMD (2006) The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol Evol 21: 167–170.

21. LarivièreV, NiC, GingrasY, CroninB, SugimotoCR (2013) Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature 504: 211–213 Available: http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-global-gender-disparities-in-science-1.14321 Accessed 30 October 2014

22. IsbellLA, YoungTP, HarcourtAH (2012) Stag parties linger: continued gender bias in a female-rich scientific discipline. PLoS ONE 7: e49682 Available: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0049682 Accessed 30 October 2014

23. JonesTM, FansonKV, LanfearR, SymondsMR, HiggieM (2014) Gender differences in conference presentations: a consequence of self-selection? PeerJ 2: e627 Available: https://peerj.com/articles/627/ Accessed 30 October 2014

24. ShemaH, Bar-IlanJ, ThelwallM (2012) Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE 7: e35869 Available: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0035869 Accessed 30 October 2014

25. Maynard A (2014 Mar 24) Gender balance in science blog networks: how has the male/female science blogger ration changed over the past three and a half years? Medium. Available: https://medium.com/2020-science-comms/gender-balance-in-science-blog-networks-71a1efb79958. Accessed 30 October 2014.

26. GilbertJR, WilliamsES, LundbergGD (1994) Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? JAMA 272: 139–142.

27. ZuberMA (2001) [Underrepresentation of women among peer reviewers and textbook authors in medicine in Germany.] Med Klin (Munich). 96: 173–180.

28. MutzR, BornmannL, DanielHD (2012) Does gender matter in grant peer review? Z Psychol 220: 121–129 Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3414231/ Accessed 30 October 2014

29. BuddenAE, TregenzaT, AarssenLW, KorichevaJ, LeimuR (2008) Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol 23: 4–6.

30. GrodON, BuddenAE, Tregenza, KorichevaJ, LeimuR, et al. (2008) Systematic variation in reviewer practice according to country and gender in the field of ecology and evolution. PLoS ONE 3: e3202 Available: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003202 Accessed 30 October 2014

31. GalipeauJ, MoherD, SkidmoreB, CampbellC, HendryP, et al. (2013) Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol). Syst Rev 2: 41 Available: http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/2/1/41 Accessed 30 October 2014

32. Bastian H (2003) Non-peer review: consumer involvement in research review. In Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences, 2nd edition. London: BMJ Books. pp. 248–262.

33. Wiktionary (2014) Wackaloon. Available: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=wackaloon&oldid=21379171. Accessed 4 November 2014.