PEERE session at the 14th EASE conference, Bucharest 2018

• Large-scale exploration of peer review across research domains (Flaminio Squazzoni)
• Motivations for peer reviewers to perform pre-publication review of manuscripts: a systematic review (Mersiha Mahmić-Kaknjo)
• Peer Review Innovations: Introducing Volunpeers (Bahar Mehmani)

PEERE Training school on peer review, Split 2018

• Post publication open, invited peer review: What, how and why (Sabina Alam)
• How to support peer reviewers? (Christna Chap)
• Research integrity and peer review (Ana Marušić)
• Peer review writing skills, best practice and behind-the-scenes insights (Duncan Nicholas)
• Open peer review: How and why (Tony Ross-Hellanuer)
• What is peer review and why it matters (Flaminio Squazzoni)
• The future of peer review and why researchers are like penguins (Jon Tennant)

PEERE Conference on peer review, Rome 2018

• Ethical issues and transparency in peer review (Irene Hames)
• Peer review and beyond: Randomisation at the margin in the selection of research grant proposals (Hans-Dieter Daniel)
• Improving peer review via controlled experiments (Isabelle Boutron)
• Publishing while female Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. (Erin Hengel)
• Thinking outside the black box of peer review (Jon Tennant)
• Textual analysis of retraction notices (Judit Bar-Ilan)
• Improving the Peer-Review Process with Model-Based Estimates of Inter-Rater Reliability and Detection of Rating Bias: From Teacher Selection to Journal Submissions and Grant Applications (Patricia Martinkova, Dan Goldhaber, Elena Erosheva & Carole J. Lee)
• Journals’ instructions to authors in 2017: a cross sectional study across all disciplines (Mario Malički)
• Recognition for peer review (Elizabeth Moylan)
• ERC grants and peer review: Publication output of successful starting and advanced grants (Ana Marušić)
• Epistemic Diversity and Editor Decisions: A Statistical Matthew Effect (Remco Heesen)
• Is my publication peer reviewed? A comparison of top-down and bottom-up identification of peer review in the framework of the Finnish and Flemish performance-based research funding systems (Janne Pölönen)
• Interventions to improve adherence to Reporting Guidelines in health research: a scoping review (David Blanco)
• Peer review of reviewers: the author’s perspective  (Ivana Drvenica)
• A Decentralized Publication System for Open Science using Blockchain and IPFS (Antonio Tenorio-Fornés)
• Pubpeer: vigilante science, journal club or alarm raiser? (Didier Torny)
• Ten simple rules for open peer review (Birgit Schmidt)
• Peer Review innovations at Elsevier (Bahar Mehmani)
• Bias in judgments of scientific validity (Misha Teplitskiy, Daniel Acuna, Aïda Elamrani-Raoult, Konrad Kording, James Evans)
• Practicing peer review – How excellence is constructed in peer review panels (Helene Schiffbaenker & Marita Haas)
• Editors’ perspectives on communication practices within the manuscript review process in biomedical journals: A qualitative study (Keti Glonti)
• Identification of Motivations for Peer Reviewers to Perform Pre-publication Review of Manuscripts: A Systematic Review (Mersiha Mahmić-Kaknjo)
• Motivations for reviewing manuscripts submitted to Elsevier Journals (Jadranka Stojanovski)
• Research on Peer Review – in search of a theoretical approach (Cornelia Schendzielorz)
• Quality of editorial processes and peer review duration (Jeroen Smits)
• Peer review under the miscroscope: Results of a user-centred survey  (Edit Görögh)
• What do authors and editors think about peer review? A cross sectional study in 12 journals across research fields  (Shelly Pranic)
• What can and should it do? The changing forms and expectations of peer review (Serge Horbach)
• The “invisible hand”: Network effects of peer review on scientific collaboration (Pierpaolo Dondio)
• Improbable fairness: reviewing under the lenses of Impact Factor (Davide Secchi)
• Transformation of ex-ante evaluation in academic project funding: the case of PRIN (Emanuela Reale)
• The miracle of peer review and competition in science (Simone Righi)
• The Effects of Homophily on the Arbitrariness of Peer Review (Aliaksandr Birukou & Elise Brezis)
• Seasonal effects in peer review processes? (Marcel Ausloos)
• The impact of publishing peer revie reports: The Elsevier trial (Francisco Grimaldo & Emilia López)
• Qualitative synthesis of prepublication peer review of journal manuscripts (Mario Malicki)

Vilnius 2017

• A preliminary analysis of the Editorial Process at the Royal Society. 1853-1965 (Aileen Fyfe, Pierpaolo Dondio)
• Cultures of quality (Paul Wouters)
• Peer-review as organisational cognition (Stephen Cowley)
• New approaches to the research of the peer review system (Henk Moed)
• Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective (Janine Huisman)
• What do authors and editors think about peer review? A cross sectional study in 12 journals across research fields (Shelly Pranic)
• Linked Open Data (LOD) about Springer Nature conferences. The story so far (Aliaksandr Birukou)

Växjö 2016

• Pre-history of peer review: refereeing and editorial selection at the Royal Society (Aileen Fyfe)
• Peer-review efficiency as estimated by editors of scientific journals (Olgica Nedić, Ivana Drvenica, Marcel Ausloos and Aleksandar Dekanski)
• Motivations for reviewing manuscripts submitted to Elsevier Journals (Mario Malički, Jadranka Stojanovski, Bahar Mehmani)
• Relationship between the review quality of manuscripts, editors’ and reviewers’ decision to publish, and authors’ opinion of their reviewed manuscripts (Shelly Pranic)
• Getting it transparent or keeping it obscure? Potential implications of open peer review on scientist competition and collaboration (Federico Bianchi and Flaminio Squazzoni)
• Mental Workload and Peer Review (Luca Longo and Lucija Vejmelka)
• Conference Peer Review Evaluation (António Pedro Costa)
• Assessing peer review by guaging the fate of rejected manuscripts. The case of Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (Niccolò Casnici, Francisco Grimaldo, Pierpaolo Dondio, Nigel Gilbert, Flaminio Squazzoni)
• The reviewing dilemma: An agent-based model of scientist strategies in peer review under resource constraints and institutional pressures (Federico Bianchi, Francisco Grimaldo, Giangiacomo Bravo, Flaminio Squazzoni)

Valencia 2016

• Croatian Open Access journals peer review guidelines and policies(Stojanovski)
• Qualitative synthesis of peer review studies (Malicki and Shankar)
• Aims of science and peer review (Takacs)
• The evolution of the Scientific Community through the Peer Review Dynamics in a Multidisciplinary Journal (Dondio, Kelleher, Casnici and Squazzoni)
• How to review well:Perceptions of training needs for reviewers (Willis)
• Training peer reviewers: evidence-based core competencies (Moher)
• Motivations for reviewing manuscripts submitted to Elsevier Journals (Malicki and Mehmami)
• KNOWeSCAPE in a nutshell (Rotundo)
• With the little help from your friends: The impact of social networks on publication success (Schweitzer)
• Social processes of science consumption: Peer review versus public interest (Thorngate)
• The potential drawbacks of open peer review. A simulation model of scientist behaviour (Squazzoni & Bianchi)
• Modeling effects of low funding rates on innovative research (Sobkowicz)
• Quality vs. sexiness. The rival qualities of papers in the competition for academics’ attention (Payette & Watts)

Mainz 2016

• Primum simulare deinde philosophari. Insights from simulation models of peer review (Squazzoni)

Athens 2015

• Analysis of Peer Review data from WoS (Batagelj and Ferligoj)
• Publons: Insights from a network of reviewers (Preston)
• Review times in peer review: Quantitative analysis of editorial workflow (Mrowiński, A. Fronczak, P. Fronczak, Nedic and Ausloos)
• Is publication in the hands of outstanding scientists? A study on thedeterminants of editorial board membership in economics (Miniaci and Pezzoni)
• Elsevier’s Innovations in Peer Review (Mehmani)

Brescia 2015

• Intellectual privacy: Rethinking civil liberties in the digital age (Richards)
• European data protection: Structure, substance and challenges (Erdos)
• Data sharing and intellectual property (Spedicato)
• Data hugging, reputation and research information (Pedrazzi)
• Data mining and property of information (Riccio)

Split 2015

• Peer review at PLoS ONE (Adrian Aldcroft)
• Peer review evaluation process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for research (Pina, Hren and Marušić)
• Peer review as a field of research: an empirical analysis of the literature (Torjada, Grimaldo, Marušić and Squazzoni)
• Is three better than one? An agent-based model of referee behavior in peer review (Bianchi and Squazzoni)
• Risk, reward and innovation in peer review (Kyle Siler)
• Social networks as a potential source of bias in peer review (Soós, Vida, Barros, Conejo and Walker)
• What is the evidence that peer review works? (Wager)
• Analysis of “peer review” bibliographic data from WoS (Batajeli and Ferligoj)
• Validation and dissemination: The changing technologies of peer review (Torny)
• Challenging science audit: Learning from peer review (Cowley)
• Generating better evidence to guide the peer review system evolution (Ravaud)
• Transparency of peer review in Croatian OA journals (Stojanovski)
• Peer review at the Springer computer science conferences (Malicki and Birukou)
• IMPACT Observatory of clinical research regarding data sharing – Relevance for peer review research (Krleža-Jerić, Mahmić-Kaknjo, Malički, Marušić, Lukšić, Gabelica and Phillips)
• Network effects on referees in a multidisciplinary journal (Casnici, Dondio and Squazzoni)

Zurich 2015

• Peer review research at The BMJ (Wim E. J. Weber)
• Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis (Casnici, Grimaldo, Gilbert and Squazzoni)
• SciRev.Sc: Making the peer review process transparent (Jeroen Smits)
• Creating a dataset of peer review in computer science conferences published by Springer(Mario Malicki & Aliaksandr Birukou)
• The mantra of peer review (Peter van den Besselaar)
• Science is done by people (Frank Schweitzer)
• Securing trust & transparency in peer review (Adam Etkin)
• Data publishing and post-publication reviews (Tobias Kuhn)
• Peer review as a field of research: An empirical analysis on literature trends (Francisco Grimaldo)
• Elsevier trials publishing peer review reports as articles (Bahar Mehmani)
• Monetary vs. social incentives in peer review (Giangiacomo Bravo)

Lisbon 2015

• Bias in peer review (Carole J. Lee)
• Bringing transparency to peer review (Rebecca Lawrence)
• How duplicate publications are corrected and indexed: qualitative and quantitative study in biomedicine (Mario Malicki and Ana Marušic)
• An explorative study of retracted articles (Judit Bar-Ilan)
• Styles of reviewing in JASSS (Flaminio Squazzoni and Francisco Grimaldo)
• Quantifying peer reviewers through Zipf’s law (Marcel Ausloos, Olgica Nedic, Agatka Fronczak)
• On importance of the size of group of reviewers that have to solve large and complex peer-review problems (Nikolay K. Vitanov, Zlatinka I. Dimitrova, Marcel Ausloos)
• Recognizing and rewarding data sharing through KnowldegeCoinsb (Francisco Couto)
• A dataset structure for data sharing on peer review (Kalpana Shankar)
• Frame Search and Re-search: How Quantitative Sociological Articles Change During Peer Review (Misha Teplitskiy)
• Peer review at PLoS ONE (Matt Hodgkinson)
• Workshop on qualitative studies on peer review
  • Peer review and qualitative (and quantitative) methods (Liv Langfeldt
  • Studying peer review as a mechanism of epistemic accountability (Katri Huutoniemi)
  • Systematic reviews of qualitative studies: possible application in peer review research (Dario Sambunjak)
  • From practice to phenomenon and back again (Stephen Cowley)

Budapest 2014

• Peer review and fairness for all: under what conditions? (Michèle Lamont)
• Opening the black box of peer review (Tom Jefferson)
• Peer review research as a scientific discipline: History of Peer Review Congresses (1989-2013) (Ana Marušic)
• How competition impacts innovation, diversity and fairness of peer review (Stefano Balietti)
• Simulating peer review: a few bad apples are enough (Francisco Grimaldo)
• Mathematical models of three aspects of peer review (Nikolay K. Vitanov and Zlatinka I. Dimitrova)
• Peer review in practice and evolution at Science magazine (Brad Wible)
• Quality of science vs. quality of peer review (Elise Brezis)
• Peer review experiments at Elsevier (Joris Van Rossum)