1. Sense About Science. Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas. London, UK: Sense about Science (working party on equipping the public with an understanding of peer review); 2004.
2. Stossel TP. Refinement in biomedical communication - a case study. Science Technology & Human Values. 1985;10:39–43.
3. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Selecting manuscripts for a high impact journal through peer review: a citation analysis of Communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2008;59:1841–1852.
4. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. The effectiveness of the peer review process: inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 2008;47:7173–7178. [PubMed]
5. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: a case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics. 2009;3:348–352.
6. van Raan AFJ. Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In: Moed HF, Glänzel W, Schmoch U, editors. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004. pp. 19–50.
7. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Convergent validation of peer review decisions using the h index: extent of and reasons for type I and type II errors. Journal of Informetrics. 2007;1:204–213.
8. Bornmann L, Wallon G, Ledin A. Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European Molecular Biology Organization programmes. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3480. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L, van den Besselaar P. A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications. Journal of Informetrics in press
10. Straub DW. Type II reviewing errors and the search for exciting papers. MIS Quarterly. 2008;32:V–X.
11. Straub DW. Thirty years of service to the IS profession: time for renewal at MISQ? MIS Quarterly. 2008;32:iii–viii.
12. Thorngate W, Dawes RM, Foddy M. Judging merit. New York, NY, USA: Psychology Press; 2009. p. xi, 185.
13. Taylor HG, Russell JT. The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection: discussion and tables. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1939;23:565–578.
14. Cascio WF. Costing human resources: the financial impact of behavior in organizations. Boston, MA, USA: PWS-Kent; 1991. p. XIV, 322 S.
15. Cabrera EF, Raju NS. Utility analysis: current trends and future directions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 2001;9:92–102.
16. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews. Learned Publishing. 2009;22:117–125.
17. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. The manuscript reviewing process - empirical research on review requests, review sequences and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research. 2010;32:5–12.
18. Schultz DM. Are three heads better than two? in press. How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics.
19. Egghe L. Study of some editor-in-chief decision schemes. in press. Research Evaluation.
20. Craig ID, Plume AM, McVeigh ME, Pringle J, Amin M. Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics. 2007;1:239–248.
21. Smith LC. Citation analysis. Library Trends. 1981;30:83–106.
22. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation. 2008;64:45–80.
23. Martin BR, Irvine J. Assessing basic research - some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy. 1983;12:61–90.
24. van Raan AFJ. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics. 1996;36:397–420.
25. Lindsey D. Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science. Measuring what's measurable rather than what's valid. Scientometrics. 1989;15:189–203.
26. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287:2786–2790. [PubMed]
27. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Neuhaus C, Daniel H-D. Use of citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 2008;8:93–102.
28. Vinkler P. Relations of relative scientometric impact indicators. The relative publication strategy index. Scientometrics. 1997;40:163–169.
29. Vinkler P. Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics. 1986;10:157–177.
30. van Leeuwen TN. Modelling of bibliometric approaches and importance of output verification in research performance assessment. Research Evaluation. 2007;16:93–105.
31. Neuhaus C, Daniel H-D. A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts. Scientometrics. 2009;78:219–229.
32. Daniel H-D. Guardians of science. Fairness and reliability of peer review. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH; 1993.
33. Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105:17268–17272. [PubMed]
34. Stewart JA. The poisson-lognormal model for bibliometric/scientometric distributions. Information Processing & Management. 1994;30:239–251.
35. Pöschl U. Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance. Learned Publishing. 2004;17:105–113.
36. Straub DW. Why top journals accept your paper. MIS Quarterly. 2009;33:iii–x.
37. Baskerville RL, Myers MD. Fashion waves in information systems research and practice. MIS Quarterly. 2009;33:647–662.