Abate, T. (1995). What’s The Verdict On Peer Review? Ethics in Research, 1(1). Available: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.1/peer.htm [February 20, 2003].

Andejeski, Y., and others. (2002). Quantitative Impact Of Including Consumers In The Scientific Review Of Breast Cancer Research Proposals. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 11(4), 379-388.

Arkes, H.R. The Non-Use Of Psychological Research At Two Federal Agencies. Center for HOPES Working Paper Series, Ohio State University.

Bacchetti, P. (2002). Peer Review Of Statistics In Medical Research: The Other Problem. British Medical Journal, 324, 1271-1273.

Chubin, D. (1994). Grants Peer Review In Theory And Practice. Evaluation Review, 18(1), 20-30.

Cicchetti, D. (1991). The Reliability Of Peer Review For Manuscript And Grant Submissions: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186. (Included is commentary on the Cicchetti article.)

Cicchetti, D. (2003). Precis For Paper To Be Presented At The Peer Review Workshop: The Peer Review Of Scientific Documents: Suggestions for improvements.

Finn, C.E., Jr. (2002). The Limits Of Peer Review. Education Week, 21(34), 30, 34.

Glantz, S.A., & Bero, L.A. (1994). Inappropriate And Appropriate Selection Of “Peers” In Grant Review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272: 114-116.

Guston, D.H. (2000). The Expanding Role Of Peer Review Processes In The United States. Paper presented at the U.S.-European Workshop on Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation, Evangelische Akademie Baden, Bad Herrenalb, Germany, September 11-14, 2000.

Hackett, E.J., and Chubin, D.E. (2003). Peer Review For The 21st Century: Applications For Educational Research. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Peer Review of Education Research Grant Applications, National Research Council, Washington, DC, February 25-26.

Hinds, Michael deCourcy (2002). Teaching as a Clinical Profession: A New Challenge for Education. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Hodgson, C. (1997). How Reliable Is Peer Review? An Examination Of Operating Grant Proposals Simultaneously Submitted To Two Similar Peer Review Systems. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(11), 1189-1195.

Horrobin, D.F. (2001). Something Rotten At The Core Of Science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22(2), 1-22.

Jayasinghe, W.U., Marsh, H.W., & Bond, N. (1999). Peer review in the assessment and funding of research by the Australian Research Council. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Associations of Research in Education, Melbourne, November 29 ? December 2, 1999.

Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2784-2786.

Judson, J.H. (1994) Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review (JAMA. 1994;272:92-94)

Katz, D. (2002). Who Reviews The Peer Review? Available from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy: http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=4568 [February 20, 2003].

Kostoff, R.N. (1994). Assessing Research Impact: Federal Peer Review Practices. Evaluation Review, 18(1), 31-40.

Langfeldt, L. (2001). The Decision-Making Constraints And Processes Of Grant Peer Review, And Their Effects On The Review Outcome. Social Studies of Science, 31(6), 820-841.

Marsh, H.W., & Bazeley, P. (1999). Multiple Evaluations Of Grant Proposals By Independent Assessors: Confirmatory factor analysis evaluations of reliability, validity, and structure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(1), 1-30.

McCutchen, C.W. (1997). Peer Review: Treacherous Servant, Disastrous Master. Technology Review, 94(7), 28-36, 40.

The Council of the Royal Society, United Kingdom. (1995). Peer Review? An Assessment Of Recent Developments. A Statement of the Council of the Royal Society.

United States General Accounting Office. (1994). Peer Review: Reforms Needed To Ensure Fairness In Federal Agency Grant Selection. Washington, DC: Author. (Selected excerpts) Technical Report GAO/PEMD

United States General Accounting Office. (1999). Peer Review Practices At Federal Science Agencies Vary. Washington, DC: Author.

Wilson, J.R., (2002) Responsible Authorship and Peer Review, Science and Engineering Ethics 8, 155-174

Wilson, S.M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209. (Not available electronically)