Archambault, É., Amyiot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Provencher, F., Rebout, L., & Roberge, G. (2014). Proportion of open access papers published in peer-reviewed journals at the European and world levels–1996–2013. Report produced as part of the European Commission Contract RTD-B6-PP-2011-2—to develop a set of indicators to measure open access. Retrieved June 9, 2020, from files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_ v11p.pdf .

Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454. .

Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483, 531–533. .

Björk, B.-C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Guðnason, G. (2010). Open Access to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS One, 5(6), e11273, 1–9. .

Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. [Science news blog]. science.aav8384 .

Couto, R., Ribeiro, A., & de Campos, J. (2015). The Modelery: a model-based software development repository. International Journal of Web Information Systems, 11(2), 205–225. .

Eyre-Walker, A., & Stoletzki, N. (2013). The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLOS Biology, 11(10), e1001675, 1–8. .

Farnham, A., Kurz, C., Öztürk, M. A., Solbiati, M., Myllyntaus, O., Meekes, J., … Hettne, K. (2017). Early career researchers want Open Science. Genome Biology, 18, 221, 1–4. .

Fox, J., & Petchey, O. L. (2010). Pubcreds: Fixing the peer review process by “privatizing” the reviewer commons. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 91(3), 325–333. .

Huisman, J., & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics, 113(1), 633–650. s11192-017-2310-5 .

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127502, 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 .

MacCallum, C. J. (2006). ONE for All: The next step for PLoS. PLOS Biology, 4(11), e401, 1875–1876. .

Matthews, D. (2019). Nobelist backs internal review for papers, ‘trust’ scores for scientists: The ‘best’ scientists lack time for peer review, and academics should be rated for ‘worthy’ papers, argues Dan Shechtman. Times Higher Education. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from nobelist-backs-internal-review-papers-trust-scores-scientists .

McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, T. C., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., … Yarkoni, T. (2016). Point of view: How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5, e16800, n.p. .

Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., … Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. .

NRC. (2016, December 9). Peer review post-mortem: How a flawed aging study was published in Nature. NRC. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from nieuws/2016/12/09/how-weak-science-slipped-past-through-review-and-landed in-a-top-journal-a1535637 .

Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., … Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6:e4375, 1–23. peerj.4375 .

Powell, K. (2016). Does it take too long to publish research? Nature, 530(7589), 148–151. .

Poynder, R. (2011). PLoS ONE, Open Access, and the future of scholarly publishing. [blog] .

Riddle, K. (2015). Creating policies for library publishing in an institutional repository: Exploring purpose, scope, and the library’s role. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 31(2), 59–68. OCLC-02-2014-0007 .

Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000 Research, 6(588), 1–38. f1000research.11369.2 .

Ross-Hellauer, T., Fecher, B., Shearer, K., & Rodrigues, E. (Version 2, November 27, 2019) Pubfair. A distributed framework for open publishing services. Retrieved April 9, 2020, from .

Serio, T. (2016, November 15). Peer review is in crisis, but should be fixed, not abolished. The Conversation [newsletter]. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from https://theconversation. com/peer-review-is-in-crisis-but-should-be-fixed-not-abolished-67972 .

Stone, G., White, S. Robinson, D., Pitchford, I., & Edmunds, C. (2012). Huddersfield Open Access Publishing final report. Project Report. University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield. (Unpublished). Retrieved June 9, 2020, from id/eprint/13278/ .

Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., … Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 6, 1151, 1–65. .

Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3, 160018. .

Working Group on Rewards Under Open Science. (2017). Evaluation of research careers fully acknowledging Open Science practices. Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science. Brussels: European Union. https://doi. org/10.2777/75255 .

Wouters, P., Ràfols, I., Oancea, A., Kamerlin, S. C. L., Holbrook, J. B., & Jacob, M. (2019). Indicator frameworks for fostering open knowledge practices in science and scholarship. In: von Schomberg, R. (Ed.). Brussels: European Union. https://doi. org/10.2777/445286 .