Russian vaccine’s hot streak is sputtering. (2021, May 12). POLITICO. https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-sputnik-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-hot-steak/

Marques, M. D., Kerr, J., Williams, M., Ling, M., & McLennan, J. (2021). Associations Between Conspiracism and the Rejection of Scientific Innovations. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/y9mnb

Wilson, R. (2017). Reich, J.A.Calling the Shots: Why Parents Reject Vaccines. New York: New York University Press. 2016. 328pp £20.99 (hbk) ISBN 9781479812790. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39(5), 804–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12541

Özceylan, G., Toprak, D., & Esen, E. S. (2020). Vaccine rejection and hesitation in Turkey. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 16(5), 1034–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2020.1717182

Weird: The Power of Being an Outsider in an Insider World | IndieBound.org. (n.d.). Retrieved August 26, 2020, from https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780316418485

Pierre, J. (2020). Mistrust and Misinformation: A Two-Component, Socio-Epistemic Model of Belief in Conspiracy Theories [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xhw52

🔥Kareem Carr🔥 on Twitter: “In the midst of all this, I’ve learned something very big about the role of expertise in today’s world. It’s only welcome if it’s subordinate to the values and interests of the person to whom the advice is offered. Otherwise, it will be strongly rejected.” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://twitter.com/kareem_carr/status/1265822204434026498

43 Garvey Linn and Tomita 1972 discovered that almost 1/3 of authors who had a paper rejected had "abandoned the subject matter area of their articles" within a year (p. 214).

Garvey, William D., Nan Lin, and Kazuo Tomita. 1972. “Research Studies in Patterns of Scientific Communication: III. Information-Exchange Processes Associated with the Production of Journal Articles.” Information Storage and Retrieval 8 (5): 207–21. doi:10.1016/0020-0271(72)90031-9.

On the cost rejected papers add to the peer review system (p. 119): "The cost to the academic community of refereeing was estimated by Tenopir and King in 1997 to be $480/article (based on an average time 3–6 hours per article by each of 2–3 referees). At 2004 levels this is approximately $540 per submitted article. Clearly,the percentage ofpapers which are rejected makes a difference to the over- all cost to the journal; in a reasonable quality journal at least 50% of papers will be rejected, while some top journals (e.g. Nature) may reject as many as 90%. Most articles get published somewhere, and as they work their way through the system, being refereed for different journals, they accumulate additional cost; indeed, it couldbe said that a poor (or, at least, inappropriately submitted) article costs the system much more overall than does a good one."