Results 1 to 10 of about 994,354 (266)
Transparency versus anonymity: which is better to eliminate bias in peer review?
Insights: The UKSG Journal, 2022 Peer review is a critical component of the scientific process. When conducted properly by dedicated and competent reviewers, it helps to safeguard the quality, validity, authority and rigour of academic work.
Faye Holst, Kim Eggleton, Simon Harris
doaj +1 more source
BMC Primary Care, 2023 Background Although previous studies have reported general inexperience with the Epley manoeuvre (EM) among general physicians, no report has evaluated the effect of EM on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary care by using point ...
Yusuke Saishoji +4 more
doaj +1 more source
Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion
Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2020 Background Funding agencies have long used panel discussion in the peer review of research grant proposals as a way to utilize a set of expertise and perspectives in making funding decisions.
Stephen A. Gallo +3 more
doaj +1 more source
Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2023 Background Differential participation and success in grant applications may contribute to women’s lesser representation in the sciences. This study’s objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the question of gender ...
Karen B. Schmaling, Stephen A. Gallo
doaj +1 more source
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2020 Background While conducting systemic reviews, searching for ongoing or unpublished trials is critical to address publication bias. As of April 2019, records of ongoing or unpublished randomized and/or quasi-randomized controlled trials registered in the ...
Masahiro Banno +2 more
doaj +1 more source
Developers Perception of Peer Code Review in Research Software Development [PDF]
Empirical Software Engineering, 27(1), 2022, 2021 Background: Research software is software developed by and/or used by researchers, across a wide variety of domains, to perform their research. Because of the complexity of research software, developers cannot conduct exhaustive testing. As a result, researchers have lower confidence in the correctness of the output of the software. Peer code review, a
arxiv +1 more source
Leveraging Peer Feedback to Improve Visualization Education [PDF]
2020 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis), 2020 Peer review is a widely utilized pedagogical feedback mechanism for engaging students, which has been shown to improve educational outcomes. However, we find limited discussion and empirical measurement of peer review in visualization coursework. In addition to engagement, peer review provides direct and diverse feedback and reinforces recently-learned
arxiv +1 more source
BMC Medical Education, 2021 Background Research engagement contributes to the improvement of patient care. A systematic review is a suitable first scholarly activity because it entails summarization of publicly available data and usually requires neither rigorous ethical review nor
Hiraku Tsujimoto +19 more
doaj +1 more source
Does double-blind peer-review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference [PDF]
, 2021 Peer review is widely regarded as essential for advancing scientific research. However, reviewers may be biased by authors' prestige or other characteristics. Double-blind peer review, in which the authors' identities are masked from the reviewers, has been proposed as a way to reduce reviewer bias. Although intuitive, evidence for the effectiveness of
arxiv +1 more source
Quality indicators for acute cardiovascular diseases: a scoping review
BMC Health Services Research, 2022 Background Although many quality indicator (QI) sets have been developed for acute cardiovascular diseases, a comprehensive summary is lacking. In this scoping review we aimed to summarize the available evidence on the QI sets for acute cardiovascular ...
Koshiro Kanaoka +6 more
doaj +1 more source