Results 1 to 10 of about 3,030,229 (330)

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

Peer review [PDF]

Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives, 2012
Peer review seems to have had its origins in 18th century England to combat plagiarism. But today, the objectives of peer review are to provide evaluations of the quality of scientific or editorial material submitted. Peer review provides a check on the validity of manuscripts and sets standards for scientific merit.
Robert P. Ferguson, Stephanie M. Griffin
openaire   +4 more sources

Epley manoeuvre’s efficacy for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary-care and subspecialty settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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, Norio Yamamoto, Takashi Fujiwara, Hideki Mori, Shunsuke Taito   +4 more
doaj   +1 more source

Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

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, Karen B. Schmaling, Lisa A. Thompson, Scott R. Glisson   +3 more
doaj   +1 more source

Using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trial registration is insufficient: a cross-sectional study

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, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yuki Kataoka   +2 more
doaj   +1 more source

Peer‐review for the peer‐review system [PDF]

human_ontogenetics, 2009
AbstractThe process of peer‐review of papers submitted for publication and of grant proposals is widely accepted in modern science as a crucial guarantee of high‐quality work. Foremost in restricted research areas, anonymous reviewers and editors may use their power to slow down or even reject competitive yet worthwhile work that does not fit or is ...
Frank J Rühli, Frank J Rühli, Maciej Henneberg, Michael Finnegan, Israel Hershkovitz   +4 more
openaire   +3 more sources

A model six-month workshop for developing systematic review protocols at teaching hospitals: action research and scholarly productivity

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, Yuki Kataoka, Yukihito Sato, Masahiro Banno, Emi Tsujino-Tsujimoto, Yukiyoshi Sumi, Ryuichi Sada, Takashi Fujiwara, Yoichi Ohtake, Junji Kumasawa, Haruki Imura, Yoshinobu Matsuda, Ryuhei So, Tomoko Kagawa, Takashi Yoshioka, Yu Uneno, Hiroyuki Nagano, Mai Akazawa, Takunori Hozumi, Yasushi Tsujimoto   +19 more
doaj   +1 more source

The “Peer” in “Peer Review”*

Herpetologica, 2011
Acta Herpetologica, Vol 7 No 1 (2012)
Perry, Gad, Bertoluci, Jaime, Bury, Bruce, Hansen, Robert W., Jehle, Robert, John Measey, Moon, Brad R., Muths, Erin, Zuffi, Marco A. L.   +8 more
openaire   +8 more sources

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, Yoshitaka Iwanaga, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Akihiro Shiroshita, Takaaki Suzuki, Michikazu Nakai, Yoshihiro Miyamoto   +6 more
doaj   +1 more source