Results 1 to 10 of about 3,137,448 (307)
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review [PDF]
Royal Society Open Science, 2016 Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability ...
Richard D. Morey +12 more
doaj +15 more sources
Critical feedback on peer review research
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2011 AbstractThe use of peer review in second language writing has been a quite popular topic in the writing research for the past two decades. However, the question posed here is: Does peer review impact the quality of student writing? The purpose of this paper is to review peer review research published in Journal of Second Language Writing between 1992 ...
Yin Ling Cheunga
semanticscholar +3 more sources
Two Decades of Research in L2 Peer Review
Journal of Writing Research, 2016 One hundred and three (N=103) peer review studies contextualized in L2 composition classrooms and published between 1990 and 2015 were reviewed.
Carrie Yea-huey Chang
doaj +2 more sources
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
Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2023 Background The emergence of systems based on large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT has created a range of discussions in scholarly circles.
Mohammad Hosseini, S. Horbach
semanticscholar +1 more source
What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis
Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2022 Introduction Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies.
A. Recio-Saucedo +6 more
semanticscholar +1 more source
Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers
Rheumatology, 2021 The peer review process is essential for quality checks and validation of journal submissions. Although it has some limitations, including manipulations and biased and unfair evaluations, there is no other alternative to the system. Several peer review models are now practised, with public review being the most appropriate in view of the open science ...
Armen Yuri Gasparyan, Olena Zimba
openaire +4 more sources
Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review
Learned Publishing, 2023 Technology is being developed to support the peer review processes of journals, conferences, funders, universities, and national research evaluations. This literature and software summary discusses the partial or complete automation of several publishing‐
K. Kousha, M. Thelwall
semanticscholar +1 more source
Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences at a Glance: The Past and Present [PDF]
Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences, 2023 After more than 50 years of its birth, the Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences (IJMS), formerly known as Pahlavi Medical Journal, is now regarded as a reputable, regularly published medical journal in the region.
Mohammad Reza Panjehshahin
doaj +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