Results 1 to 10 of about 5,029,995 (344)

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, Christopher D. Chambers, Peter J. Etchells, Christine R. Harris, Rink Hoekstra, Daniël Lakens, Stephan Lewandowsky, Candice Coker Morey, Daniel P. Newman, Felix D. Schönbrodt, Wolf Vanpaemel, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Rolf A. Zwaan   +12 more
doaj   +15 more sources

Scientist trust in medical research: a survey of authors from 28 countries [PDF]

Frontiers in Medicine
ImportancePeer-review is the lynchpin to research integrity, quality and trust in published health research findings.ObjectiveTo evaluate the level of trust in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical research among scientists who publish medical ...
Arch G. Mainous, Arch G. Mainous, J. A. Kellie, Rachel E. Liu-Galvin, Barbara Durden, Valery M. Beau de Rochars   +5 more
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

Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review

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, Ksenia Crane, K. Meadmore, Kathryn Fackrell, Hazel Church, Simon Fraser, A. Blatch-Jones   +6 more
semanticscholar   +1 more source

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

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

Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022
Significance Peer review is vital for research validation, but may be affected by “status bias,” the unequal treatment of papers written by prominent and less-well-known authors.
Juergen Huber, Sabiou M. Inoua, Rudolf Kerschbamer, Christian König-Kersting, Stefan Palan, Vernon L Smith   +5 more
semanticscholar   +1 more source

Is the future of peer review automated?

BMC Research Notes, 2022
The rising rate of preprints and publications, combined with persistent inadequate reporting practices and problems with study design and execution, have strained the traditional peer review system.
Robert Schulz, A. Barnett, René Bernard, Nicholas J L Brown, Jennifer A. Byrne, P. Eckmann, M. A. Gazda, H. Kilicoglu, Eric M. Prager, M. Salholz-Hillel, G. ter Riet, Timothy H. Vines, Colby J. Vorland, Han Zhuang, A. Bandrowski, T. Weissgerber   +15 more
semanticscholar   +1 more source