Results 11 to 20 of about 11,761,789 (305)
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
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2020 Background While conducting systemic reviews, searching for ongoing or unpublished trials is critical to address publication bias. As of April 2019, records of ongoing or unpublished randomized and/or quasi-randomized controlled trials registered in the ...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
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 +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 +15 more
semanticscholar +1 more source
Review the ‘peer review’ [PDF]
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 2017 Peer review has been the main form of appraisal of scientific knowledge for over a century. In essence, this process involves the evaluation of a scientific finding by independent experts prior to its dissemination to the scientific community, in an attempt to ensure that both the research and conclusions meet the necessary standards regarding quality,
Blockeel, Christophe +4 more
openaire +3 more sources
Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
PLoS ONE, 2022 Peer Review is at the heart of scholarly communications and the cornerstone of scientific publishing. However, academia often criticizes the peer review system as non-transparent, biased, arbitrary, a flawed process at the heart of science, leading to ...
Tirthankar Ghosal +3 more
semanticscholar +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 ...
Rühli, F. +3 more
openaire +3 more sources
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2021 The scientific literature peer review workflow is under strain because of the constant growth of submission volume. One response to this is to make initial screening of submissions less time intensive.
Alessandro Checco +4 more
semanticscholar +1 more source
A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review
Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2021 The amount and value of researchers’ peer review work is critical for academia and journal publishing. However, this labor is under-recognized, its magnitude is unknown, and alternative ways of organizing peer review labor are rarely considered.
B. Aczél +2 more
semanticscholar +1 more source