Results 21 to 30 of about 12,310,539 (395)
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
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
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
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2020 Background While conducting systemic reviews, searching for ongoing or unpublished trials is critical to address publication bias. As of April 2019, records of ongoing or unpublished randomized and/or quasi-randomized controlled trials registered in the ...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
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
Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals
Science Advances, 2021 No evidence that women are penalized in peer review and editorial processes, finds study on 145 journals in multiple disciplines. Scholarly journals are often blamed for a gender gap in publication rates, but it is unclear whether peer review and ...
F. Squazzoni +8 more
semanticscholar +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
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 +4 more
openaire +3 more sources