Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals
about
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statementA guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trialsQuality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials--update and extension.The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline developmentA Critical Look at Biomedical Journals' Policies on Animal Research by Use of a Novel Tool: The EXEMPLAR ScaleEvidence-informed person-centered healthcare part I: do 'cognitive biases plus' at organizational levels influence quality of evidence?Do emergency medicine journals promote trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines? A survey of "Instructions for Authors"The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research.Do Croatian open access journals support ethical research? Content analysis of instructions to authors.Reporting of interventions in randomised trials: an audit of journal instructions to authorsReporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension.Methodological Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Studies: Targets to Enhance Reproducibility and Promote Research TranslationRelation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic reviewDoes journal endorsement of reporting guidelines influence the completeness of reporting of health research? A systematic review protocol.Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane reviewBetter reporting of scientific studies: why it mattersWhat is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis.The National Institutes of Health and guidance for reporting preclinical researchWhy training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trialsThe most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial.Four Proposals to Help Improve the Medical Research Literature.Associated Factors and Consequences of Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Yoga: A Systematic Review.How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees.Evaluating the impact and use of Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guidelines.A survey of the awareness, knowledge, policies and views of veterinary journal Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines for publication of research.Preanalytical investigations of phlebotomy: methodological aspects, pitfalls and recommendations.Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010.Review article: reporting guidelines in the biomedical literature.The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development.The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case report guideline development.The CARE Guidelines: Consensus-based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development.Reporting standards in cardiac MRI, CT, and SPECT diagnostic accuracy studies: analysis of the impact of STARD criteria.Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.Peer-review policy and guidelines for Biochemia Medica Journal.Evidence-informed person-centred health care (part II): are 'cognitive biases plus' underlying the EBM paradigm responsible for undermining the quality of evidence?Epidemiology, methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of nursing interventions published in China.Reporting guidelines and journal quality in otolaryngology.Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals.Research Reporting Guidelines in Dentistry: A Survey of Editors.
P2860
Q21195843-1CAEF8E8-668B-4C0C-95BE-2DBF7E1313CDQ26777625-E717CAB4-6046-4A37-B67B-787B22D23CB5Q27025940-D6114FBE-E799-4733-99C8-C2CA8D343B15Q28302523-CF944559-D9C3-4903-954B-D4FEC0B10882Q28647390-134B3774-1D5F-47BF-B92B-0DE6F3637CD6Q30368983-61728D72-2C00-4617-BB84-6C847FAC88B3Q30395573-DD45E371-9359-46E6-820B-49DE6E8ADEECQ30487147-25D9EA76-5938-4F0B-9745-A620B7C2CAADQ30487624-5B416111-368F-4C02-86EE-E33D58E4CF73Q30566026-7F4AA142-2BD5-427F-8810-EC385754B938Q30670694-9719DF22-C8EE-4A43-B355-69E25CC88E6AQ33782901-E77A600A-CFCD-4636-BDD9-14B826B927F5Q33804561-EDD3AE48-F753-4B2D-978E-15F0BDAFCA4AQ34280706-36B58197-FCA8-4DEA-8B6E-E7DEABFCA9EDQ34495688-C515B118-1607-485F-833E-A8620EE2DECAQ34981019-C3A17565-CC8D-40D9-A51B-1720B7BE7D28Q35088338-68250386-D62E-4B45-B6FB-3EC33A8BFB53Q35094810-37C43C37-BF40-4614-B8A8-4209498CE90CQ35303719-7C9101BA-99D3-415B-85F3-10C5AA48463EQ35682383-06F1783F-4A5B-4516-9241-B7C1A36E7BC5Q35775281-FE71B3EB-01F5-4616-8AE1-705E99C67259Q35783334-CBBCA2DE-CA07-40C4-AE5C-D25224D10A77Q35858660-0F23343C-B9D0-4B07-A3BB-5717A1C85572Q35923295-6700954F-1596-46EA-9319-131C49EDEB67Q36496634-4515DF6B-CA7F-4DAB-A754-D1C9551543D4Q37581022-9B8AAAD2-9589-437D-BE1E-132F4BB40FD0Q37739745-C7849995-E73B-4FB5-8BF0-FCC052A07868Q38112559-0A8B4288-7D7C-4658-9CD1-3BE1F2517D75Q38113989-920B6216-B996-4C68-A941-E0EDA8FA3061Q38147088-1044127A-3B1B-4354-8B97-7B8296474DF5Q38162999-60415218-3806-4A49-9F55-F0382B16EF64Q38177824-FD2D583C-B733-4014-89A2-16E68E7B9F31Q38181463-1CB667D4-BFAB-4040-82E4-259193FBFC64Q38237401-3CF080CD-7CF8-4ECB-ABA5-0725A452D3F0Q38263373-C4585ABE-91CD-420F-9808-6A9310C52093Q38286157-048D9ED4-6B84-4692-9B34-C7898250DBB1Q38297410-3724F576-4B51-4222-BF34-F0D67164F930Q38594171-E5018219-F0F9-4B13-BCAB-16A1AC862113Q38844739-BC2F5DFB-A95C-497F-9841-7D056B0FD6FCQ38903544-C5E443DA-12F5-436D-9A1B-AF7038151150
P2860
Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals
description
2012 թուականին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2012 թվականին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
article publié dans la revue scientifique PLoS ONE
@fr
artículu científicu espublizáu en 2012
@ast
im Januar 2012 veröffentlichter wissenschaftlicher Artikel
@de
scientific article (publication date: 2012)
@en
vedecký článok (publikovaný 2012)
@sk
vědecký článek publikovaný v roce 2012
@cs
wetenschappelijk artikel (gepubliceerd in 2012)
@nl
наукова стаття, опублікована у 2012
@uk
name
Are peer reviewers encouraged ...... f 116 health research journals
@ast
Are peer reviewers encouraged ...... f 116 health research journals
@en
Are peer reviewers encouraged ...... f 116 health research journals
@nl
type
label
Are peer reviewers encouraged ...... f 116 health research journals
@ast
Are peer reviewers encouraged ...... f 116 health research journals
@en
Are peer reviewers encouraged ...... f 116 health research journals
@nl
prefLabel
Are peer reviewers encouraged ...... f 116 health research journals
@ast
Are peer reviewers encouraged ...... f 116 health research journals
@en
Are peer reviewers encouraged ...... f 116 health research journals
@nl
P2860
P3181
P1433
P1476
Are peer reviewers encouraged ...... f 116 health research journals
@en
P2860
P304
P3181
P356
10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0035621
P407
P577
2012-01-01T00:00:00Z