Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - Wikidata - wikimedia - TriplyDB

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q21686079

about

Expert failure: re-evaluating research assessment Emerging trends in peer review-a survey Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system Classical peer review: an empty gun Frequency of discrepancies in retracted clinical trial reports versus unretracted reports: blinded case-control study Lapses at the new England journal of medicine Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions.FAIRness in scientific publishing Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH What is open peer review? A systematic review Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis Free Open Access Medical education (FOAM) for the emergency physician.Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.The statistical crisis in science: how is it relevant to clinical neuropsychology?Fairness in scientific publishing.A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review Holiday review. Snappy answers to stupid questions: an evidence-based framework for responding to peer-review feedback.The value of pragmatic and observational studies in health care and public health.Taking financial relationships into account when assessing research.The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?Peer review processes and related issues in scholarly journals Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials UK Doubles Its "World-Leading" Research in Life Sciences and Medicine in Six Years: Testing the Claim?How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study 'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woes Life Science's Average Publishable Unit (APU) Has Increased over the Past Two Decades.Barriers to the Entry of Biofield Healing Into "Mainstream" Healthcare.

P2860

Q21563534-4BC4523F-60AB-4A1D-BE67-D95D8CF89208 Q24273351-EA297E7B-D4DC-4708-BB01-F06AEB24F2DA Q24273359-22C96BD5-0C6B-46F8-8664-7F877AD21DBC Q24288722-D1A16B2A-F0EF-43CB-9124-0354B385583F Q24288880-DB1F32A0-1B04-475C-A71B-2C0E1FF2C929 Q24288896-28BDB3B9-A158-4C0C-82BE-5D1EA8D2F0ED Q24289040-2ACF7DE0-9625-4DD8-A0EA-EE0464F5C4B0 Q24682162-3EF9C639-7BDA-4278-8B56-E05F30F4685F Q26783905-CE726085-6C6E-432A-BEC4-1D0231564B84 Q26822676-4F61D6E0-5554-4E5E-8539-32DA62A65004 Q27975943-617B9E88-D331-4852-B879-1D30298B9C31 Q28657604-6A36316A-1D9D-42A0-8711-ED6B78BAF49B Q28717188-72568D79-5752-489C-B8BC-66EE06C167D1 Q28727376-2DFD4C5F-5C81-4D66-A179-2D3D024EE7F3 Q28730286-9645F3EF-1614-4F99-8E42-5927BE4B303A Q28730475-4A9A2ACA-8B60-44C7-8C35-91F03DA0100C Q28741517-6D2B6FEF-53B0-4F56-89C4-D16D713F1C3A Q28748308-3A625678-8BB7-4469-BE34-CE9DF0E64DA6 Q29649956-3D28811F-4FFA-40E3-AE86-ABD9041B0925 Q30249679-23CE7A70-4A98-4FA0-80A9-D5AE83F5272D Q30486681-F3F062BA-52A3-402C-A6DB-67BC1974AB9B Q30487757-5B91E909-EACF-4AB2-8EF1-8973F233E96B Q30488576-C0AE0101-8F73-4750-B5E4-02D08F47FAE1 Q30490659-26689A09-0C8B-4D24-A87B-CF871F9B4F7A Q30490840-A09C314A-5DA6-476F-A80E-3225336993BB Q33269085-B86083BE-B17B-4A74-9B4C-92E7A5C0A168 Q33517502-7F57CE61-CB9D-4381-B977-CB85EF1B22F3 Q33707777-1CCDE1A7-BA40-4853-AF93-3AC723EE6AEB Q34036715-88858042-BE3F-4D3A-9CDD-7FC946B97B52 Q34471308-F297C41D-F92A-4CC0-85F9-BD85BFCB7471 Q34808714-B0EE0C52-36C9-4D4C-BF8D-ACA33A9C3C86 Q35174305-725DD72E-CDB6-4890-A3AC-B650AFC0D0C6 Q35303719-D75C6469-6975-4725-A260-1C80500B0EAA Q35708180-BBEBE513-1728-4DD0-A01E-A021A34DCD5C Q35744012-441D33D0-6C4F-439F-B8D0-BA744D540604 Q35794330-75A2018D-AD80-4372-A8B4-0A4ABE5ED365 Q35914659-C976D3D5-8F5F-4E66-8AB6-329C1D7DEB5B Q35999726-8384DAC1-EDCD-443A-9CEA-00158CED153E Q36054494-1C988D48-906D-4D76-81EB-13047CD4C42D Q36303950-BC5E14E9-2B6E-475B-8C7D-F273F26966D2

P2860

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q21686079

description

2006 nî lūn-bûn

@nan

2006 թուականի Ապրիլին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած

@hyw

2006 թվականի ապրիլին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված

@hy

2006年の論文

@ja

2006年論文

@yue

2006年論文

@zh-hant

2006年論文

@zh-hk

2006年論文

@zh-mo

2006年論文

@zh-tw

2006年论文

@wuu

name

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@ast

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@en

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@en-gb

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@nl

type

label

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@ast

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@en

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@en-gb

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@nl

prefLabel

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@ast

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@en

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@en-gb

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@nl

P1433

Q21686079-7E2FF339-BBD1-49C3-B3F7-4DC8329C6E7E

P1476

Q21686079-93FD0A5A-D523-4BEC-A04E-841FCE18A104

P2093

Q21686079-FB702A99-FAF4-4816-8895-4F1C828B176C

P2860

Q21686079-1F248ED7-CD43-4984-8D99-A33FA397C7B3

Q21686079-77D79566-F482-4D91-A1BB-41C660305659

Q21686079-905E3349-108E-434C-ACAE-3803B72247ED

Q21686079-A749B50F-C22F-4396-9DE4-9B110C96628B

Q21686079-C31D52E5-ED4C-4066-9D2C-EDA21BCF7C35

Q21686079-D375FE23-F795-4353-8249-0D61D8139EED

Q21686079-E92898AB-8C4D-4FC6-88EE-A67605145BC9

Q21686079-F2596473-2717-4206-8F18-D2E91D45CFB3

Q21686079-FBF3D2B8-06C0-403C-B1DC-07A2BD9AE15F

P304

Q21686079-5A74B5FD-B535-4BBA-A4E6-F414DAC3A268

P31

Q21686079-6A77AA9C-A83F-4CA9-9130-E27DEAB114B7

P3181

Q21686079-505FFF7E-371C-4E75-8AF2-095E3283D73A

P356

Q21686079-DCC2BB4D-AEB8-4165-8446-F1454695D043

P407

Q21686079-41DD2CFE-3D06-4D45-A548-50FB14547D47

P433

Q21686079-7CC99D27-17C0-449C-8999-867FC82DA2E5

P478

Q21686079-00C02742-E457-4ED5-8736-F112086AFCB0

P577

Q21686079-E82E455D-2E0E-4438-9C0F-393D45E53500

P5875

Q21686079-4FA8A961-CAFF-462C-A6FE-FB3077575263

P698

Q21686079-6120862E-087D-40FE-A32F-BB744F17441C

P921

Q21686079-E23F34E9-6203-4DC5-AC01-4B6EFD75C961

Q21686079-ba887368-43bf-67c2-3ee1-1970e6deb3b7

Q21686079-d500f9f5-457a-8e60-d7cb-2dfeac85bca0

P932

Q21686079-2DBFA123-017D-449E-825F-C2C9E89F7272

P3181

P356

P1433

Medico-Chirurgical Transactions

P1476

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

@en

P2093

Richard Smith

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P2860

Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial

Nepotism and sexism in peer-review

Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.

The critical attitude in medicine: the need for a new ethics

Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.

The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.

Pardonable revisions and protocol reviews.

Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.

P304

178-82

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P31

scholarly article

P3181

727629

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P356

10.1258/JRSM.99.4.178

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P407

P433

4

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P478

99

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P577

2006-04-01T00:00:00Z

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime

P5875

7204561

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P698

16574968

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P921

scientific culture

scientific journal

P932

1420798

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string