Research integrity and peer review

Keyphrases

Publications

volume 8, number 1, 2023

Allana G LeBlanc, Joel D Barnes, Travis J Saunders, Mark S Tremblay, Jean-Philippe Chaput
Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Allana G LeBlanc, Joel D Barnes, Travis J Saunders, Mark S Tremblay, Jean-Philippe Chaput
Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Mohammad Hosseini, S P J M Serge Horbach
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 8 (1) (2023)
Anna Nuechterlein, Tanya Barretto, Alaa Yehia, Judy Illes
Bridges of perspectives: representation of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury in editorial boards and peer review. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Mohammad Hosseini, Serge P J M Horbach
Publisher Correction: 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 8 (1) (2023)
Allana G LeBlanc, Joel D Barnes, Travis J Saunders, Mark S Tremblay, Jean-Philippe Chaput
Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Thomas V Perneger
Authorship and citation patterns of highly cited biomedical researchers: a cross-sectional study. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Sherif Ahmed Kamel, Tamer A El-Sobky
Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Gregory M Eckhartt, Graeme D Ruxton
Investigating and preventing scientific misconduct using Benford's Law. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Karen B Schmaling, Stephen A Gallo
Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Karen B Schmaling, Stephen A Gallo
Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Yi Kai Ong, Kay L Double, Lisa Bero, Joanna Diong
Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Karen B Schmaling, Stephen A Gallo
Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Allana G LeBlanc, Joel D Barnes, Travis J Saunders, Mark S Tremblay, Jean-Philippe Chaput
Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Thomas V Perneger
Authorship and citation patterns of highly cited biomedical researchers: a cross-sectional study. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Fabrice Frank, Nans Florens, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Jérôme Barrière, Eric Billy, Véronique Saada, Alexander Samuel, Jacques Robert, Lonni Besançon
Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals - a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Piitu Parmanne, Joonas Laajava, Noora Järvinen, Terttu Harju, Mauri Marttunen, Pertti Saloheimo
Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Stephen A Gallo, Michael Pearce, Carole J Lee, Elena A Erosheva
A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Aurélien Allard, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond, Mads Paludan Goddiksen, Mikkel Willum Johansen, Hillar Loor, Céline Schöpfer, Orsolya Varga, Christine Clavien
The quizzical failure of a nudge on academic integrity education: a randomized controlled trial. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Allana G LeBlanc, Joel D Barnes, Travis J Saunders, Mark S Tremblay, Jean-Philippe Chaput
Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Ben W Mol, Shimona Lai, Ayesha Rahim, Esmée M Bordewijk, Rui Wang, Rik van Eekelen, Lyle C Gurrin, Jim G Thornton, Madelon van Wely, Wentao Li
Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Edwin Were, Jepchirchir Kiplagat, Eunice Kaguiri, Rose Ayikukwei, Violet Naanyu
Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct: perspectives from Kenyan research regulators. Research integrity and peer review 8 (1) (2023)
Mohammad Hosseini, S P J M Serge Horbach
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 8 (1) (2023)

volume 7, number 1, 2022

Jodi Schneider, Nathan D Woods, Randi Proescholdt, null null
Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report. Research integrity and peer review 7 (1) (2022)
Danielle B Rice, Ba' Pham, Justin Presseau, Andrea C Tricco, David Moher
Correction: Characteristics of 'mega' peer-reviewers. Research integrity and peer review 7 (1) (2022)
William T Gattrell, Amrit Pali Hungin, Amy I Price, Christopher C Winchester, David Tovey, Ellen L Hughes, Esther J van Zuuren, Keith Goldman, Patrícia Logullo, Robert Matheis, Niall Harrison
ACCORD guideline for reporting consensus-based methods in biomedical research and clinical practice: a study protocol. Research integrity and peer review 7 (1) (2022)
Danielle B Rice, Ba' Pham, Justin Presseau, Andrea C Tricco, David Moher
Characteristics of 'mega' peer-reviewers. Research integrity and peer review 7 (1) (2022)
Alejandra Recio-Saucedo, Ksenia Crane, Katie Meadmore, Kathryn Fackrell, Hazel Church, Simon Fraser, Amanda Blatch-Jones
What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis. Research integrity and peer review 7 (1) (2022)
Omar Dewidar, Nour Elmestekawy, Vivian Welch
Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia. Research integrity and peer review 7 (1) (2022)

volume 6, number 1, 2021

Klaas Sijtsma, Wilco H M Emons, Nicholas H Steneck, Lex M Bouter
Steps toward preregistration of research on research integrity. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Travis G Gerwing, Alyssa M Allen Gerwing, Chi-Yeung Choi, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Jeff C Clements, Joshua A Rash
Re-evaluation of solutions to the problem of unprofessionalism in peer review. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Joanna Diong, Cynthia M Kroeger, Katherine J Reynolds, Adrian Barnett, Lisa A Bero
Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Kim Boesen, Anders Lykkemark Simonsen, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche
Correction to: Cross-sectional study of medical advertisements in a national general medical journal: evidence, cost, and safe use of advertised versus comparative drugs. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Nick Kinney, Araba Wubah, Miguel Roig, Harold R Garner
Estimating the prevalence of text overlap in biomedical conference abstracts. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Elizabeth Wager, Sabine Kleinert, null null
Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Kim Boesen, Anders Lykkemark Simonsen, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche
Cross-sectional study of medical advertisements in a national general medical journal: evidence, cost, and safe use of advertised versus comparative drugs. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Balazs Aczel, Barnabas Szaszi, Alex O Holcombe
A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers' time spent on peer review. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Evan Mayo-Wilson, Meredith L Phillips, Avonne E Connor, Kelly J Vander Ley, Kevin Naaman, Mark Helfand
Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Tamarinde Laura Haven, Joeri K Tijdink, Brian C Martinson, Lex M Bouter, Frans J Oort
Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Evan Mayo-Wilson, Sean Grant, Lauren Supplee, Sina Kianersi, Afsah Amin, Alex DeHaven, David Mellor
Evaluating implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: the TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Mohammad Hosseini, Shiva Sharifzad
Gender disparity in publication records: a qualitative study of women researchers in computing and engineering. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Jan-Ole Hesselberg, Knut Inge Fostervold, Pål Ulleberg, Ida Svege
Individual versus general structured feedback to improve agreement in grant peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Noémie Aubert Bonn, Wim Pinxten
Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) - a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Hans-Joachim Backe
Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)
Noémie Aubert Bonn, Wim Pinxten
Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) - a multi-actor qualitative study on success in science. Research integrity and peer review 6 (1) (2021)

volume 5, number 1, 2020

Michael W Kalichman
Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct. Research integrity and peer review 5 (1) (2020)
Robin Mason
Doing better: eleven ways to improve the integration of sex and gender in health research proposals. Research integrity and peer review 5 (1) (2020)
Clarissa F D Carneiro, Victor G S Queiroz, Thiago C Moulin, Carlos A M Carvalho, Clarissa B Haas, Danielle Rayêe, David E Henshall, Evandro A De-Souza, Felippe E Amorim, Flávia Z Boos, Gerson D Guercio, Igor R Costa, Karina L Hajdu, Lieve van Egmond, Martin Modrák, Pedro B Tan, Richard J Abdill, Steven J Burgess, Sylvia F S Guerra, Vanessa T Bortoluzzi, Olavo B Amaral
Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature. Research integrity and peer review 5 (1) (2020)

volume 5, 2020

Courtenay E Cavanaugh, Yara Abu Hussein
Do journals instruct authors to address sex and gender in psychological science? Research integrity and peer review 5 (2020)
Travis G Gerwing, Alyssa M Allen Gerwing, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Chi-Yeung Choi, Jeff C Clements, Joshua A Rash
Quantifying professionalism in peer review. Research integrity and peer review 5 (2020)