Supplemental file for peer review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
ORGANISM(S): Homo sapiens (human)
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-BSST1658 | biostudies-other |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1696 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThere has been a consistent concern about the inadvertent disclosure of personal information through peer-to-peer file sharing applications, such as Limewire and Morpheus. Examples of personal health and financial information being exposed have been published. We wanted to estimate the extent to which personal health information (PHI) is being disclosed in this way, and compare that to the extent of disclosure of personal financial information (PFI).DesignAfter careful review and approval of our protocol by our institutional research ethics board, files were downloaded from peer-to-peer file sharing networks and manually analyzed for the presence of PHI and PFI. The geographic region of the IP addresses was determined, and classified as either USA or Canada.MeasurementWe estimated the proportion of files that contain personal health and financial information for each region. We also estimated the proportion of search terms that return files with personal health and financial information. We ascertained and discuss the ethical issues related to this study.ResultsApproximately 0.4% of Canadian IP addresses had PHI, as did 0.5% of US IP addresses. There was more disclosure of financial information, at 1.7% of Canadian IP addresses and 4.7% of US IP addresses. An analysis of search terms used in these file sharing networks showed that a small percentage of the terms would return PHI and PFI files (ie, there are people successfully searching for PFI and PHI on the peer-to-peer file sharing networks).ConclusionThere is a real risk of inadvertent disclosure of PHI through peer-to-peer file sharing networks, although the risk is not as large as for PFI. Anyone keeping PHI on their computers should avoid installing file sharing applications on their computers, or if they have to use such tools, actively manage the risks of inadvertent disclosure of their, their family's, their clients', or patients' PHI.
| S-EPMC3000774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.
| S-EPMC5633172 | biostudies-other
Project description:We employ a scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. Based on the evidence, we build a simple conceptual framework to model the psychological decision to engage in UFS, purchase legally or do nothing. We identify social, moral, experiential, technical, legal and financial utility sources of the decision to purchase or to file share. They interact in complex ways. We consider the strength of evidence within these areas and note patterns of results. There is good evidence for influences on UFS within each of the identified determinants, particularly for self-reported measures, with more behavioral research needed. There are also indications that the reasons for UFS differ across media; more studies exploring media other than music are required.
| S-EPMC4452318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community.
| S-EPMC6073088 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe residency selection process relies on subjective information in applications, as well as subjective assessment of applications by reviewers. This inherent subjectivity makes residency selection prone to poor reliability between those reviewing files.ObjectivesWe compared the interrater reliability of 2 assessment tools during file review: one rating applicant traits (ie, leadership, communication) and the other using a global rating of application elements (ie, curriculum vitae, reference letters).MethodsTen file reviewers were randomized into 2 groups, and each scored 7 general surgery applications from the 2019-2020 cycle. The first group used an element-based (EB) scoring tool, while the second group used a trait-based (TB) scoring tool. Feedback was collected, discrimination capacities were measured using variation in scores, and interrater reliability (IRR) was calculated using intraclass correlation (ICC) in a 2-way random effects model.ResultsBoth tools identified the same top-ranked and bottom-ranked applicants; however, discrepancies were noted for middle-ranked applicants. The score range for the 5 middle-ranked applicants was greater with the TB tool (6.43 vs 3.80), which also demonstrated fewer tie scores. The IRR for TB scoring was superior to EB scoring (ICC [2, 5] = 0.82 vs 0.55). The TB tool required only 2 raters to achieve an ICC ≥ 0.70.ConclusionsUsing a TB file review strategy can facilitate file review with improved reliability compared to EB, and a greater spread of candidate scores. TB file review potentially offers programs a feasible way to optimize and reflect their institution's core values in the process.
| S-EPMC8054590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Publishing peer review materials alongside research articles promises to make the peer review process more transparent as well as making it easier to recognise these contributions and give credit to peer reviewers. Traditionally, the peer review reports, editors letters and author responses are only shared between the small number of people in those roles prior to publication, but there is a growing interest in making some or all of these materials available. A small number of journals have been publishing peer review materials for some time, others have begun this practice more recently, and significantly more are now considering how they might begin. This article outlines the outcomes from a recent workshop among journals with experience in publishing peer review materials, in which the specific operation of these workflows, and the challenges, were discussed. Here, we provide a draft as to how to represent these materials in the JATS and Crossref data models to facilitate the coordination and discoverability of peer review materials, and seek feedback on these initial recommendations.
| S-EPMC6206614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors address study funding and authors' conflicts of interests (COI). Also, we aimed to assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors reported and commented on their own or each other's COI.Study design and methodsWe conducted a systematic survey of original studies published in open access peer reviewed journals that publish their peer review reports. Using REDCap, we collected data in duplicate and independently from journals' websites and articles' peer review reports.ResultsWe included a sample of original studies (N = 144) and a second one of randomized clinical trials (N = 115) RCTs. In both samples, and for the majority of studies, reviewers reported absence of COI (70% and 66%), while substantive percentages of reviewers did not report on COI (28% and 30%) and only small percentages reported any COI (2% and 4%). For both samples, none of the editors whose names were publicly posted reported on COI. The percentages of peer reviewers commenting on the study funding, authors' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 2% in either one of the two samples. 25% and 7% of editors respectively in the two samples commented on study funding, while none commented on authors' COI, peer reviewers' COI, or their own COI. The percentages of authors commenting in their response letters on the study funding, peer reviewers' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 3% in either one of the two samples.ConclusionThe percentages of peer reviewers and journals editors who addressed study funding and authors' COI and were extremely low. In addition, peer reviewers and journal editors rarely reported their own COI, or commented on their own or on each other's COI.
| S-EPMC10249818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:File fragment classification of image file formats is a topic of interest in network forensics. There are a few publicly available datasets of files with image formats. Therewith, there is no public dataset for file fragments of image file formats. So, a big research challenge in file fragment classification of image file formats is to compare the performance of the developed methods over the same datasets. DATA DESCRIPTION:In this study, we present a dataset that contains file fragments of ten image file formats: Bitmap, Better Portable Graphics, Free Lossless Image Format, Graphics Interchange Format, Joint Photographic Experts Group, Joint Photographic Experts Group 2000, Joint Photographic Experts Group Extended Range, Portable Network Graphic, Tagged Image File Format, and Web Picture. Corresponding to each format, the dataset contains the file fragments of image files with different compression settings. For each pair of file format and compression setting, 800 file fragments are provided. Totally, the dataset contains 25,600 file fragments.
| S-EPMC6881973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:File fragment classification of video file formats is a topic of interest in network forensics. There are some publicly available datasets for file fragments of various file types such as textual, audio, and image file formats. However, there is no public dataset for file fragments of video file formats. So, in order to evaluate and compare the performance of the classification methods, a challenge is the need to have such datasets. DATA DESCRIPTION:In this study, we present a dataset that contains file fragments of 10 video file formats: 3GP, AVI, ASF, FLV, MKV, MOV, MP4, WebM, OGV, and RMVB. Corresponding to each format, the dataset contains the file fragments of video files with different video codec types: H.263, MPEG-4, WMV, H.264, FLV1, H.265, VP8, VP9, Theora, and RealVideo. Totally, 20 different pairs of video format and codec are employed. For each pair of video format and codec, 30,000 file fragments are provided. Totally, the dataset contains 600,000 file fragments.
| S-EPMC7160908 | biostudies-literature