Thank you reviewers - CytoJournal 2011.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shidham VB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3263011 | biostudies-other | 2011
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:The number of contributing reviewers often outnumbers the authors of publications. This has led to apathy towards reviewing and the conclusion that the peer-review system is broken. Given the trade-offs between submitting and reviewing manuscripts, reviewers and authors naturally want visibility for their efforts. While study after study has called for revolutionizing publication practices, the current paradigm does not recognize reviewers' time and expertise. We propose the R-index as a simple way to quantify scientists' contributions as reviewers. We modelled its performance using simulations based on real data to show that early-mid career scientists, who complete high-quality reviews of longer manuscripts within their field, can perform as well as leading scientists reviewing only for high-impact journals. By giving citeable academic recognition for reviewing, R-index will encourage more participation with better reviews, regardless of the career stage. Moreover, the R-index will allow editors to exploit scores to manage and improve their review team, and for journals to promote high average scores as signals of a practical and efficient service to authors. Peer-review is a pervasive necessity across disciplines and the simple utility of this missing metric will credit a valuable aspect of academic productivity without having to revolutionize the current peer-review system.
| S-EPMC4448813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study design, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and conclusions should be a part of all research papers. Statistics are integral to each of these components and are therefore necessary to evaluate during manuscript peer review. Research published in Toxicological Pathology is often focused on animal studies that may seek to compare defined treatment groups in randomized controlled experiments or focus on the reliability of measurements and diagnostic accuracy of observed lesions from preexisting studies. Reviewers should distinguish scientific research goals that aim to test sufficient effect size differences (i.e., minimizing false positive rates) from common toxicologic goals of detecting a harmful effect (i.e., minimizing false negative rates). This journal comprises a wide range of study designs that require different kinds of statistical assessments. Therefore, statistical methods should be described in enough detail so that the experiment can be repeated by other research groups. The misuse of statistics will impede reproducibility.
| S-EPMC6063795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Authors endure considerable hardship carrying out biomedical research, from generating ideas to completing their manuscripts and submitting their findings and data (as is increasingly required) to a journal. When researchers submit to journals, they entrust their findings and ideas to editors and peer reviewers who are expected to respect the confidentiality of peer review. Inherent trust in peer review is built on the ethical conduct of authors, editors and reviewers, and on the respect of this confidentiality. If such confidentiality is breached by unethical reviewers who might steal or plagiarize the authors' ideas, researchers will lose trust in peer review and may resist submitting their findings to that journal. Science loses as a result, scientific and medical advances slow down, knowledge may become scarce, and it is unlikely that increasing bias in the literature will be detected or eliminated. In such a climate, society will ultimately be deprived from scientific and medical advances. Despite a rise in documented cases of abused peer review, there is still a relative lack of qualitative and quantitative studies on reviewer-related misconduct, most likely because evidence is difficult to come by. Our paper presents an assessment of editors' and reviewers' responsibilities in preserving the confidentiality of manuscripts during the peer review process, in response to a 2016 case of intellectual property theft by a reviewer. Our main objectives are to propose additional measures that would offer protection of authors' intellectual ideas from predatory reviewers, and increase researchers' awareness of the responsible reviewing of journal articles and reporting of biomedical research.
| S-EPMC6310661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ABSTRACT The staff and editors of Disease Models & Mechanisms (DMM) wish to thank all our peer reviewers for their work in this vital role. We highlight some important changes that have been introduced to improve the peer-review process, for both authors and reviewers. Summary: DMM highlights changes in our peer-review process, and thanks peer reviewers for their involvement in this vital step in scholarly publication.
| S-EPMC6398495 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7939713 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8803350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (?).ResultsIn total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (? ?=? 0.02, 95%CI: -0.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median ? ?= 0.19), ranging from ? ?=? -0.04 ("Other bias") to ? ?=? 0.62 ("Sequence generation"). There was also no agreement (? ?=? -0.29, 95%CI: -0.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level.ConclusionsRisk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.
| S-EPMC4019638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peer review represents the primary mechanism used by funding agencies to allocate financial support and by journals to select manuscripts for publication, yet recent Cochrane reviews determined literature on peer review best practice is sparse. Key to improving the process are reduction of inherent vulnerability to high degree of randomness and, from an economic perspective, limiting both the substantial indirect costs related to reviewer time invested and direct administrative costs to funding agencies, publishers and research institutions. Use of additional reviewers per application may increase reliability and decision consistency, but adds to overall cost and burden. The optimal number of reviewers per application, while not known, is thought to vary with accuracy of judges or evaluation methods. Here I use bootstrapping of replicated peer review data from a Post-doctoral Fellowships competition to show that five reviewers per application represents a practical optimum which avoids large random effects evident when fewer reviewers are used, a point where additional reviewers at increasing cost provides only diminishing incremental gains in chance-corrected consistency of decision outcomes. Random effects were most evident in the relative mid-range of competitiveness. Results support aggressive high- and low-end stratification or triaging of applications for subsequent stages of review, with the proportion and set of mid-range submissions to be retained for further consideration being dependent on overall success rate.
| S-EPMC4382286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Lack of appropriate reporting of methodological details has previously been shown to distort risk of bias assessments in randomized controlled trials. The same might be true for observational studies. The goal of this study was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment for risk of bias between reviewers and authors of cohort studies included in a published systematic review on risk factors for severe outcomes in patients infected with influenza. METHODS: Cohort studies included in the systematic review and published between 2008-2011 were included. The corresponding or first authors completed a survey covering all NOS items. Results were compared with the NOS assessment applied by reviewers of the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (K) statistics. RESULTS: Authors of 65/182 (36%) studies completed the survey. The overall NOS score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the reviewers' assessment (median = 6; interquartile range [IQR] 6-6) compared with those by authors (median = 5, IQR 4-6). Inter-rater reliability by item ranged from slight (K = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?-0.19, 0.48) to poor (K = -0.06, 95% CI = -0.22, 0.10). Reliability for the overall score was poor (K = -0.004, 95% CI = -0.11, 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in assessment and low agreement between reviewers and authors suggest the need to contact authors for information not published in studies when applying the NOS in systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC4021422 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8443230 | biostudies-literature