Year:

  1.  1
    What Works for Peer Review and Decision-Making in Research Funding: A Realist Synthesis.Amanda Blatch-Jones, Simon Fraser, Hazel Church, Kathryn Fackrell, Katie Meadmore, Ksenia Crane & Alejandra Recio-Saucedo - 2022 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 7 (1).
    IntroductionAllocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom.MethodsRealist synthesis of peer-review publications and grey literature reporting interventions in peer review for research funding.ResultsWe analysed 96 publications and 36 website sources. Sixty publications enabled us to extract stakeholder-specific context-mechanism-outcomes (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. ACCORD Guideline for Reporting Consensus-Based Methods in Biomedical Research and Clinical Practice: A Study Protocol.Niall Harrison, Robert Matheis, Patricia Logullo, Keith Goldman, Esther J. van Zuuren, Ellen L. Hughes, David Tovey, Christopher C. Winchester, Amy Price, Amrit Pali Hungin & William T. Gattrell - 2022 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 7 (1).
    BackgroundStructured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to support clinical decision making in areas of uncertainty. They are widely used in biomedical research, in particular where disease characteristics or resource limitations mean that high-quality evidence generation is difficult. However, poor reporting of methods used to reach a consensus – for example, not clearly explaining the definition of consensus, or not stating (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  1
    Characteristics of ‘Mega’ Peer-Reviewers.David Moher, Andrea C. Tricco, Justin Presseau, Ba’ Pham & Danielle B. Rice - 2022 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 7 (1).
    BackgroundThe demand for peer reviewers is often perceived as disproportionate to the supply and availability of reviewers. Considering characteristics associated with peer review behaviour can allow for the development of solutions to manage the growing demand for peer reviewers. The objective of this research was to compare characteristics among two groups of reviewers registered in Publons.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to compare characteristics between individuals completing at least 100 peer reviews from January 2018 to December 2018 as and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  6
    Improving Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Academia.Vivian Welch, Nour Elmestekawy & Omar Dewidar - 2022 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 7 (1).
    There are growing bodies of evidence demonstrating the benefits of equity, diversity, and inclusion on academic and organizational excellence. In turn, some editors have stated their desire to improve the EDI of their journals and of the wider scientific community. The Royal Society of Chemistry established a minimum set of requirements aimed at improving EDI in scholarly publishing. Additionally, several resources were reported to have the potential to improve EDI, but their effectiveness and feasibility are yet to be determined. In (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues