Skip to main content

Articles

Page 3 of 3

  1. In Australia, the peer review process for competitive funding is usually conducted by a peer review group in conjunction with prior assessment from external assessors. This process is quite mysterious to those...

    Authors: John Coveney, Danielle L Herbert, Kathy Hill, Karen E Mow, Nicholas Graves and Adrian Barnett
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:19
  2. Deciphering the amount of work provided by different co-authors of a scientific paper has been a recurrent problem in science. Despite the myriad of metrics available, the scientific community still largely re...

    Authors: Stéphane Boyer, Takayoshi Ikeda, Marie-Caroline Lefort, Jagoba Malumbres-Olarte and Jason M. Schmidt
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:18
  3. Knowledge development depends on an unbiased representation of the available evidence. Selective citation may distort this representation. Recently, some controversy emerged regarding the possible impact of sw...

    Authors: Bram Duyx, Miriam J. E. Urlings, Gerard M. H. Swaen, Lex M. Bouter and Maurice P. Zeegers
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:17
  4. Winning funding for health and medical research usually involves a lengthy application process. With success rates under 20%, much of the time spent by 80% of applicants could have been better used on actual r...

    Authors: Adrian G. Barnett, Philip Clarke, Cedryck Vaquette and Nicholas Graves
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:16
  5. Accurate reporting on sex and gender in health research is integral to ensuring that health interventions are safe and effective. In Canada and internationally, governments, research organizations, journal edi...

    Authors: V. Welch, M. Doull, M. Yoganathan, J. Jull, M. Boscoe, S. E. Coen, Z. Marshall, J. Pardo Pardo, A. Pederson, J. Petkovic, L. Puil, L. Quinlan, B. Shea, T. Rader, V. Runnels and S. Tudiver
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:15
  6. Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research ...

    Authors: Stacey A. Page and Jeffrey Nyeboer
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:14
  7. Trial registration helps minimize publication and reporting bias. In leading medical journals, 96% of published trials are registered. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of randomized contro...

    Authors: Richard Gray, Ashish Badnapurkar, Eman Hassanein, Donna Thomas, Laileah Barguir, Charley Baker, Martin Jones, Daniel Bressington, Ellie Brown and Annie Topping
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:8
  8. New metrics have been developed to assess the impact of research and provide an indication of online media attention and data dissemination. We aimed to describe online media attention of articles evaluating c...

    Authors: Romana Haneef, Philippe Ravaud, Gabriel Baron, Lina Ghosn and Isabelle Boutron
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:9
  9. The aim of this survey was to determine the level of awareness and understanding of peer review and peer review models amongst junior hospital doctors and whether this influences clinical decision-making.

    Authors: Jigisha Patel, Mary Pierce, Stephanie L. Boughton and Stephanie E. Baldeweg
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:11
  10. Authors: Sonia Vasconcelos, Edson Watanabe, L. P. Garcia, E. Duarte, M. C. Cassimiro, M. M. P. Diós-Borges, A. M. M. Soares, C. H. Debenedito Silva, A. A. P. Santa Rosa, G. A. Fófano, H. S. Pinheiro, A. M. Gollner, C. C. Santos, S. M. R. Vasconcelos, D. C. Machado, P. V. S. Souza…
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2(Suppl 1):12

    This article is part of a Supplement: Volume 2 Supplement 1

  11. There is increasing need for peer reviewers as the scientific literature grows. Formal education in biostatistics and research methodology during residency training is lacking. In this pilot study, we addresse...

    Authors: Victoria S. S. Wong, Roy E. Strowd III, Rebeca Aragón-García, Yeseon Park Moon, Blair Ford, Sheryl R. Haut, Joseph S. Kass, Zachary N. London, MaryAnn Mays, Tracey A. Milligan, Raymond S. Price, Patrick S. Reynolds, Linda M. Selwa, David C. Spencer and Mitchell S. V. Elkind
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:6
  12. The annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and t...

    Authors: Anthony Bozzo, Kamal Bali, Nathan Evaniew and Michelle Ghert
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:5
  13. The foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there ...

    Authors: Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Michelle Allen and Adrian G. Barnett
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:4

    The Erratum to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:7

  14. It is commonly reported by editors that it has become harder to recruit reviewers for peer review and that this is because individuals are being asked to review too often and are experiencing reviewer fatigue....

    Authors: Charles W. Fox, Arianne Y. K. Albert and Timothy H. Vines
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:3

    The original article was published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:14

  15. Multi-centre studies generally cost more than single-centre studies because of larger sample sizes and the need for multiple ethical approvals. Multi-centre studies include clinical trials, clinical quality re...

    Authors: Adrian G. Barnett, Megan J. Campbell, Carla Shield, Alison Farrington, Lisa Hall, Katie Page, Anne Gardner, Brett G. Mitchell and Nicholas Graves
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:16
  16. Codes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more importa...

    Authors: Lex M. Bouter, Joeri Tijdink, Nils Axelsen, Brian C. Martinson and Gerben ter Riet
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:17

    The Correction to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:13

  17. There is concern in the academic publishing community that it is becoming more difficult to secure reviews for peer-reviewed manuscripts, but much of this concern stems from anecdotal and rhetorical evidence.

    Authors: Arianne Y. K. Albert, Jennifer L. Gow, Alison Cobra and Timothy H. Vines
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:14

    The Commentary to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:3

  18. We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Adviso...

    Authors: Liisa Räsänen and Erja Moore
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:15
  19. Plagiarism is common and threatens the integrity of the scientific literature. However, its detection is time consuming and difficult, presenting challenges to editors and publishers who are entrusted with ens...

    Authors: Janet R. Higgins, Feng-Chang Lin and James P. Evans
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:13
  20. As the size of the published scientific literature has increased exponentially over the past 30 years, review articles play an increasingly important role in helping researchers to make sense of original resea...

    Authors: Jennifer A. Byrne
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:12
  21. Many journals prohibit the use of declarative titles that state study findings, yet a few journals encourage or even require them. We compared the effects of a declarative versus a descriptive title on readers...

    Authors: Elizabeth Wager, Douglas G. Altman, Iveta Simera and Tudor P. Toma
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:11
  22. To limit selective and incomplete publication of the results of clinical trials, registries including ClinicalTrials.gov were introduced. The ClinicalTrials.gov registry added a results database in 2008 to ena...

    Authors: Innocent Gerald Asiimwe and Dickson Rumona
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:10
  23. I1 Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity

    Authors: Susan Patricia O’Brien, Danny Chan, Frederick Leung, Eun Jung Ko, Jin Sun Kwak, TaeHwan Gwon, Ji Min Lee, Min-Ho Lee, Helga Nolte, Michael Gommel, Gerlinde Sponholz, Yordanka Krastev, Yamini Sandiran, Julia Connell, Nicky Solomon, Ursa Opara Krasovec…
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1(Suppl 1):9

    This article is part of a Supplement: Volume 1 Supplement 1

  24. Sharing of experimental clinical research data usually happens between individuals or research groups rather than via public repositories, in part due to the need to protect research participant privacy. This ...

    Authors: Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Varsha Khodiyar, Andrew L. Hufton and Susanna-Assunta Sansone
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:6
  25. Although the number of reporting guidelines has grown rapidly, few have gone through an updating process. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy), published in 2003 to help improve th...

    Authors: Daniël A. Korevaar, Jérémie F. Cohen, Johannes B. Reitsma, David E. Bruns, Constantine A. Gatsonis, Paul P. Glasziou, Les Irwig, David Moher, Henrica C. W. de Vet, Douglas G. Altman, Lotty Hooft and Patrick M. M. Bossuyt
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:7
  26. This editorial explains why we are launching Research Integrity and Peer Review, a new open-access journal that will provide a home to research on ethics, reporting, and evaluation of research. We discuss how the...

    Authors: Stephanie L. Harriman, Maria K. Kowalczuk, Iveta Simera and Elizabeth Wager
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:5
  27. Interventional clinical studies conducted in the regulated drug research environment are reported using International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) regulatory guidance documents: ICH E3 on the structure and ...

    Authors: Samina Hamilton, Aaron B. Bernstein, Graham Blakey, Vivien Fagan, Tracy Farrow, Debbie Jordan, Walther Seiler, Anna Shannon and Art Gertel
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:4
  28. In about one in 10,000 cases, a published article is retracted. This very often means that the results it reports are flawed. Several authors have voiced concerns about the presence of retracted research in th...

    Authors: Paul E. van der Vet and Harm Nijveen
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:3
  29. Sex and gender differences are often overlooked in research design, study implementation and scientific reporting, as well as in general science communication. This oversight limits the generalizability of res...

    Authors: Shirin Heidari, Thomas F. Babor, Paola De Castro, Sera Tort and Mirjam Curno
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:2

    The Erratum to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:8

  30. Conflicts of interest held by researchers remain a focus of attention in clinical research. Biases related to these relationships have the potential to directly impact the quality of healthcare by influencing ...

    Authors: Adam G. Dunn, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D. Mandl and Florence T. Bourgeois
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:1