Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency.
Parker, Timothy H; Griffith, Simon C; Bronstein, Judith L; Fidler, Fiona; Foster, Susan; Fraser, Hannah; Forstmeier, Wolfgang; Gurevitch, Jessica; Koricheva, Julia; Seppelt, Ralf; Tingley, Morgan W; Nakagawa, Shinichi.
Afiliação
  • Parker TH; Department of Biology, Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA, USA. parkerth@whitman.edu.
  • Griffith SC; Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia. parkerth@whitman.edu.
  • Bronstein JL; Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Fidler F; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
  • Foster S; School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Fraser H; History & Philosophy of Science, School of Historical & Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Forstmeier W; Department of Biology, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA.
  • Gurevitch J; School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Koricheva J; Department of Behavioural Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany.
  • Seppelt R; Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
  • Tingley MW; School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, UK.
  • Nakagawa S; Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.
Nat Ecol Evol ; 2(6): 929-935, 2018 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29789547
ABSTRACT
Peer review is widely considered fundamental to maintaining the rigour of science, but it often fails to ensure transparency and reduce bias in published papers, and this systematically weakens the quality of published inferences. In part, this is because many reviewers are unaware of important questions to ask with respect to the soundness of the design and analyses, and the presentation of the methods and results; also some reviewers may expect others to be responsible for these tasks. We therefore present a reviewers' checklist of ten questions that address these critical components. Checklists are commonly used by practitioners of other complex tasks, and we see great potential for the wider adoption of checklists for peer review, especially to reduce bias and facilitate transparency in published papers. We expect that such checklists will be well received by many reviewers.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Revisão por Pares / Publicações Periódicas como Assunto / Políticas Editoriais / Lista de Checagem Idioma: En Revista: Nat Ecol Evol Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Revisão por Pares / Publicações Periódicas como Assunto / Políticas Editoriais / Lista de Checagem Idioma: En Revista: Nat Ecol Evol Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos