Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.578
Filtrar
1.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0237804, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32817699

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Peer review is a volunteer process for improving the quality of publications by providing objective feedback to authors, but also presents an opportunity for reviewers to seek personal reward by requesting self-citations. Open peer review may reduce the prevalence of self-citation requests and encourage author rebuttal over accession. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of self-citation requests and their inclusion in manuscripts in a journal with open peer review. METHODS: Requests for additional references to be included during peer review for articles published between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 in BMC Medicine were evaluated. Data extracted included total number of self-citations requested, self-citations that were included in the final published manuscript and manuscripts that included at least one self-citation, and compared with corresponding data on independent citations. RESULTS: In total, 932 peer review reports from 373 manuscripts were analysed. At least one additional citation was requested in 25.9% (n = 241) of reports. Self-citation requests were included in 44.4% of reports requesting additional citations (11.5% of all reports). Requests for self-citation were significantly more likely than independent citations to be incorporated in the published manuscript (65.1% vs 52.1%; chi-square p = 0.003). At the manuscript level, when requested, self-citations were incorporated in 76.6% of manuscripts (n = 72; 19.3% of all manuscripts) compared with 68.5% of manuscripts with independent citation requests (n = 102; 27.3% of manuscripts). A significant interaction was observed between the presence of self-citation requests and the likelihood of any citation request being incorporated (100% incorporation in manuscripts with self-citation requests alone versus 62.7-72.2% with any independent citation request; Fisher's exact test p<0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Requests for self-citations during the peer review process are common. The transparency of open peer review may have the unexpected effect of encouraging authors to incorporate self-citation requests by disclosing peer reviewer identity.


Assuntos
Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Revisão por Pares/normas , Editoração/normas , Autoria , Feminino , Medicina Geral , Humanos , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Masculino
7.
PLoS One ; 15(5): e0232929, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32401795

RESUMO

Verification is a crucial process to facilitate the identification and removal of errors within simulations. This study explores semantic changes to the concept of simulation verification over the past six decades using a data-supported, automated content analysis approach. We collect and utilize a corpus of 4,047 peer-reviewed Modeling and Simulation (M&S) publications dealing with a wide range of studies of simulation verification from 1963 to 2015. We group the selected papers by decade of publication to provide insights and explore the corpus from four perspectives: (i) the positioning of prominent concepts across the corpus as a whole; (ii) a comparison of the prominence of verification, validation, and Verification and Validation (V&V) as separate concepts; (iii) the positioning of the concepts specifically associated with verification; and (iv) an evaluation of verification's defining characteristics within each decade. Our analysis reveals unique characterizations of verification in each decade. The insights gathered helped to identify and discuss three categories of verification challenges as avenues of future research, awareness, and understanding for researchers, students, and practitioners. These categories include conveying confidence and maintaining ease of use; techniques' coverage abilities for handling increasing simulation complexities; and new ways to provide error feedback to model users.


Assuntos
Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Simulação por Computador , Confiabilidade dos Dados , Retroalimentação
13.
Am J Nurs ; 120(4): 7, 2020 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32218022

RESUMO

We need to be vigilant against fake journals.


Assuntos
Decepção , Publicação de Acesso Aberto/ética , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Editoração/normas , Humanos
14.
PLoS Biol ; 18(3): e3000690, 2020 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32214315

RESUMO

Preregistration of study protocols and, in particular, Registered Reports are novel publishing formats that are currently gaining substantial traction. Besides rating the research question and soundness of methodology over outstanding significance of the results, they can help with antagonizing inadequate statistical power, selective reporting of results, undisclosed analytic flexibility, as well as publication bias. Preregistration works well when a clear hypothesis, primary outcome, and mode of analysis can be formulated. But is it also applicable and useful in discovery research, which develops theories and hypotheses, measurement techniques, and generates evidence that justifies further research? I will argue that only slight modifications are needed to harness the potential of preregistration and make exploratory research more trustworthy and useful.


Assuntos
Editoração/tendências , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Humanos , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Pesquisa Qualitativa
16.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil ; 101(6): 969-977, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32001256

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in predatory and nonpredatory journals in the field of physical therapy. DATA SOURCES: From a list of 18 journals included either on Beall's list (n=9) or in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (n=9), 2 independent assessors extracted all the RCTs published between 2014 and 2017. When journals published more than 40 RCTs, a sample of 40 trials was randomly extracted, preserving the proportions among years. Indexing in PubMed, country of journal publication, and dates of submission or acceptance were also recorded for each journal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale and duration of the peer review. RESULTS: Four hundred ten RCTs were included. The mean PEDro score of articles published in non-Beall, DOAJ journals was higher than those published in Beall journals (mean score ± SD, 5.8±1.7 vs 4.5±1.5; P<.001), with the differences increasing when the indexing in PubMed was also considered (6.5±1.5 vs 4.4±1.5; P<.001). The peer review duration was significantly longer in non-Beall than in Beall journals (mean duration [d] ± SD, 145.2±92.9 vs 45.4±38.8; P<.001) and in journals indexed in PubMed than in nonindexed journals (136.6±100.7 vs 60.4±55.7; P<.001). Indexing in PubMed was the strongest independent variable associated with the PEDro score (adjusted R2=0.182), but noninclusion on Beall's list explained an additional, albeit small, portion of the PEDro score variance (cumulative adjusted R2=0.214). CONCLUSIONS: Potentially predatory journals publish lower-quality trials and have a shorter peer review process than non-Beall journals included in the DOAJ database.


Assuntos
Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Editoração/normas , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Bibliometria , Humanos
17.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 214(1): 37-40, 2020 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31714844

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this article was to study the effect of decreasing the time allowed an American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) reviewer to consider an invitation to review on time for two invitees to accept an invitation and time for both reviewers to return reviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Neuroradiology manuscripts submitted between September 2015 and June 2017 were randomly assigned in a blinded manner to one of two groups. The groups allowed either a 3-day or a 1-day period for invited reviewers to accept the invitation to review. The AJR manuscript database was examined to determine the effect of the invitation acceptance period on time needed for two reviewers to accept an invitation, the number of reviewers who needed to be contacted before two accepted, and the period of time required for both reviewers to submit their review. The differences were then analyzed using a two-sample t test. RESULTS. A total of 87 manuscripts were sent to reviewers who had 1 day to respond to the invitation and 114 manuscripts were sent to reviewers with a 3-day invitation. The mean length of time for two reviewers to accept invitations was 6.65 days in the 1-day group and 10.24 days in the 3-day group (p = 0.04). The mean number of reviewers contacted before two accepted was 6.14 in the 1-day group and 6.36 in the 3-day group (p = 0.71). The mean number of days before two completed reviews were submitted by the 1-day group was 27.97 days, and the mean number for the 3-day group was 31.53 days (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION. The results suggest that allowing a shorter time for prospective reviewers to consider an invitation can decrease the time needed for the required number of reviewers to accept an invitation to review and for completed reviews to be submitted.


Assuntos
Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Editoração/estatística & dados numéricos , Radiologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Método Simples-Cego , Fatores de Tempo , Estados Unidos
18.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 214(1): 45-49, 2020 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31670589

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE. This article provides comments from a small group of highly qualified reviewers of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) regarding their approach to assessing manuscripts. The objective is to educate authors about the issues to which reviewers particularly attend and about errors that will decrease the likelihood of publication. CONCLUSION. By following the advice provided in this article, authors should be able to compose better manuscripts and reviewers should be able to generate better reviews.


Assuntos
Neurologia , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Editoração/normas , Radiologia , Guias como Assunto , Estados Unidos
20.
J Pharmacol Exp Ther ; 372(1): 136-147, 2020 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31884418

RESUMO

The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics has revised the Instructions to Authors for Drug Metabolism and Disposition, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, and Molecular Pharmacology These revisions relate to data analysis (including statistical analysis) and reporting but do not tell investigators how to design and perform their experiments. Their overall focus is on greater granularity in the description of what has been done and found. Key recommendations include the need to differentiate between preplanned, hypothesis-testing, and exploratory experiments or studies; explanations of whether key elements of study design, such as sample size and choice of specific statistical tests, had been specified before any data were obtained or adapted thereafter; and explanation of whether any outliers (data points or entire experiments) were eliminated and when the rules for doing so had been defined. Variability should be described by S.D. or interquartile range, and precision should be described by confidence intervals; S.E. should not be used. P values should be used sparingly; in most cases, reporting differences or ratios (effect sizes) with their confidence intervals will be preferred. Depiction of data in figures should provide as much granularity as possible, e.g., by replacing bar graphs with scatter plots wherever feasible and violin or box-and-whisker plots when not. This editorial explains the revisions and the underlying scientific rationale. We believe that these revised guidelines will lead to a less biased and more transparent reporting of research findings.


Assuntos
Bioestatística/métodos , Políticas Editoriais , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Farmacologia/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Pesquisa Biomédica/métodos , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Farmacologia/organização & administração , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Sociedades Científicas
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA