Literature DB >> 29789547

Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency.

Timothy H Parker1,2, Simon C Griffith3, Judith L Bronstein4, Fiona Fidler5,6, Susan Foster7, Hannah Fraser5, Wolfgang Forstmeier8, Jessica Gurevitch9, Julia Koricheva10, Ralf Seppelt11,12,13, Morgan W Tingley14, Shinichi Nakagawa15.   

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29789547     DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol        ISSN: 2397-334X            Impact factor:   15.460


  5 in total

1.  Biases in ecological research: attitudes of scientists and ways of control.

Authors:  Elena L Zvereva; Mikhail V Kozlov
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews.

Authors:  Tirthankar Ghosal; Sandeep Kumar; Prabhat Kumar Bharti; Asif Ekbal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Low statistical power and overestimated anthropogenic impacts, exacerbated by publication bias, dominate field studies in global change biology.

Authors:  Yefeng Yang; Helmut Hillebrand; Malgorzata Lagisz; Ian Cleasby; Shinichi Nakagawa
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 13.211

4.  Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution.

Authors:  Hannah Fraser; Tim Parker; Shinichi Nakagawa; Ashley Barnett; Fiona Fidler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension.

Authors:  Rose E O'Dea; Malgorzata Lagisz; Michael D Jennions; Julia Koricheva; Daniel W A Noble; Timothy H Parker; Jessica Gurevitch; Matthew J Page; Gavin Stewart; David Moher; Shinichi Nakagawa
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2021-05-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.