Skip to main content

Peer review

This Section considers manuscripts reporting research into the peer review of articles for publication (by journals), or presentation (by conferences), and the peer review of grant proposals by funders. Research topics for this section will include: methods of identifying, training and rewarding peer reviewers; mechanisms to reduce bias, such as blinding; novel systems for peer review, such as ‘public review’ and post-publication review; and methods to measure and improve the quality of peer review.

  1. Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discu...

    Authors: Priya Silverstein, Colin Elman, Amanda Montoya, Barbara McGillivray, Charlotte R. Pennington, Chase H. Harrison, Crystal N. Steltenpohl, Jan Philipp Röer, Katherine S. Corker, Lisa M. Charron, Mahmoud Elsherif, Mario Malicki, Rachel Hayes-Harb, Sandra Grinschgl, Tess Neal, Thomas Rhys Evans…
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2024 9:2
  2. Objectives of this study were to analyze the impact of including librarians and information specialist as methodological peer-reviewers. We sought to determine if and how librarians’ comments differed from sub...

    Authors: Irina Ibragimova and Helen Fulbright
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2024 9:1
  3. There is a power imbalance between authors and reviewers in single-blind peer review. We explored how switching from single-blind to double-blind peer review affected 1) the willingness of experts to review, 2...

    Authors: Piitu Parmanne, Joonas Laajava, Noora Järvinen, Terttu Harju, Mauri Marttunen and Pertti Saloheimo
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2023 8:14
  4. Diversity among editorial boards and in the peer review process maximizes the likelihood that the dissemination of reported results is both relevant and respectful to readers and end users. Past studies have e...

    Authors: Anna Nuechterlein, Tanya Barretto, Alaa Yehia and Judy Illes
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2023 8:12
  5. The emergence of systems based on large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT has created a range of discussions in scholarly circles. Since LLMs generate grammatically correct and mostly relevant (y...

    Authors: Mohammad Hosseini and Serge P. J. M. Horbach
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2023 8:4

    The Publisher Correction to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2023 8:7

  6. There are growing bodies of evidence demonstrating the benefits of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) on academic and organizational excellence. In turn, some editors have stated their desire to improve th...

    Authors: Omar Dewidar, Nour Elmestekawy and Vivian Welch
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2022 7:4
  7. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Meth...

    Authors: Evan Mayo-Wilson, Meredith L. Phillips, Avonne E. Connor, Kelly J. Vander Ley, Kevin Naaman and Mark Helfand
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:16
  8. Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open...

    Authors: Veli-Matti Karhulahti and Hans-Joachim Backe
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:13
  9. Vast sums are distributed based on grant peer review, but studies show that interrater reliability is often low. In this study, we tested the effect of receiving two short individual feedback reports compared ...

    Authors: Jan-Ole Hesselberg, Knut Inge Fostervold, Pål Ulleberg and Ida Svege
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:12
  10. Our recent paper (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s41073-020-00096-x) reported that 43% of reviewer comment sets (n=1491) shared with authors contained at least one unprof...

    Authors: Travis G. Gerwing, Alyssa M. Allen Gerwing, Chi-Yeung Choi, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Jeff C. Clements and Joshua A. Rash
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:4
  11. Inaccurate citations are erroneous quotations or instances of paraphrasing of previously published material that mislead readers about the claims of the cited source. They are often unaddressed due to underrep...

    Authors: Mohammad Hosseini, Martin Paul Eve, Bert Gordijn and Cameron Neylon
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:13
  12. Triggered by a series of controversies and diversifying expectations of editorial practices, several innovative peer review procedures and supporting technologies have been proposed. However, adoption of these...

    Authors: Serge P. J. M. Horbach and Willem Halffman
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:11
  13. The process of peer-review in academia has attracted criticism surrounding issues of bias, fairness, and professionalism; however, frequency of occurrence of such comments is unknown.

    Authors: Travis G. Gerwing, Alyssa M. Allen Gerwing, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Chi-Yeung Choi, Jeff C. Clements and Joshua A. Rash
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:9
  14. Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or ...

    Authors: Lonni Besançon, Niklas Rönnberg, Jonas Löwgren, Jonathan P. Tennant and Matthew Cooper
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:8
  15. Funding agencies have long used panel discussion in the peer review of research grant proposals as a way to utilize a set of expertise and perspectives in making funding decisions. Little research has examined...

    Authors: Stephen A. Gallo, Karen B. Schmaling, Lisa A. Thompson and Scott R. Glisson
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:7
  16. Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and...

    Authors: Jonathan P. Tennant and Tony Ross-Hellauer
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:6
  17. The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach ...

    Authors: Mengyao Liu, Vernon Choy, Philip Clarke, Adrian Barnett, Tony Blakely and Lucy Pomeroy
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:3
  18. Descriptive studies examining publication rates and citation counts demonstrate a geographic skew toward high-income countries (HIC), and research from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) is generally unde...

    Authors: Mark Skopec, Hamdi Issa, Julie Reed and Matthew Harris
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:2
  19. Developing a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of syst...

    Authors: Holly K. Grossetta Nardini, Janene Batten, Melissa C. Funaro, Rolando Garcia-Milian, Kate Nyhan, Judy M. Spak, Lei Wang and Janis G. Glover
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:23
  20. In their research reports, scientists are expected to discuss limitations that their studies have. Previous research showed that often, such discussion is absent. Also, many journals emphasize the importance o...

    Authors: Kerem Keserlioglu, Halil Kilicoglu and Gerben ter Riet
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:19
  21. CORE (Clarity and Openness in Reporting: E3-based) Reference (released May 2016 by the European Medical Writers Association [EMWA] and the American Medical Writers Association [AMWA]) is a complete and authoritat...

    Authors: Samina Hamilton, Aaron B. Bernstein, Graham Blakey, Vivien Fagan, Tracy Farrow, Debbie Jordan, Walther Seiler and Art Gertel
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:16
  22. Narrative reviews are the commonest type of articles in the medical literature. However, unlike systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCT) articles, for which formal instruments exist to evaluat...

    Authors: Christopher Baethge, Sandra Goldbeck-Wood and Stephan Mertens
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:5
  23. Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and exp...

    Authors: Tony Ross-Hellauer and Edit Görögh
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:4
  24. Associations were examined between author-reported uses of reporting guidelines to prepare JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) submissions, editorial decisions, and reviewer ratings for adherenc...

    Authors: Jeannine Botos
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:7
  25. The quality and integrity of the scientific literature have recently become the subject of heated debate. Due to an apparent increase in cases of scientific fraud and irreproducible research, some have claimed...

    Authors: S. P. J. M. ( Serge) Horbach and W. ( Willem) Halffman
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:8

    The Correction to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:11

  26. Despite rapid growth of the scientific literature, no consensus guidelines have emerged to define the optimal criteria for editors to grade submitted manuscripts. The purpose of this project was to assess the ...

    Authors: Catherine H. Davis, Barbara L. Bass, Kevin E. Behrns, Keith D. Lillemoe, O. James Garden, Mark S. Roh, Jeffrey E. Lee, Charles M. Balch and Thomas A. Aloia
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:4
  27. In May 2016, we launched Research Integrity and Peer Review, an international, open access journal with fully open peer review (reviewers are identified on their reports and named reports are published alongside ...

    Authors: Stephanie L. Boughton, Maria K. Kowalczuk, Joerg J. Meerpohl, Elizabeth Wager and Elizabeth C. Moylan
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:3
  28. Although the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow, too expensive, ...

    Authors: Joshua D. Wallach, Alexander C. Egilman, Anand D. Gopal, Nishwant Swami, Harlan M. Krumholz and Joseph S. Ross
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:1
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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
  35. 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
https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/sections/peerreview
researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com
CC-MAIN-2024-10
334070
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ZHGS6LYWU2JYHTGYBLMU5YMAWP7W6AKF
<urn:uuid:fc25eced-cc87-474f-9092-6f8de2ce8d21>
2024-02-28T19:03:01Z
146.75.32.95
text/html
sha1:5JSYVT54X6YQGUOPTEBWSPTVDEALZSRU
<urn:uuid:9ca612f0-963c-4e85-a38e-b7f13baa0698>
https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/sections/peerreview
response
<urn:uuid:bfbd3250-45e4-42f4-a957-7ad2af2a08b2>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-123
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/