scholarly journals Peer Review #2 of "Biomedical literature classification using encyclopedic knowledge: a Wikipedia-based bag-of-concepts approach (v0.1)"

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Literature

scholarly journals Peer Review Practices in Biomedical Literature: A Time for Change?

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 240-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamal Kumar Mahawar ◽  
Deepak Kejariwal ◽  
Ajay Malviya ◽  
Rashmi Birla ◽  
Y.K.S. Viswanath
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Literature

Peer review of the biomedical literature

1990 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carin M. Olson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Literature

scholarly journals How often do leading biomedical journals use statistical experts to evaluate statistical methods? The results of a survey.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Elis Hardwicke ◽  
Steve Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Statistical Methods ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Time Cost ◽  
Statistical Review ◽  
Statistical Education ◽  
Statistical Procedures ◽  
Incremental Value ◽  
Biomedical Journals

Scientific claims in biomedical research are typically derived from statistical analyses. However, misuse and misunderstanding of statistical procedures and results permeates the biomedical literature, affecting the validity of those claims. One approach journals have taken to address this issue is to enlist expert statistical reviewers. How many journals do this, how statistical review is incorporated, and how its value is perceived by editors is of interest. Here we report an expanded version of a survey conducted more than 20 years ago by Goodman and colleagues (1998) with the intention of characterizing contemporary statistical review policies at leading biomedical journals. We received eligible responses from 107 of 364 (28%) journals surveyed, across 57 fields, mostly from editors in chief. 34% (36/107) rarely or never use specialized statistical review, 34% (36/107) used it for 10-50% of their articles and 23% used it for all articles. These numbers have changed little since 1998 in spite of dramatically increased concern about research validity. The vast majority of editors regarded statistical review as having substantial incremental value beyond regular peer review and expressed comparatively little concern about the potential increase in reviewing time, cost, and difficulty identifying suitable statistical reviewers. Improved statistical education of researchers and different ways of employing statistical expertise are needed. Several proposals are discussed.

scholarly journals The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e0166387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michail Kovanis ◽  
Raphaël Porcher ◽  
Philippe Ravaud ◽  
Ludovic Trinquart
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Global Burden ◽  
Collective Enterprise

scholarly journals Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e023357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Amy Price ◽  
Ella Flemyng ◽  
Andrew Demaine ◽  
Jim Elliot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Annual Acknowledgement ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
User Friendly

ObjectiveIn 2014/2015,The BMJandResearch Involvement and Engagement(RIE) became the first journals to routinely include patients and the public in the peer review process of journal articles. This survey explores the perspectives and early experiences of these reviewers.DesignA cross-sectional survey.Setting and participantsPatient and public reviewers forThe BMJandRIEwho have been invited to review.ResultsThe response rate was 69% (157/227) for those who had previously reviewed and 31% (67/217) for those who had not yet reviewed. Reviewers described being motivated to review by the opportunity to include the patient voice in the research process, influence the quality of the biomedical literature and ensure it meets the needs of patients. Of the 157 who had reviewed, 127 (81%) would recommend being a reviewer to other patients and carers. 144 (92%) thought more journals should adopt patient and public review. Few reviewers (16/224, 7%) reported concerns about doing open review. Annual acknowledgement on the journals’ websites was welcomed as was free access to journal information. Participants were keen to have access to more online resources and training to improve their reviewing skills. Suggestions on how to improve the reviewing experience included: allowing more time to review; better and more frequent communication; a more user-friendly process; improving guidance on how to review including videos; improving the matching of papers to reviewers’ experience; providing more varied sample reviews and brief feedback on the usefulness of reviews; developing a sense of community among reviewers; and publicising of the contribution that patient and public review brings.ConclusionsPatient and public reviewers shared practical ideas to improve the reviewing experience and these will be reviewed to enhance the guidance and support given to them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document