Articles

Sort by
Previous Page Page 1 of 2 Next Page
  1. Research

    Registration of randomized controlled trials in nursing journals

    Trial registration helps minimize publication and reporting bias. In leading medical journals, 96% of published trials are registered. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of randomized contro...

    Richard Gray, Ashish Badnapurkar, Eman Hassanein, Donna Thomas, Laileah Barguir, Charley Baker, Martin Jones, Daniel Bressington, Ellie Brown and Annie Topping

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:8

    Published on: 16 July 2017

  2. Methodology

    Factors associated with online media attention to research: a cohort study of articles evaluating cancer treatments

    New metrics have been developed to assess the impact of research and provide an indication of online media attention and data dissemination. We aimed to describe online media attention of articles evaluating c...

    Romana Haneef, Philippe Ravaud, Gabriel Baron, Lina Ghosn and Isabelle Boutron

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:9

    Published on: 1 July 2017

  3. Meeting Abstracts

    Proceedings from the IV Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics (IV BRISPE)

    Sonia Vasconcelos, Edson Watanabe, L. P. Garcia, E. Duarte, M. C. Cassimiro, M. M. P. Diós-Borges, A. M. M. Soares, C. H. Debenedito Silva, A. A. P. Santa Rosa, G. A. Fófano, H. S. Pinheiro, A. M. Gollner, C. C. Santos, S. M. R. Vasconcelos, D. C. Machado, P. V. S. Souza…

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2(Suppl 1):12

    Published on: 14 June 2017

    This article is part of a Supplement: Volume 2 Supplement 1

  4. Research

    Mentored peer review of standardized manuscripts as a teaching tool for residents: a pilot randomized controlled multi-center study

    There is increasing need for peer reviewers as the scientific literature grows. Formal education in biostatistics and research methodology during residency training is lacking. In this pilot study, we addresse...

    Victoria S. S. Wong, Roy E. Strowd III, Rebeca Aragón-García, Yeseon Park Moon, Blair Ford, Sheryl R. Haut, Joseph S. Kass, Zachary N. London, MaryAnn Mays, Tracey A. Milligan, Raymond S. Price, Patrick S. Reynolds, Linda M. Selwa, David C. Spencer and Mitchell S. V. Elkind

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:6

    Published on: 5 June 2017

  5. Research

    Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey

    The annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and t...

    Anthony Bozzo, Kamal Bali, Nathan Evaniew and Michelle Ghert

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:5

    Published on: 12 May 2017

  6. Review

    What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review

    The foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there ...

    Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Michelle Allen and Adrian G. Barnett

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:4

    Published on: 5 May 2017

    The Erratum to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:7

  7. Commentary

    Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution

    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....

    Charles W. Fox, Arianne Y. K. Albert and Timothy H. Vines

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:3

    Published on: 8 March 2017

    The original article was published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:14

  8. Research

    The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research

    Multi-centre studies generally cost more than single-centre studies because of larger sample sizes and the need for multiple ethical approvals. Multi-centre studies include clinical trials, clinical quality re...

    Adrian G. Barnett, Megan J. Campbell, Carla Shield, Alison Farrington, Lisa Hall, Katie Page, Anne Gardner, Brett G. Mitchell and Nicholas Graves

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:16

    Published on: 7 December 2016

  9. Research

    Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity

    Codes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more importa...

    Lex M. Bouter, Joeri Tijdink, Nils Axelsen, Brian C. Martinson and Gerben ter Riet

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:17

    Published on: 21 November 2016

  10. Research

    Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals

    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.

    Arianne Y. K. Albert, Jennifer L. Gow, Alison Cobra and Timothy H. Vines

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:14

    Published on: 4 November 2016

    The Commentary to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:3

  11. Research

    Plagiarism in submitted manuscripts: incidence, characteristics and optimization of screening—case study in a major specialty medical journal

    Plagiarism is common and threatens the integrity of the scientific literature. However, its detection is time consuming and difficult, presenting challenges to editors and publishers who are entrusted with ens...

    Janet R. Higgins, Feng-Chang Lin and James P. Evans

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:13

    Published on: 10 October 2016

  12. Commentary

    Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews

    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...

    Jennifer A. Byrne

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:12

    Published on: 4 September 2016

  13. Meeting abstracts

    Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity

    I1 Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity

    Susan Patricia O’Brien, Danny Chan, Frederick Leung, Eun Jung Ko, Jin Sun Kwak, TaeHwan Gwon, Ji Min Lee, Min-Ho Lee, Helga Nolte, Michael Gommel, Gerlinde Sponholz, Yordanka Krastev, Yamini Sandiran, Julia Connell, Nicky Solomon, Ursa Opara Krasovec…

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1(Suppl 1):9

    Published on: 14 July 2016

    This article is part of a Supplement: Volume 1 Supplement 1

  14. Methodology

    Publishing descriptions of non-public clinical datasets: proposed guidance for researchers, repositories, editors and funding organisations

    Sharing of experimental clinical research data usually happens between individuals or research groups rather than via public repositories, in part due to the need to protect research participant privacy. This ...

    Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Varsha Khodiyar, Andrew L. Hufton and Susanna-Assunta Sansone

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:6

    Published on: 22 June 2016

  15. Methodology

    Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015

    Although the number of reporting guidelines has grown rapidly, few have gone through an updating process. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy), published in 2003 to help improve th...

    Daniël A. Korevaar, Jérémie F. Cohen, Johannes B. Reitsma, David E. Bruns, Constantine A. Gatsonis, Paul P. Glasziou, Les Irwig, David Moher, Henrica C. W. de Vet, Douglas G. Altman, Lotty Hooft and Patrick M. M. Bossuyt

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:7

    Published on: 7 June 2016

  16. Editorial

    A new forum for research on research integrity and peer review

    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...

    Stephanie L. Harriman, Maria K. Kowalczuk, Iveta Simera and Elizabeth Wager

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:5

    Published on: 3 May 2016

Previous Page Page 1 of 2 Next Page