Articles

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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Research

    Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature

    In about one in 10,000 cases, a published article is retracted. This very often means that the results it reports are flawed. Several authors have voiced concerns about the presence of retracted research in th...

    Paul E. van der Vet and Harm Nijveen

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:3

    Published on: 3 May 2016

  11. Review

    Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency

    Conflicts of interest held by researchers remain a focus of attention in clinical research. Biases related to these relationships have the potential to directly impact the quality of healthcare by influencing ...

    Adam G. Dunn, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D. Mandl and Florence T. Bourgeois

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:1

    Published on: 3 May 2016

  12. Methodology

    Developing the Clarity and Openness in Reporting: E3-based (CORE) Reference user manual for creation of clinical study reports in the era of clinical trial transparency

    Interventional clinical studies conducted in the regulated drug research environment are reported using International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) regulatory guidance documents: ICH E3 on the structure and ...

    Samina Hamilton, Aaron B. Bernstein, Graham Blakey, Vivien Fagan, Tracy Farrow, Debbie Jordan, Walther Seiler, Anna Shannon and Art Gertel

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:4

    Published on: 3 May 2016

  13. Review

    Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use

    Sex and gender differences are often overlooked in research design, study implementation and scientific reporting, as well as in general science communication. This oversight limits the generalizability of res...

    Shirin Heidari, Thomas F. Babor, Paola De Castro, Sera Tort and Mirjam Curno

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:2

    Published on: 3 May 2016

    The Erratum to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:8

Previous Page Page 1 of 1 Next Page