Advertisement
Commentary
Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research ...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:14
Published on: 18 August 2017
Commentary
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:13
Published on: 1 August 2017
Research
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...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:8
Published on: 16 July 2017
Methodology
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...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:9
Published on: 1 July 2017
Research
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.
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:11
Published on: 29 June 2017
Meeting Abstracts
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
Research
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...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:6
Published on: 5 June 2017
Research
An editorial expression of concern (EEoC) is issued by editors or publishers to draw attention to potential problems in a publication, without itself constituting a retraction or correction.
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:10
Published on: 27 May 2017
Erratum
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:7
Published on: 23 May 2017
The original article was published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:4
Research
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...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:5
Published on: 12 May 2017
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 ...
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
Commentary
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....
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
Commentary
The question of covert text recycling from previous publications is discussed. It is argued that, consistent with current guidance, authors may be allowed to covertly recycle a limited amount of their previous...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:2
Published on: 16 February 2017
Commentary
The past few years have seen a steady rise in the number of health science journals using plagiarism detection software to screen submitted manuscripts. While there is widespread agreement about the need to gu...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:1
Published on: 16 February 2017
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...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:16
Published on: 7 December 2016
Research
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...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:17
Published on: 21 November 2016
Research
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.
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
Commentary
We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Adviso...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:15
Published on: 17 October 2016
Research
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...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:13
Published on: 10 October 2016
Commentary
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...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:12
Published on: 4 September 2016
Research
Many journals prohibit the use of declarative titles that state study findings, yet a few journals encourage or even require them. We compared the effects of a declarative versus a descriptive title on readers...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:11
Published on: 4 August 2016
Research
To limit selective and incomplete publication of the results of clinical trials, registries including ClinicalTrials.gov were introduced. The ClinicalTrials.gov registry added a results database in 2008 to ena...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:10
Published on: 18 July 2016
Meeting abstracts
I1 Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity
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
Erratum
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:8
Published on: 24 June 2016
The original article was published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:2
Methodology
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 ...
Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:6
Published on: 22 June 2016
