Skip to main content

Articles

Page 1 of 3

  1. 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
  2. Structured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to suppor...

    Authors: William T. Gattrell, Amrit Pali Hungin, Amy Price, Christopher C. Winchester, David Tovey, Ellen L. Hughes, Esther J. van Zuuren, Keith Goldman, Patricia Logullo, Robert Matheis and Niall Harrison
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2022 7:3
  3. Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventi...

    Authors: Alejandra Recio-Saucedo, Ksenia Crane, Katie Meadmore, Kathryn Fackrell, Hazel Church, Simon Fraser and Amanda Blatch-Jones
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2022 7:2
  4. The demand for peer reviewers is often perceived as disproportionate to the supply and availability of reviewers. Considering characteristics associated with peer review behaviour can allow for the development...

    Authors: Danielle B. Rice, Ba’ Pham, Justin Presseau, Andrea C. Tricco and David Moher
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2022 7:1

    The Correction to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2022 7:5

  5. 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
  6. The current paper follows up on the results of an exploratory quantitative analysis that compared the publication and citation records of men and women researchers affiliated with the Faculty of Computing and ...

    Authors: Mohammad Hosseini and Shiva Sharifzad
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:15
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Australian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian ...

    Authors: Joanna Diong, Cynthia M. Kroeger, Katherine J. Reynolds, Adrian Barnett and Lisa A. Bero
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:11
  10. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have ado...

    Authors: Evan Mayo-Wilson, Sean Grant, Lauren Supplee, Sina Kianersi, Afsah Amin, Alex DeHaven and David Mellor
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:9
  11. Healthcare professionals are exposed to advertisements for prescription drugs in medical journals. Such advertisements may increase prescriptions of new drugs at the expense of older treatments even when they ...

    Authors: Kim Boesen, Anders Lykkemark Simonsen, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen and Peter C. Gøtzsche
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:8

    The Correction to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:10

  12. Concerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climat...

    Authors: Tamarinde Haven, Joeri Tijdink, Brian Martinson, Lex Bouter and Frans Oort
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:7
  13. A proposal to encourage the preregistration of research on research integrity was developed and adopted as the Amsterdam Agenda at the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity (Amsterdam, 2017). This paper r...

    Authors: Klaas Sijtsma, Wilco H. M. Emons, Nicholas H. Steneck and Lex M. Bouter
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:5
  14. 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
  15. Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include th...

    Authors: Noémie Aubert Bonn and Wim Pinxten
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:3
  16. Success shapes the lives and careers of scientists. But success in science is difficult to define, let alone to translate in indicators that can be used for assessment. In the past few years, several groups ex...

    Authors: Noémie Aubert Bonn and Wim Pinxten
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:1
  17. Research on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been el...

    Authors: Michael Kalichman
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:17
  18. Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily mea...

    Authors: Clarissa F. D. Carneiro, Victor G. S. Queiroz, Thiago C. Moulin, Carlos A. M. Carvalho, Clarissa B. Haas, Danielle Rayêe, David E. Henshall, Evandro A. De-Souza, Felippe E. Amorim, Flávia Z. Boos, Gerson D. Guercio, Igor R. Costa, Karina L. Hajdu, Lieve van Egmond, Martin Modrák, Pedro B. Tan…
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:16
  19. 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
  20. The rigor and integrity of the published research in nutrition studies has come into serious question in recent years. Concerns focus on the use of flexible data analysis practices and selective reporting and ...

    Authors: Dennis M. Gorman and Alva O. Ferdinand
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:12
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. The trend toward open science increases the pressure on authors to provide access to the source code and data they used to compute the results reported in their scientific papers. Since sharing materials repro...

    Authors: Markus Konkol, Daniel Nüst and Laura Goulier
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:10
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do n...

    Authors: Pauline A. J. Steegmans, Nicola Di Girolamo and Reint A. Meursinge Reynders
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:27
  30. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides access to unreleased government records that can be used to enhance the transparency and integrity of biomedical research. We characterized FOIA requests to Depar...

    Authors: Alexander C. Egilman, Joshua D. Wallach, Christopher J. Morten, Peter Lurie and Joseph S. Ross
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:26
  31. There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from n...

    Authors: Tamarinde L. Haven, Joeri K. Tijdink, H. Roeline Pasman, Guy Widdershoven, Gerben ter Riet and Lex M. Bouter
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:25
  32. 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
  33. We provide additional information relevant to our previous publication on the quality of reports of investigations of research integrity by academic institutions. Despite concerns being raised about ethical ov...

    Authors: Andrew Grey, Mark Bolland and Alison Avenell
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:22
  34. Numerous recommendations and guidelines aim to improve the quality, timeliness and transparency of medical publications. However, these guidelines use ambiguous language that can be challenging to interpret, p...

    Authors: Blair R. Hesp, Katsuhisa Arai, Magdalene Y. S. Chu, Stefanie Chuah, Jose Miguel B. Curameng, Sandeep Kamat, Zhigang Ma, Andrew Sakko and Hazel Fernandez
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:21
  35. 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
  36. Both scientists and society at large have rightfully become increasingly concerned about research integrity in recent decades. In response, codes of conduct for research have been developed and elaborated. We ...

    Authors: Rik Peels, Jeroen de Ridder, Tamarinde Haven and Lex Bouter
    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:18
  37. 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