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

    Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles

    Deciphering the amount of work provided by different co-authors of a scientific paper has been a recurrent problem in science. Despite the myriad of metrics available, the scientific community still largely re...

    Stéphane Boyer, Takayoshi Ikeda, Marie-Caroline Lefort, Jagoba Malumbres-Olarte and Jason M. Schmidt

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:18

    Published on: 3 November 2017

  2. Research

    Selective citation in the literature on swimming in chlorinated water and childhood asthma: a network analysis

    Knowledge development depends on an unbiased representation of the available evidence. Selective citation may distort this representation. Recently, some controversy emerged regarding the possible impact of sw...

    Bram Duyx, Miriam J. E. Urlings, Gerard M. H. Swaen, Lex M. Bouter and Maurice P. Zeegers

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:17

    Published on: 2 October 2017

  3. Research

    Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study

    Winning funding for health and medical research usually involves a lengthy application process. With success rates under 20%, much of the time spent by 80% of applicants could have been better used on actual r...

    Adrian G. Barnett, Philip Clarke, Cedryck Vaquette and Nicholas Graves

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:16

    Published on: 15 September 2017

  4. Research

    Reporting of sex and gender in randomized controlled trials in Canada: a cross-sectional methods study

    Accurate reporting on sex and gender in health research is integral to ensuring that health interventions are safe and effective. In Canada and internationally, governments, research organizations, journal edi...

    V. Welch, M. Doull, M. Yoganathan, J. Jull, M. Boscoe, S. E. Coen, Z. Marshall, J. Pardo Pardo, A. Pederson, J. Petkovic, L. Puil, L. Quinlan, B. Shea, T. Rader, V. Runnels and S. Tudiver

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:15

    Published on: 1 September 2017

  5. Commentary

    Improving the process of research ethics review

    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 ...

    Stacey A. Page and Jeffrey Nyeboer

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:14

    Published on: 18 August 2017

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

Previous Page Page 1 of 2 Next Page