Problems with Peer Review Shine a Light on Gaps in Scientific Training.
作者信息
Proctor Diana M, Dada Nsa, Serquiña Anna, Willett Julia L E
机构信息
National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, Translational and Functional Genomics Branch, Microbial Genomics Section, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
出版信息
mBio. 2023 Jun 27;14(3):e0318322. doi: 10.1128/mbio.03183-22. Epub 2023 Apr 13.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Problems with Peer Review Shine a Light on Gaps in Scientific Training.
mBio. 2023 Jun 27;14(3):e0318322. doi: 10.1128/mbio.03183-22. Epub 2023 Apr 13.
2
A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Mar;68(3):257-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.024. Epub 2014 Nov 7.
3
Training patients to review scientific reports for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: an observational study.
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 20;9(9):e028732. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028732.
4
Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).
Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 17;2:41. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-41.
5
Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review?
J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2013 Dec;113(12):916-20. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2013.070.
6
Bridging the Otolaryngology Peer Review Knowledge Gap: A Call for a Residency Development Program.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Jul;155(1):6-7. doi: 10.1177/0194599816647927.
7
Research Methods: How to Perform an Effective Peer Review.
Hosp Pediatr. 2022 Nov 1;12(11):e409-e413. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2022-006764.
8
Peer review.
Bone Joint J. 2014 Apr;96-B(4):436-41. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.33041.
9
Specialist competencies in occupational medicine: appraisal of the peer-reviewed literature.
Occup Med (Lond). 2007 Aug;57(5):342-8. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqm023. Epub 2007 Jun 7.
10
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system.
BMC Med. 2014 Sep 26;12:179. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.
引用本文的文献
1
From novice to expert: preparing your peer review.
mBio. 2025 Jul 9;16(7):e0043025. doi: 10.1128/mbio.00430-25. Epub 2025 Jun 5.
2
Training the Gatekeepers of Research Integrity: Enhancing peer review and editorial Process excellence by simulated training programs.
Pak J Med Sci. 2025 May;41(5):1261-1263. doi: 10.12669/pjms.41.5.12262.
3
The changing roles of scientific journals.
mBio. 2024 Nov 13;15(11):e0251524. doi: 10.1128/mbio.02515-24. Epub 2024 Oct 4.
4
Methodological and Statistical Considerations for Cross-Sectional, Case-Control, and Cohort Studies.
J Clin Med. 2024 Jul 9;13(14):4005. doi: 10.3390/jcm13144005.
5
The Early-Career Editorial Board Reviewer Training Program: cultivating excellence in peer review.
mBio. 2024 Jul 17;15(7):e0176324. doi: 10.1128/mbio.01763-24. Epub 2024 Jun 14.
6
How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.
Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2024 Jun 4;9(3):e1266. doi: 10.1002/lio2.1266. eCollection 2024 Jun.
本文引用的文献
1
Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups.
Nat Ecol Evol. 2023 Apr;7(4):512-523. doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w. Epub 2023 Mar 13.
2
An Analysis of the Perceptions of Incivility in Higher Education.
J Acad Ethics. 2023;21(2):177-191. doi: 10.1007/s10805-022-09448-2. Epub 2022 Apr 9.
3
Women Are Underrepresented and Receive Differential Outcomes at ASM Journals: a Six-Year Retrospective Analysis.
mBio. 2020 Dec 1;11(6):e01680-20. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01680-20.
4
Journal editors' perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 13;10(8):e035600. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035600.
5
Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM.
PeerJ. 2019 Dec 12;7:e8247. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8247. eCollection 2019.
6
Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Apr;94(4):670-676. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004. Epub 2019 Feb 20.
7
Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency.
Nat Ecol Evol. 2018 Jun;2(6):929-935. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z. Epub 2018 May 22.
8
Mentored peer review of standardized manuscripts as a teaching tool for residents: a pilot randomized controlled multi-center study.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017 Jun 5;2:6. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0032-0. eCollection 2017.
9
The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.
BMC Med. 2015 Jul 3;13:158. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0395-3.
10
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?
J R Soc Med. 2008 Oct;101(10):507-14. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062.
Zotero 插件