Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior
暂无分享,去创建一个
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva | Aceil Al-Khatib | Judit Dobránszki | J. A. T. Silva | J. Dobránszki | Aceil Al-Khatib
[1] Lijing L. Yan,et al. Research Misconduct in Low- and Middle-Income Countries , 2013, PLoS medicine.
[2] Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva. The Importance of the Anonymous Voice in Postpublication Peer Review , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[3] Adam Marcus,et al. Publishing: The peer-review scam , 2014, Nature.
[4] Sandra L. Titus,et al. Stop ignoring misconduct , 2016, Nature.
[5] Jörg B Schulz,et al. The impact of fraudulent and irreproducible data to the translational research crisis – solutions and implementation , 2016, Journal of neurochemistry.
[6] Chris I. Baker,et al. Toward a New Model of Scientific Publishing: Discussion and a Proposal , 2011, Front. Comput. Neurosci..
[7] Philip F Stahel,et al. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system , 2014, BMC Medicine.
[8] Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva,et al. A PPPR Road-map for the Plant Sciences: Cementing a Road-worthy Action Plan , 2015 .
[9] Nikolaus Kriegeskorte,et al. An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing , 2012, Front. Comput. Neurosci..
[10] Chris Tachibana. A Scientist's Guide To Social Media , 2014 .
[11] Jigisha Patel,et al. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials , 2014, BMC Medicine.
[12] Edward F. Gehringer,et al. Automatic Quality Assessment for Peer Reviews of Student Work , 2012 .
[13] Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva,et al. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers? , 2018, Sci. Eng. Ethics.
[14] David B. Allison,et al. Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors , 2016, Nature.
[15] Judit Dobránszki,et al. Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review , 2015, Accountability in research.
[16] Peer review: from recognition to improved practices. , 2016, FEMS microbiology letters.
[17] D. Fanelli. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data , 2009, PloS one.
[18] Richard Walker,et al. Emerging trends in peer review—a survey , 2015, Front. Neurosci..
[19] Paul Knoepfler,et al. Reviewing post-publication peer review. , 2015, Trends in genetics : TIG.
[20] J. A. T. Silva,et al. The Role of the Anonymous Voice in Post-Publication Peer Review Versus Traditional Peer Review , 2015 .
[21] Judit Dobránszki,et al. Potential Dangers with Open Access Data Files in the Expanding Open Data Movement , 2015 .
[22] Karim Khan. Is open peer review the fairest system? No , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[23] David W. Galbraith,et al. Redrawing the frontiers in the age of post-publication review , 2015, Front. Genet..
[24] Jane Hunter,et al. Post-Publication Peer Review: Opening Up Scientific Conversation , 2012, Front. Comput. Neurosci..
[25] Christopher J. Lee. Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network , 2011, Front. Comput. Neurosci..
[26] P. Alguire,et al. A review of journal clubs in postgraduate medical education , 1998, Journal of General Internal Medicine.
[27] Bradley M. Hemminger,et al. Decoupling the scholarly journal , 2011, Front. Comput. Neurosci..
[28] Neuroskeptic. Anonymity in science , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[29] Michael Markie,et al. Post-publication peer review, in all its guises, is here to stay , 2015 .
[30] Philip E. Bourne,et al. Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..
[31] J. A. T. Silva. The Militarization of Science, and Subsequent Criminalization of Scientists , 2016 .
[32] Michael R. Blatt,et al. Does the Anonymous Voice Have a Place in Scholarly Publishing?[OPEN] , 2016, Plant Physiology.
[33] Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva,et al. Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and Context , 2016, Science and Engineering Ethics.
[34] Michael Haugh. Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction , 2013 .
[35] L. Hausmann,et al. The challenges for scientific publishing, 60 years on , 2016, Journal of neurochemistry.
[36] J. A. T. Silva. An Error is an Error… is an Erratum: The Ethics of not Correcting Errors in the Science Literature , 2016 .
[37] Armen Yuri Gasparyan,et al. Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers , 2016, Journal of Korean medical science.
[38] H. Bastian,et al. A Stronger Post-Publication Culture Is Needed for Better Science , 2014, PLoS medicine.
[39] M. Jawaid,et al. Journal clubs: an important teaching tool for postgraduates. , 2009, Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP.
[40] Razvan V. Florian. Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings , 2012, Front. Comput. Neurosci..
[41] N. Cofnas. Science Is Not Always “Self-Correcting” , 2016 .
[42] J. Ioannidis. Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
[43] L. Trinquart,et al. The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise , 2016, PloS one.
[44] J. A. T. Silva,et al. Editorial Responsibilities: Both Sides of the Coin , 2016 .
[45] J. A. T. Silva. Vigilantism in Science: The Need and the Risks , 2016 .