Compensation and Accountability: The Way to Improve Peer Review

Hershey, Nathan

doi:10.1177/106286069200700104

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some respondents have suggested that if reviewers and/or editors were monetarily compensated, spending time to reproduce the computational experiments in manuscripts would become more feasible and would aid the irreproducibility issue. However, paying reviewers does not necessarily ensure that they would be more diligent in checking or trying to reproduce results (Hershey, 1992) and there must be optimal ways to ensure effective pressure is placed upon the authors and publishing journals to have better publication standards (Anon, 2013;Pusztai et al, 2013). The increasing adoption by journals of reporting standards for experimental design and results, provide a framework for harmonising the description of scientific processes to enable reproducibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and Attitudes Among Life Scientists Toward Reproducibility Within Journal Articles: A Research Survey

Samota

Davey

2021

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We constructed a survey to understand how authors and scientists view the issues around reproducibility, focusing on interactive elements such as interactive figures embedded within online publications, as a solution for enabling the reproducibility of experiments. We report the views of 251 researchers, comprising authors who have published in eLIFE Sciences, and those who work at the Norwich Biosciences Institutes (NBI). The survey also outlines to what extent researchers are occupied with reproducing experiments themselves. Currently, there is an increasing range of tools that attempt to address the production of reproducible research by making code, data, and analyses available to the community for reuse. We wanted to collect information about attitudes around the consumer end of the spectrum, where life scientists interact with research outputs to interpret scientific results. Static plots and figures within articles are a central part of this interpretation, and therefore we asked respondents to consider various features for an interactive figure within a research article that would allow them to better understand and reproduce a published analysis. The majority (91%) of respondents reported that when authors describe their research methodology (methods and analyses) in detail, published research can become more reproducible. The respondents believe that having interactive figures in published papers is a beneficial element to themselves, the papers they read as well as to their readers. Whilst interactive figures are one potential solution for consuming the results of research more effectively to enable reproducibility, we also review the equally pressing technical and cultural demands on researchers that need to be addressed to achieve greater success in reproducibility in the life sciences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and Attitudes Among Life Scientists Toward Reproducibility Within Journal Articles: A Research Survey

Samota

Davey

2021

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some respondents have suggested that if reviewers and/or editors were monetarily compensated, spending time to reproduce the computational experiments in manuscripts would become more feasible, and would aid the irreproducibility issue. However, paying reviewers does not necessarily ensure that they would be more diligent in checking or trying to reproduce results [102] and there must be optimal ways to ensure effective pressure is placed upon the authors and publishing journals to have better publication standards [103,104]. The increasing adoption by journals of reporting standards for experimental design and results, provide a framework for harmonising the description of scientific processes to enable reproducibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and attitudes among life scientists towards reproducibility within journal articles: a research survey

Samota

Davey

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We constructed a survey to understand how authors and scientists view the issues around reproducibility, and how solutions such as interactive figures could enable the reproducibility of experiments from within a research article. This manuscript reports the results of this survey on the views of 251 researchers, including authors who have published in eLIFE Sciences, and those who work at the Norwich Biosciences Institutes (NBI). The survey also outlines to what extent researchers are occupied with reproducing experiments themselves and what are their desirable features of an interactive figure. Respondents considered various features for an interactive figure within a research article that would allow for them to better understand and reproduce in situ the experiment presented in the figure. Respondents said that the most important element that would enable the better reproducibility of published research would be that authors describe methods and analyses in detail.The respondents believe that having an interactive figures in published papers is a beneficial element.Whilst interactive figures are potential solutions for demonstrating technical reproducibility, we find that there are equally pressing cultural demands on researchers that need to be addressed to achieve greater success in reproducibility in the life sciences .

show abstract

“…Rural hospitals, which had lower action reporting than urban hospitals, may be most likely to experience some of the barriers to effective peer review (eg, difficulty objectively evaluating a peer with whom the reviewer has close personal or professional ties or an economic relationship). 12,[27][28][29][30] In addition, rural hospitals may allocate fewer resources than urban facilities to peer review. Alternately, rural hospitals may have provided higher-quality care.…”

Section: Low Level Of Detection Of Physicians With Performance Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hospital Peer Review and the National Practitioner Data Bank

Baldwin

Hart

Oshel

et al. 1999

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Compensation and Accountability: The Way to Improve Peer Review

Abstract: This article discusses reasons for the failure of peer review in health care today, possible review options, and the effects of one option—compensation—on those common review problems.

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

Knowledge and Attitudes Among Life Scientists Toward Reproducibility Within Journal Articles: A Research Survey

Knowledge and Attitudes Among Life Scientists Toward Reproducibility Within Journal Articles: A Research Survey

Knowledge and attitudes among life scientists towards reproducibility within journal articles: a research survey

Hospital Peer Review and the National Practitioner Data Bank

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About