07:00 EST 1st December 2019 | BioPortfolio

Summary of "Reviewers."

No Summary Available


Journal Details

This article was published in the following journal.

Name: Neuropathology : official journal of the Japanese Society of Neuropathology
ISSN: 1440-1789
Pages: 492


DeepDyve research library

PubMed Articles [164 Associated PubMed Articles listed on BioPortfolio]

A Shorter Invitation Period for Manuscript Reviewers: Impact on Time to Completion of Reviews.

The objective of this article was to study the effect of decreasing the time allowed an () reviewer to consider an invitation to review on time for two invitees to accept an invitation and time for b...

Training patients to review scientific reports for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: an observational study.

The peer review of completed Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded research includes reviews from patient reviewers (patients, caregivers, and patient advocates). Very little is ...

The Value of a Second Reviewer for Study Selection in Systematic Reviews.

Although dual independent review of search results by two reviewers is generally recommended for systematic reviews, there are not consistent recommendations regarding the timing of the use of the sec...

Performance of a Deep Learning Model vs Human Reviewers in Grading Endoscopic Disease Severity of Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.

Assessing endoscopic disease severity in ulcerative colitis (UC) is a key element in determining therapeutic response, but its use in clinical practice is limited by the requirement for experienced hu...

Mixed methods grant applications in the health sciences: An analysis of reviewer comments.

Our aim was to understand how reviewers appraise mixed methods research by analyzing reviewer comments for grant applications submitted primarily to the National Institutes of Health. We requested sch...

Clinical Trials [17 Associated Clinical Trials listed on BioPortfolio]

Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts

Manuscripts submitted to medical journals are typically reviewed by physicians or researchers, with no input from patients or other community members. However, involvement of community mem...

Web-based Tool to Improve the Assessment of Reporting (COBPeer)

The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research publication. Despite being essential, the assessment of the completeness of the reporting and the identification of switched...

Testing for the Presence of Authorship Bias in Peer Review

No consensus exists among biomedical journals on the subject of blinding during the peer review process. Some journals attempt to remove all identifiers of authorship from potential manusc...

Efficacy of 1540 Nanometer Erbium Glass Laser to Improve Benign Dermatofibromas

This study is to find a more effective treatment for itchy, painful or unsightly dermatofibromas, that will improve symptoms of itch and/or pain and/or improve the appearance of dermatofib...

Trends and Outcomes in Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Retrospective cohort study used to analyze trends in minimally invasive versus open surgery in colorectal surgery, over time, in outcome in the laparoscopic, robotic and open surgery group...

Medical and Biotech [MESH] Definitions

The influence of study results on the chances of publication and the tendency of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings. Publication bias has an impact on the interpretation of clinical trials and meta-analyses. Bias can be minimized by insistence by editors on high-quality research, thorough literature reviews, acknowledgement of conflicts of interest, modification of peer review practices, etc.

Quick Search

DeepDyve research library

Searches Linking to this Article