Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency
Peer review is widely considered fundamental to maintaining the rigour of science, but it often fails to ensure transparency and reduce bias in published papers, and this systematically weakens the quality of published inferences. In part, this is because many reviewers are unaware of important ques...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Nature ecology & evolution 2018-06, Vol.2 (6), p.929-935 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 935 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 929 |
container_title | Nature ecology & evolution |
container_volume | 2 |
creator | Parker, Timothy H. Griffith, Simon C. Bronstein, Judith L. Fidler, Fiona Foster, Susan Fraser, Hannah Forstmeier, Wolfgang Gurevitch, Jessica Koricheva, Julia Seppelt, Ralf Tingley, Morgan W. Nakagawa, Shinichi |
description | Peer review is widely considered fundamental to maintaining the rigour of science, but it often fails to ensure transparency and reduce bias in published papers, and this systematically weakens the quality of published inferences. In part, this is because many reviewers are unaware of important questions to ask with respect to the soundness of the design and analyses, and the presentation of the methods and results; also some reviewers may expect others to be responsible for these tasks. We therefore present a reviewers’ checklist of ten questions that address these critical components. Checklists are commonly used by practitioners of other complex tasks, and we see great potential for the wider adoption of checklists for peer review, especially to reduce bias and facilitate transparency in published papers. We expect that such checklists will be well received by many reviewers.
A checklist is presented that can be used by peer reviewers for more effective and efficient assessment of research manuscripts. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2043169194</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2389674730</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-fa237d6a407c6fec065a23173235f956dccc89f977072259253dc59034e323793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMottQ-gBsZcONmNPdMllrqBQpuFNyFMXPGTp2bybSlfXpTpl4QXOVw-M6fnw-hU4IvCWbJledECB1jksRYcBFvD9CQMq1ixvjL4a95gMbeLzDGRCmhpTxGA6pVogVXQ3QzrdpmDa6o36IWwEUOVgWEhY_WRTeP0sjOwb6Xhe-iromKqnXNCqLOpbVvUwe13ZygozwtPYz37wg9306fJvfx7PHuYXI9i21o2sV5SpnKZMqxsjIHi6UIG6IYZSLXQmbW2kTnWimsKBWaCpZZoTHjEBCl2Qhd9LmhwscSfGeqwlsoy7SGZukNxZwRqYnmAT3_gy6apatDO0NZoqXiiuFAkZ6yrvHeQW5aV1Sp2xiCzc6x6R2b4NjsHJttuDnbJy9fK8i-L76MBoD2gG93UsH9fP1_6icrIIYH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2389674730</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Nature Journals Online</source><creator>Parker, Timothy H. ; Griffith, Simon C. ; Bronstein, Judith L. ; Fidler, Fiona ; Foster, Susan ; Fraser, Hannah ; Forstmeier, Wolfgang ; Gurevitch, Jessica ; Koricheva, Julia ; Seppelt, Ralf ; Tingley, Morgan W. ; Nakagawa, Shinichi</creator><creatorcontrib>Parker, Timothy H. ; Griffith, Simon C. ; Bronstein, Judith L. ; Fidler, Fiona ; Foster, Susan ; Fraser, Hannah ; Forstmeier, Wolfgang ; Gurevitch, Jessica ; Koricheva, Julia ; Seppelt, Ralf ; Tingley, Morgan W. ; Nakagawa, Shinichi</creatorcontrib><description>Peer review is widely considered fundamental to maintaining the rigour of science, but it often fails to ensure transparency and reduce bias in published papers, and this systematically weakens the quality of published inferences. In part, this is because many reviewers are unaware of important questions to ask with respect to the soundness of the design and analyses, and the presentation of the methods and results; also some reviewers may expect others to be responsible for these tasks. We therefore present a reviewers’ checklist of ten questions that address these critical components. Checklists are commonly used by practitioners of other complex tasks, and we see great potential for the wider adoption of checklists for peer review, especially to reduce bias and facilitate transparency in published papers. We expect that such checklists will be well received by many reviewers.
A checklist is presented that can be used by peer reviewers for more effective and efficient assessment of research manuscripts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2397-334X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2397-334X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29789547</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>631/158 ; 631/181 ; 706/648/479/429 ; Bias ; Biological and Physical Anthropology ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Check lists ; Critical components ; Ecology ; Evolutionary Biology ; Life Sciences ; Paleontology ; Peer review ; Perspective ; Questions ; Task complexity ; Transparency ; Zoology</subject><ispartof>Nature ecology & evolution, 2018-06, Vol.2 (6), p.929-935</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2018.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-fa237d6a407c6fec065a23173235f956dccc89f977072259253dc59034e323793</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-fa237d6a407c6fec065a23173235f956dccc89f977072259253dc59034e323793</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7765-5182 ; 0000-0003-2995-5284 ; 0000-0003-0157-4332 ; 0000-0001-7612-4999 ; 0000-0002-2723-7150 ; 0000-0002-5984-8925</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29789547$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parker, Timothy H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffith, Simon C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bronstein, Judith L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fidler, Fiona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forstmeier, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gurevitch, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koricheva, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seppelt, Ralf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tingley, Morgan W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakagawa, Shinichi</creatorcontrib><title>Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency</title><title>Nature ecology & evolution</title><addtitle>Nat Ecol Evol</addtitle><addtitle>Nat Ecol Evol</addtitle><description>Peer review is widely considered fundamental to maintaining the rigour of science, but it often fails to ensure transparency and reduce bias in published papers, and this systematically weakens the quality of published inferences. In part, this is because many reviewers are unaware of important questions to ask with respect to the soundness of the design and analyses, and the presentation of the methods and results; also some reviewers may expect others to be responsible for these tasks. We therefore present a reviewers’ checklist of ten questions that address these critical components. Checklists are commonly used by practitioners of other complex tasks, and we see great potential for the wider adoption of checklists for peer review, especially to reduce bias and facilitate transparency in published papers. We expect that such checklists will be well received by many reviewers.
A checklist is presented that can be used by peer reviewers for more effective and efficient assessment of research manuscripts.</description><subject>631/158</subject><subject>631/181</subject><subject>706/648/479/429</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biological and Physical Anthropology</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Check lists</subject><subject>Critical components</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Evolutionary Biology</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Paleontology</subject><subject>Peer review</subject><subject>Perspective</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>Task complexity</subject><subject>Transparency</subject><subject>Zoology</subject><issn>2397-334X</issn><issn>2397-334X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMottQ-gBsZcONmNPdMllrqBQpuFNyFMXPGTp2bybSlfXpTpl4QXOVw-M6fnw-hU4IvCWbJledECB1jksRYcBFvD9CQMq1ixvjL4a95gMbeLzDGRCmhpTxGA6pVogVXQ3QzrdpmDa6o36IWwEUOVgWEhY_WRTeP0sjOwb6Xhe-iromKqnXNCqLOpbVvUwe13ZygozwtPYz37wg9306fJvfx7PHuYXI9i21o2sV5SpnKZMqxsjIHi6UIG6IYZSLXQmbW2kTnWimsKBWaCpZZoTHjEBCl2Qhd9LmhwscSfGeqwlsoy7SGZukNxZwRqYnmAT3_gy6apatDO0NZoqXiiuFAkZ6yrvHeQW5aV1Sp2xiCzc6x6R2b4NjsHJttuDnbJy9fK8i-L76MBoD2gG93UsH9fP1_6icrIIYH</recordid><startdate>20180601</startdate><enddate>20180601</enddate><creator>Parker, Timothy H.</creator><creator>Griffith, Simon C.</creator><creator>Bronstein, Judith L.</creator><creator>Fidler, Fiona</creator><creator>Foster, Susan</creator><creator>Fraser, Hannah</creator><creator>Forstmeier, Wolfgang</creator><creator>Gurevitch, Jessica</creator><creator>Koricheva, Julia</creator><creator>Seppelt, Ralf</creator><creator>Tingley, Morgan W.</creator><creator>Nakagawa, Shinichi</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7765-5182</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2995-5284</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-4332</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7612-4999</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2723-7150</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5984-8925</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180601</creationdate><title>Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency</title><author>Parker, Timothy H. ; Griffith, Simon C. ; Bronstein, Judith L. ; Fidler, Fiona ; Foster, Susan ; Fraser, Hannah ; Forstmeier, Wolfgang ; Gurevitch, Jessica ; Koricheva, Julia ; Seppelt, Ralf ; Tingley, Morgan W. ; Nakagawa, Shinichi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-fa237d6a407c6fec065a23173235f956dccc89f977072259253dc59034e323793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>631/158</topic><topic>631/181</topic><topic>706/648/479/429</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biological and Physical Anthropology</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Check lists</topic><topic>Critical components</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Evolutionary Biology</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Paleontology</topic><topic>Peer review</topic><topic>Perspective</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>Task complexity</topic><topic>Transparency</topic><topic>Zoology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parker, Timothy H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffith, Simon C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bronstein, Judith L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fidler, Fiona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forstmeier, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gurevitch, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koricheva, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seppelt, Ralf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tingley, Morgan W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakagawa, Shinichi</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Nature ecology & evolution</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parker, Timothy H.</au><au>Griffith, Simon C.</au><au>Bronstein, Judith L.</au><au>Fidler, Fiona</au><au>Foster, Susan</au><au>Fraser, Hannah</au><au>Forstmeier, Wolfgang</au><au>Gurevitch, Jessica</au><au>Koricheva, Julia</au><au>Seppelt, Ralf</au><au>Tingley, Morgan W.</au><au>Nakagawa, Shinichi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency</atitle><jtitle>Nature ecology & evolution</jtitle><stitle>Nat Ecol Evol</stitle><addtitle>Nat Ecol Evol</addtitle><date>2018-06-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>2</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>929</spage><epage>935</epage><pages>929-935</pages><issn>2397-334X</issn><eissn>2397-334X</eissn><abstract>Peer review is widely considered fundamental to maintaining the rigour of science, but it often fails to ensure transparency and reduce bias in published papers, and this systematically weakens the quality of published inferences. In part, this is because many reviewers are unaware of important questions to ask with respect to the soundness of the design and analyses, and the presentation of the methods and results; also some reviewers may expect others to be responsible for these tasks. We therefore present a reviewers’ checklist of ten questions that address these critical components. Checklists are commonly used by practitioners of other complex tasks, and we see great potential for the wider adoption of checklists for peer review, especially to reduce bias and facilitate transparency in published papers. We expect that such checklists will be well received by many reviewers.
A checklist is presented that can be used by peer reviewers for more effective and efficient assessment of research manuscripts.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>29789547</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7765-5182</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2995-5284</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-4332</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7612-4999</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2723-7150</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5984-8925</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2397-334X |
ispartof | Nature ecology & evolution, 2018-06, Vol.2 (6), p.929-935 |
issn | 2397-334X 2397-334X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2043169194 |
source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Nature Journals Online |
subjects | 631/158 631/181 706/648/479/429 Bias Biological and Physical Anthropology Biomedical and Life Sciences Check lists Critical components Ecology Evolutionary Biology Life Sciences Paleontology Peer review Perspective Questions Task complexity Transparency Zoology |
title | Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T11%3A03%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Empowering%20peer%20reviewers%20with%20a%20checklist%20to%20improve%20transparency&rft.jtitle=Nature%20ecology%20&%20evolution&rft.au=Parker,%20Timothy%20H.&rft.date=2018-06-01&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=929&rft.epage=935&rft.pages=929-935&rft.issn=2397-334X&rft.eissn=2397-334X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2389674730%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2389674730&rft_id=info:pmid/29789547&rfr_iscdi=true |