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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nature ecology & evolution 2018-06, Vol.2 (6), p.929-935
Hauptverfasser: 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
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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