Cargando…

Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively test two simplified peer review processes, estimate the agreement between the simplified and official processes, and compare the costs of peer review. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A prospective parallel study of Project Grant proposals submitted in 2013 to the Nation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Herbert, Danielle L, Graves, Nicholas, Clarke, Philip, Barnett, Adrian G
Formato:	Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:	English
Publicado:	BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:	Medical Publishing and Peer Review
Acceso en línea:	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4499682/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26137884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008380

Ejemplares similares

The impact of a streamlined funding application process on application time: two cross-sectional surveys of Australian researchers
por: Barnett, Adrian G, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Time to publication for publicly funded clinical trials in Australia: an observational study
por: Strand, Linn Beate, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Influence of external peer reviewer scores for funding applications on funding board decisions: a retrospective analysis of 1561 reviews
por: Sorrell, Lexy, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Editors’ perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research
por: Superchi, Cecilia, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Making headlines: an analysis of US government-funded cancer research mentioned in online media
por: Maggio, Lauren A, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

A retrospective analysis of the effect of discussion in teleconference and face-to-face scientific peer-review panels
por: Carpenter, Afton S, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Streamlined research funding using short proposals and accelerated peer review: an observational study
por: Barnett, Adrian G, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study
por: van Lent, Marlies, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women’s representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group
por: Pinho-Gomes, Ana-Catarina, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Peer Reviewed Evaluation of Registered End-Points of Randomised Trials (the PRE-REPORT study): a stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial
por: Jones, Christopher W, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials
por: Chauvin, Anthony, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial
por: Jones, Christopher W, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study
por: Rowhani-Farid, Anisa, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
por: Speich, Benjamin, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey
por: Cobey, Kelly D, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers
por: Herbert, Danielle L, et al.
Publicado: (2014)

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research
por: Blanco, David, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol
por: Blanco, David, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers
por: Price, Amy, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Training patients to review scientific reports for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: an observational study
por: Ivlev, Ilya, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Reporting of data on participant ethnicity and socioeconomic status in high-impact medical journals: a targeted literature review
por: Buttery, Sara C, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel
por: Graves, Nicholas, et al.
Publicado: (2011)

Peer reviewers
por: Wauson, Stephanie D.
Publicado: (2021)

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus
por: Bassler, Dirk, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Assessment of the extent of unpublished studies in prognostic factor research: a systematic review of p53 immunohistochemistry in bladder cancer as an example
por: Sekula, Peggy, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study
por: Barnett, Adrian G., et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis
por: Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Plagiarism in research: a survey of African medical journals
por: Rohwer, Anke, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Does a research article's country of origin affect perception of its quality and relevance? A national trial of US public health researchers
por: Harris, M, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Employing diffusion of innovation theory for ‘not missing the mass’ in community-engaged research
por: Turin, Tanvir C, et al.
Publicado: (2023)

Peer reviewers for JACEP Open
Publicado: (2020)

Peer Reviewers for 2021–2022
por: Wauson, Stephanie
Publicado: (2022)

Improving the evaluation of worldwide biomedical research output: classification method and standardised bibliometric indicators by disease
por: van de Laar, Lissy, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Reporting guidelines for health research: protocol for a cross-sectional analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library
por: Catalá-López, Ferrán, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers
por: Rohwer, Anke, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Thinker, Soldier, Scribe: cross-sectional study of researchers' roles and author order in the Annals of Internal Medicine
por: Perneger, Thomas V, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Performance curves of medical researchers during their career: analysis of scientific production from a retrospective cohort
por: Duclos, Antoine, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Cannot write session to /tmp/vufind_sessions/sess_illqol6ftivca22o8j8v1redso