FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2896476816> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2896476816 abstract "We aimed to determine the best study designs for assessing interventions to improve the peer review process according to experts’ opinions. Furthermore, for interventions previously evaluated, we determined whether the study designs actually used were rated as the best study designs. Study design: A series of six vignette-based surveys exploring the best study designs for six different interventions (training peer reviewers, adding an expert to the peer review process, use of reporting guidelines checklists, blinding peer reviewers to the results (i.e., results-free peer review), giving incentives to peer reviewers, and post-publication peer review). Vignette construction: Vignettes were case scenarios of trials assessing interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review. For each intervention, the vignette included the study type (e.g., randomized controlled trial [RCT]), setting (e.g., single biomedical journal), and type of manuscript assessed (e.g., actual manuscripts received by the journal); each of these three features varied between vignettes. Participants: Researchers with expertise in peer review or methodology of clinical trials. Outcome: Participants were proposed two vignettes describing two different study designs to assess the same intervention and had to indicate which study design they preferred on a scale, from − 5 (preference for study A) to 5 (preference for study B), 0 indicating no preference between the suggested designs (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were trust in the results and feasibility of the designs. A total of 204 experts assessed 1044 paired comparisons. The preferred study type was RCTs with randomization of manuscripts for four interventions (adding an expert, use of reporting guidelines checklist, results-free peer review, post-publication peer review) and RCTs with randomization of peer reviewers for two interventions (training peer reviewers and using incentives). The preferred setting was mainly several biomedical journals from different publishers, and the preferred type of manuscript was actual manuscripts submitted to journals. However, the most feasible designs were often cluster RCTs and interrupted time series analysis set in a single biomedical journal, with the assessment of a fabricated manuscript. Three interventions were previously assessed: none used the design rated first in preference by experts. The vignette-based survey allowed us to identify the best study designs for assessing different interventions to improve peer review according to experts’ opinion. There is gap between the preferred study designs and the designs actually used." @default.
• W2896476816 created "2018-10-26" @default.
• W2896476816 creator A5034097548 @default.
• W2896476816 creator A5050382178 @default.
• W2896476816 creator A5065028933 @default.
• W2896476816 creator A5078390860 @default.
• W2896476816 date "2018-10-15" @default.
• W2896476816 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2896476816 title "Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey" @default.
• W2896476816 cites W1508724808 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W1578561495 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W1953064436 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W1966202760 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2003913001 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2005295476 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2007447514 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2014322315 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2038579646 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2043169285 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2080763654 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2088151626 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2092223610 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2121904649 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2144592668 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2164136002 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2165549414 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2413426462 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W2604669265 @default.
• W2896476816 cites W4245876183 @default.
• W2896476816 doi "https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1167-7" @default.
• W2896476816 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6192007" @default.
• W2896476816 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30318018" @default.
• W2896476816 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2896476816 type Work @default.
• W2896476816 sameAs 2896476816 @default.
• W2896476816 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W2896476816 countsByYear W28964768162019 @default.
• W2896476816 countsByYear W28964768162020 @default.
• W2896476816 countsByYear W28964768162021 @default.
• W2896476816 countsByYear W28964768162022 @default.
• W2896476816 countsByYear W28964768162023 @default.
• W2896476816 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2896476816 hasAuthorship W2896476816A5034097548 @default.
• W2896476816 hasAuthorship W2896476816A5050382178 @default.
• W2896476816 hasAuthorship W2896476816A5065028933 @default.
• W2896476816 hasAuthorship W2896476816A5078390860 @default.
• W2896476816 hasBestOaLocation W28964768161 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C138368954 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C148482608 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C27415008 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C2771230 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C2779318504 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C2780665704 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConcept C9719361 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C138368954 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C141071460 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C142724271 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C144024400 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C148482608 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C15744967 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C159110408 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C168563851 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C17744445 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C189708586 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C199539241 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C27415008 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C2771230 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C2779318504 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C2779473830 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C2780665704 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C36289849 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C509550671 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C512399662 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C535046627 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C71924100 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C77805123 @default.
• W2896476816 hasConceptScore W2896476816C9719361 @default.
• W2896476816 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2896476816 hasLocation W28964768161 @default.
• W2896476816 hasLocation W28964768162 @default.
• W2896476816 hasLocation W28964768163 @default.
• W2896476816 hasLocation W28964768164 @default.
• W2896476816 hasLocation W28964768165 @default.
• W2896476816 hasLocation W28964768166 @default.

• next