SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Impact of peer review on discussion of study limitations and strength of claims in randomized trial reports: a before and after study
8 references·1 citing·40 second hop
Impact of peer review on discussion of study limitations and strength of claims in randomized trial reports: a before and after study (2019)Impact of peer review on discussion of st…‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review (2017)‘Spin’ in published biomedica…Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity (2016)Ranking major and minor resea…All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies (2013)All That Glitters Isn't Gold:…Implementation of a Journal Peer Reviewer Stratification System Based on Quality and Reliability (2010)Implementation of a Journal P…The Hidden Research Paper (2002)The Hidden Research PaperHedging in scientific research articles. By Ken Hyland. (Pragmatics and beyond 54.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998. Pp. x, 307. (1999)Hedging in scientific researc…Hedging in Scientific Research Articles (1998)Hedging in Scientific Researc…Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)Manuscript Quality before and…Limitations in Medical Research: Recognition, Influence, and Warning (2024)Limitations in Medical Resear…Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals (1988)The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation (1990)Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists (1995)The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Compliance With Standards for STARD 2015 Reporting Recommendations in Pathology (2020)Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1998)Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts (1999)Effect of Written Feedback by Editors on Quality of Reviews (2002)Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial (2012)Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review (2014)Are Reviewers’ Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports (2015)Science in Action (1987)When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable (1997)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication (2002)How to Write a Research Paper (2004)Consistency in the Analysis and Reporting of Primary End Points in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials From Registration to Publication: A Systematic Review (2011)Scientists behaving badly (2005)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)The natural selection of bad science (2016)Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers (2017)Testing of Support Tools for Plagiarism Detection (2019)Citation bias and other determinants of citation in biomedical research: findings from six citation networks (2020)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers (2018)Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models (2023)CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials (2025)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles (2001)Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers (2007)An Academic Formulas List: New Methods in Phraseology Research (2010)Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? (2004)Register, Genre, and Style (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1998Hedging in Scientific Research Articles865 cited
  • 1999Hedging in scientific research articles. By Ken Hyland. (Pragmatics and beyond 54.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998. Pp. x, 307.795 cited
  • 1994Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine324 cited
  • 2017‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review314 cited
  • 2016Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity211 cited
  • 2002The Hidden Research Paper75 cited
  • 2013All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies37 cited
  • 2010Implementation of a Journal Peer Reviewer Stratification System Based on Quality and Reliability24 cited

Cited by

  • 2024Limitations in Medical Research: Recognition, Influence, and Warning8 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work