SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores
16 references·5 citing·34 second hop
Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores (2015)Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH …Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility (2014)Policy: NIH plans to enhance …Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis (2014)Increasing value and reducing…Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)Power failure: why small samp…Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries (2011)Negative results are disappea…False-Positive Psychology (2011)False-Positive PsychologyBelieve it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? (2011)Believe it or not: how much c…Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)Avoidable waste in the produc…Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated (2008)Why Most Discovered True Asso…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Scientists behaving badly (2005)Scientists behaving badlyContradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research (2005)Contradicted and Initially St…HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known (1998)HARKing: Hypothesizing After …The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science (1997)The increasing linkage betwee…Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (1988)Changing Order: Replication a…Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system (1977)Publication prejudices: An ex…Targeted, actionable and fair: Reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices (2023)Targeted, actionable and fair…Reading Peer Review (2020)Reading Peer ReviewExternal Tests of Peer Review Validity Via Impact Measures (2018)External Tests of Peer Review…Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association (2017)Peer Review Practices for Eva…Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives (2017)Addressing Reproducibility: P…Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests (1999)The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument (2016)The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)“Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI (2021)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis (2007)Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences (2007)Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (2011)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Sample Size Justification (2022)Strong Inference (1964)The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (1978)Shall we Really do it Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences (2009)Scientific Utopia (2012)P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. (2013)The Logic of Scientific Discovery (2013)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research (2014)Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning (2017)Biased evaluation and persistence in gambling. (1983)The case for motivated reasoning. (1990)The New Statistics (2013)Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015 (2018)Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research (2014)CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts (2017)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False10,471 cited
  • 2013Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience7,634 cited
  • 2011False-Positive Psychology6,561 cited
  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False4,702 cited
  • 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence2,204 cited
  • 1998HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known1,988 cited
  • 2011Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?1,885 cited
  • 2014Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis1,597 cited
  • 2008Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated1,489 cited
  • 2005Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research1,465 cited
  • 1997The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science1,285 cited
  • 1988Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice1,280 cited
  • 2014Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility1,247 cited
  • 2011Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries1,215 cited
  • 2005Scientists behaving badly1,089 cited

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

  • 1977Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system1,013 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2017Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association15 cited
    • 2020Reading Peer Review14 cited
    • 2018External Tests of Peer Review Validity Via Impact Measures12 cited
    • 2017Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives11 cited
    • 2023Targeted, actionable and fair: Reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices10 cited