The value of Peer review needs to be reviewed ! #MedTwitter https://t.co/CafZUms4ci
It’s out of date, but this a good starting place. https://t.co/9cWdpR8BDL It’s a pretty low bar to clear if a review process only has to not make something not-worse.
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies - PubMed https://t.co/tCgQK3t7te via @instapaper
RT @CochraneJapan: 生物医学研究の報告の質を向上させるための査読 https://t.co/pBx35WMgAi
RT @CochraneJapan: 生物医学研究の報告の質を向上させるための査読 https://t.co/pBx35WMgAi
RT @CochraneJapan: 生物医学研究の報告の質を向上させるための査読 https://t.co/pBx35WMgAi
生物医学研究の報告の質を向上させるための査読 https://t.co/pBx35WMgAi
コクランレビュー「生物医学研究の報告の質を向上させるための査読」の日本語要約です。該当するテーマに関して妥当な品質の研究はほとんどありませんでした。 #CochraneDatabaseOfSystematicReviews https://t.co/gs5ij56xah
RT @drjohnm: Interesting discussion on future of science communication: Paper on preprint server retracted b/c of brisk public peer revie…
RT @drjohnm: Interesting discussion on future of science communication: Paper on preprint server retracted b/c of brisk public peer revie…
Interesting discussion on future of science communication: Paper on preprint server retracted b/c of brisk public peer review. IMO — this shows that alternative system can work. Current sys of insular peer-review far from perfect or based in evidence h
@mbeisen There is little evidence to show that peer review "works". The Cochrane systematic review concluded: "At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical r
@RosemaryChapman @Rosewind2007 @VaccineUK @bengreenfield @snopes I did not claim that my personal observations were "peer reviewed". But obviously you don't know much about the limitations of peer review. https://t.co/BkD3LdzPTM
RT @Theresevilvite: @curtrice @jarottingen Maybe it is time to think differently #quality #research " little empirical evidence is availabl…
is this review being updated soon? @CochraneLibrary Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies - Jefferson, T - 2007 | Cochrane Library https://t.co/KsP9iyEdc5
RT @Theresevilvite: @curtrice @jarottingen Maybe it is time to think differently #quality #research " little empirical evidence is availabl…
@curtrice @jarottingen Maybe it is time to think differently #quality #research " little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality" https://t.co/4UTHMXjiOz
@cshperspectives @arjunrajlab @jbkinney I was thinking of more direct evidence, but this old SR doesn't paint a rosy picture https://t.co/wMKE6TMEBK I agree any benefit needs to be weighed against costs.
査読について色々ツイートしたけど、まずは査読そのものの効果を調べないと。少なくともこちらの論文が発表された時点では、査読が有効だというエビデンス自体が乏しいので。Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. https://t.co/7xSD5aHA1f
@mbeisen @ewmartin The Cochrane systematic review found that 'little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research' https://t.co/iVKMfl7UiO. Where's the evidence showing
1) Effective/Ineffective? not much evidence to support either; eg https://t.co/o0fEFQ7n8Q 2) Inefficient? Some effects are so large they are like parachutes 😈 3) Absolutely👏 https://t.co/L8CI9XRVWT
Two of @cochranecollab most important SRs are each a decade out of date. https://t.co/6W60nAJKWT https://t.co/o0fEFQ7n8Q I can't imagine a better time to have up to date info on efficacy in peer review of grants and research pubs (+equity).
@seis_matters @danrshan @Volcanologist @lemire Goodness no! that's why the few trials haven't shown that it improves the quality of articles. https://t.co/Mz06HbOgYU
RT @wespeechies: Most complete evidence to date that I know of is Cochrane Review from 2007 (https://t.co/5qd65uip9m) #WeSpeechies https://…
RT @wespeechies: Most complete evidence to date that I know of is Cochrane Review from 2007 (https://t.co/5qd65uip9m) #WeSpeechies https://…
Most complete evidence to date that I know of is Cochrane Review from 2007 (https://t.co/5qd65uip9m) #WeSpeechies https://t.co/b6FoB8dnbR
RT @CochraneAnaesth: "The perils of peer review" by @Richard56 at #smaccDUB - read the #CochraneEvidence review he mentioned https://t.co/F…
RT @CochraneAnaesth: "The perils of peer review" by @Richard56 at #smaccDUB - read the #CochraneEvidence review he mentioned https://t.co/F…
RT @CochraneAnaesth: "The perils of peer review" by @Richard56 at #smaccDUB - read the #CochraneEvidence review he mentioned https://t.co/F…
RT @CochraneAnaesth: "The perils of peer review" by @Richard56 at #smaccDUB - read the #CochraneEvidence review he mentioned https://t.co/F…
RT @CochraneAnaesth: "The perils of peer review" by @Richard56 at #smaccDUB - read the #CochraneEvidence review he mentioned https://t.co/F…
RT @CochraneAnaesth: "The perils of peer review" by @Richard56 at #smaccDUB - read the #CochraneEvidence review he mentioned https://t.co/F…
RT @CochraneAnaesth: "The perils of peer review" by @Richard56 at #smaccDUB - read the #CochraneEvidence review he mentioned https://t.co/F…
RT @CochraneAnaesth: "The perils of peer review" by @Richard56 at #smaccDUB - read the #CochraneEvidence review he mentioned https://t.co/F…
"The perils of peer review" by @Richard56 at #smaccDUB - read the #CochraneEvidence review he mentioned https://t.co/FJyqvHcKLR #CochraneACE
Nice intro to preprints.Tough to find good evidence on the usefulness of peer review: https://t.co/NbX3Nsi2UG https://t.co/xrau117Nzf
Het peer review-systeem lijkt amper tot betere publicaties te leiden: http://t.co/GhMykxcnNh - tijd voor een nieuw uitgeefmodel?
Comment on Jefferson T (2007): Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. http://t.co/Orfh9e68Yo
Added @PubMedCommons comment about the systematic review of editorial peer review, with links to my new post http://t.co/BIggkBmp3i
@DrHallba @lteytelman Some evidence of benefit for openness - none for concealment (at least in biomed) http://t.co/aOYh1I9p3D
@DrHallba @lteytelman Some evidence of benefit for openness - none for concealment (at least in biomed) http://t.co/aOYh1I9p3D
@DrHallba @lteytelman Some evidence of benefit for openness - none for concealment (at least in biomed) http://t.co/aOYh1I9p3D
Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of RCT peer review. http://t.co/CzOOgYlBYB
Little empirical evidence to support use of editorial peer review as mechanism to ensure quality biomedical research.http://t.co/CzOOgYlBYB
“@CoyneoftheRealm: Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of RCT peer review. http://t.co/ZhIoNC6mDV”
Little empirical evidence to support use of editorial peer review as mechanism to ensure quality biomedical research.http://t.co/CzOOgYlBYB
Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of RCT peer review. http://t.co/CzOOgYlBYB
Little empirical evidence to support use of editorial peer review as mechanism to ensure quality biomedical research.http://t.co/CzOOgYlBYB
@SideviewLiz Time to revisit this one then Liz....? http://t.co/3588Q9HhtA
MT @medskep: At present, little empirical evidence available to support the use of editorial peer review http://t.co/CsRUiYwBTL via Cochrane
At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review http://t.co/uAwTIclkxX via Cochrane
At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review http://t.co/uAwTIclkxX via Cochrane
At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review http://t.co/uAwTIclkxX via Cochrane
At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review http://t.co/uAwTIclkxX via Cochrane
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/rwtH7o48NT
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/rwtH7o48NT
Well this is horribly worrying. Cochrane Review reports that peer-review doesn’t ensure quality http://t.co/aDkkulQ25r
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/rwtH7o48NT
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/rwtH7o48NT
Well this is horribly worrying. Cochrane Review reports that peer-review doesn’t ensure quality http://t.co/aDkkulQ25r
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/rwtH7o48NT
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/rwtH7o48NT
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/rwtH7o48NT
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/rwtH7o48NT
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/FXjoWa18z5
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/FXjoWa18z5
Cochrane review: "Little empirical evidence is available to support peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality." http://t.co/FXjoWa18z5
Cochrane review of effects of editorial peer review on quality of research reports http://t.co/KwAfHFY5XU #PRC7
#SystematicReview on #PeerReview http://t.co/kW5skMg43k No study commented on potential adverse effects of peer review. Interesting!
RT @monalisa1n: @AstroKatie Same with biomedical research journals,recent study http://t.co/NWwrtu4EjS concluded research need to see what works on quality
@AstroKatie Same with biomedical research journals,recent study http://t.co/NWwrtu4EjS concluded research need to see what works on quality