At least 50% of Twitter needs to hear this, but "peer review" isn't what you want it to be. I'm sorry to bring you bad news. A few links out of many: https://t.co/6ZzD6xxse8 https://t.co/RJIV7yiA9V https://t.co/gl0K4Bk4mS https://t.co/HUPKEPrrpz htt
RT @CochraneJapan: 助成金の授与は提案の質の評価のためのピアレビューに大きく依存しているがこれらの手続きの効果の証拠は乏しい https://t.co/qlopGOEEDS
RT @CochraneJapan: 助成金の授与は提案の質の評価のためのピアレビューに大きく依存しているがこれらの手続きの効果の証拠は乏しい https://t.co/qlopGOEEDS
助成金の授与は提案の質の評価のためのピアレビューに大きく依存しているがこれらの手続きの効果の証拠は乏しい https://t.co/qlopGOEEDS
コクランレビュー「助成金の授与は提案の質の評価のためのピアレビューに大きく依存しているがこれらの手続きの効果の証拠は乏しい」の日本語要約です。助成金授与のためのピアレビューの効果に関するエビデンスはほとんどありません。 #CochraneDatabaseOfSystematicReviews https://t.co/nCT5Ei0j7S
@massimosandal @andcapocci scusami, quello che dici non è corretto scientificamente. Ci sono stati degli studi, citati da te, e il loro risultato è inconclusive (tra l'altro la Cochrane dà un risultato confortante, l'accordo tra i revisori) https://t.co/QK
will there be an update on this important review soon? @cochranelibrary Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications - Demicheli, V - 2007 | Cochrane Library https://t.co/o30W9fPU1h #peer-review #quality #grant
Two of @cochranecollab most important SRs are each a decade out of date.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).
"Experimental studies assessing the effects of grant giving peer review … are urgently needed" Cochrane Review, 2007 http://t.co/52mbDqr30j
@jenniferlin15 "Experimental studies [..] of grant [..] review [..] are urgently needed." http://t.co/VyqeF97E #SciFund is such a test 1/4