Browse the search results

Page 2 of 271
    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease

    Research Culture: Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts

    Gary S McDowell et al.
    Early career researchers commonly peer review manuscripts on behalf of invited reviewers, often without receiving feedback or being named to the journal.
  1. Point of View: Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research

    Mark Yarborough et al.
    Strategies to improve public trust in biomedical research are being hindered by a scientific mindset that stifles interest in reform.
  2. Meta-Research: How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents?

    Juan P Alperin et al.
    An analysis of review, promotion and tenure documents from 129 US and Canadian universities suggests institutions could better fulfill their public missions by changing how they incentivize the public dimensions of faculty work.
  3. Peer Review: Rooting out bias

    Bridget M Kuehn
    Tackling unconscious bias is a major challenge for journals and the rest of the scientific community.
  4. Point of View: Improving on legacy conferences by moving online

    Titipat Achakulvisut et al.
    Neuromatch was an online conference that attracted around 3000 participants and offered most of the benefits of traditional conferences.
    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease

    Research: A comprehensive and quantitative exploration of thousands of viral genomes

    Gita Mahmoudabadi, Rob Phillips
    A compendium of critical genomic numbers for viruses through the lenses of different viral classification systems.
  5. Peer Review: Decisions, decisions

    Peter Rodgers
    Journals are exploring new approaches to peer review in order to reduce bias, increase transparency and respond to author preferences.
  6. Point of View: The future of graduate and postdoctoral training in the biosciences

    Peter Hitchcock et al.
    What can institutions and funding agencies do to address an array of issues facing the biomedical research community in the United States?
  7. Research: Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications

    Andrew M Stern et al.
    In the first study attempting to formally quantify the deleterious impact of research misconduct on funding sources and publication output, we found that misconduct accounts for a small but substantial portion of American biomedical science funding dollars and damages the productivity and rate of funding acquisition of those who commit misconduct.
  8. Peer Review: To fund or not to fund?

    Sarah Shailes
    Funding agencies use many different criteria and peer review strategies to assess grant proposals.