• MeSH
• posudkové řízení ve výzkumu metody   MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

Peer Review is at the heart of scholarly communications and the cornerstone of scientific publishing. However, academia often criticizes the peer review system as non-transparent, biased, arbitrary, a flawed process at the heart of science, leading to researchers arguing with its reliability and quality. These problems could also be due to the lack of studies with the peer-review texts for various proprietary and confidentiality clauses. Peer review texts could serve as a rich source of Natural Language Processing (NLP) research on understanding the scholarly communication landscape, and thereby build systems towards mitigating those pertinent problems. In this work, we present a first of its kind multi-layered dataset of 1199 open peer review texts manually annotated at the sentence level (∼ 17k sentences) across the four layers, viz. Paper Section Correspondence, Paper Aspect Category, Review Functionality, and Review Significance. Given a text written by the reviewer, we annotate: to which sections (e.g., Methodology, Experiments, etc.), what aspects (e.g., Originality/Novelty, Empirical/Theoretical Soundness, etc.) of the paper does the review text correspond to, what is the role played by the review text (e.g., appreciation, criticism, summary, etc.), and the importance of the review statement (major, minor, general) within the review. We also annotate the sentiment of the reviewer (positive, negative, neutral) for the first two layers to judge the reviewer's perspective on the different sections and aspects of the paper. We further introduce four novel tasks with this dataset, which could serve as an indicator of the exhaustiveness of a peer review and can be a step towards the automatic judgment of review quality. We also present baseline experiments and results for the different tasks for further investigations. We believe our dataset would provide a benchmark experimental testbed for automated systems to leverage on current NLP state-of-the-art techniques to address different issues with peer review quality, thereby ushering increased transparency and trust on the holy grail of scientific research validation. Our dataset and associated codes are available at https://www.iitp.ac.in/~ai-nlp-ml/resources.html#Peer-Review-Analyze.

• MeSH
• benchmarking normy   MeSH
• databáze faktografické MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• posudkové řízení ve výzkumu MeSH
• reprodukovatelnost výsledků MeSH
• zpracování přirozeného jazyka MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH

• MeSH
• kongresy jako téma MeSH
• posudkové řízení * MeSH
• Publikační typ
• úvodníky MeSH
• Geografické názvy
• Česká republika MeSH

This paper describes the background to the development, implementation, and subsequent management of a programme of peer review of Pediatric Diabetes Centres belonging to the SWEET Group The paper summarizes the overall purpose of the programme, lists the principles upon which the programme is founded, and sets out the intended outcomes of the programme Details are given of the way in which the programme is delivered and summarizes the key findings from the 16 centres reviewed to date Finally the paper highlights the feedback that has been received from those who have been reviewed and those who have acted as reviewers and discusses ways in which the programme can be further developed in the future.

• Klíčová slova
• Benefits to clinical outcomes, Clinical leadership, Peer review, Quality assurance,
• MeSH
• diabetes mellitus terapie   MeSH
• dítě MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mladiství MeSH
• pediatrie * MeSH
• posudkové řízení ve zdravotní péči * MeSH
• Check Tag
• dítě MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mladiství MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH

• MeSH
• počítačové komunikační sítě * MeSH
• posudkové řízení ve výzkumu * MeSH
• vědecký podvod MeSH
• Publikační typ
• kongresy MeSH
• Geografické názvy
• Česká republika MeSH

Publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals is an integral step of the clinical pharmacy research process, allowing for knowledge transfer and advancement in clinical pharmacy practice. Writing a manuscript for publication in a journal requires several careful considerations to ensure that research findings are communicated to the satisfaction of editors and reviewers, and effectively to the readers. This commentary provides a summary of the main points to consider, outlining how to: (1) select a suitable journal, (2) tailor the manuscript for the journal readership, (3) organise the content of the manuscript in line with the journal's guidelines, and (4) manage feedback from the peer review process. This commentary reviews the steps of the writing process, identifies common pitfalls, and proposes ways to overcome them. It aims to assist both novice and established researchers in the field of clinical pharmacy to enhance the quality of writing in a research paper to maximise impact.

• Klíčová slova
• Clinical pharmacy, Journal article, Peer review, Publishing, Research, Writing,
• MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nemocniční lékárny * MeSH
• posudkové řízení MeSH
• psaní MeSH
• publikování MeSH
• výzkum v lékárnictví * MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

Scholarly publishing is in a crisis, with the many stakeholders complaining about different aspects of the system. Authors want fast publication times, high visibility and publications in high-impact journals. Readers want freely accessible, high-quality articles. Peer reviewers want recognition for the work they perform to ensure the quality of the published articles. However, authors, peer reviewers, and readers are three different roles played by the same group of individuals, the users of the scholarly publishing system-and this system could work based on a collaborative publishing principle where "nobody pays, and nobody gets paid".

• Klíčová slova
• Cooperative Behavior, Open Access Publishing, Peer Review, Periodicals as Topic, Research,
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

A systematic review involves the identification, evaluation, and synthesis of the best-available evidence to provide an answer to a specific question. The "best-available evidence" is, in many cases, a peer-reviewed scientific article published in an academic journal that details the conduct and results of a scientific study. Any potential threat to the validity of these individual studies (and hence the resultant synthesis) must be evaluated and critiqued.In science, the number of predatory journals continue to rise. Studies published in predatory journals may be of lower quality and more likely to be impacted by fraud and error compared to studies published in traditional journals. This poses a threat to the validity of systematic reviews that include these studies and, therefore, the translation of evidence into guidance for policy and practice. Despite the challenges predatory journals present to systematic reviewers, there is currently little guidance regarding how they should be managed.In 2020, a subgroup of the JBI Scientific Committee was formed to investigate this issue. In this overview paper, we introduce predatory journals to systematic reviewers, outline the problems they present and their potential impact on systematic reviews, and provide some alternative strategies for consideration of studies from predatory journals in systematic reviews. Options for systematic reviewers could include excluding all studies from suspected predatory journals, applying additional strategies to forensically examine the results of studies published in suspected predatory journals, setting stringent search limits, and applying analytical techniques (such as subgroup or sensitivity analyses) to investigate the impact of suspected predatory journals in a synthesis.

• MeSH
• periodika jako téma * MeSH
• posudkové řízení MeSH
• systematický přehled jako téma MeSH
• výzkumná zpráva MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

BACKGROUND: Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader's ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. METHODS: In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals. RESULTS: Peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.

• Klíčová slova
• Peer review, Preprint, Publication, Quality of reporting, Scientific journal, bioRxiv,
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

• Klíčová slova
• AI, Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, ChatGPT, artificial intelligence, ethics, fraudulent medical articles, language models, neurosurgery, publications,
• MeSH
• posudkové řízení MeSH
• psaní * MeSH
• umělá inteligence * MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• komentáře MeSH