Establishment of an open data policy for Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, appreciation for invited reviewers, and acknowledgement of volunteers who made audio recordings.
Establishment of an open data policy for Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, appreciation for invited reviewers, and acknowledgement of volunteers who made audio recordings.
Project description:The editors of Materials would like to express their sincere gratitude to the following reviewers for assessing manuscripts in 2014:[...].
Project description:The editors of Materials would like to express their sincere gratitude to the following reviewers for assessing manuscripts in 2013 [...].
Project description:The editors of Materials would like to express their sincere gratitude to the following reviewers for assessing manuscripts in 2015. [...].
Project description:Precise signal synchronization is vital for accurate analysis in systems neuroscience. Here, we present a protocol for synchronizing electrophysiology, videography, and audio recordings using a custom-made pulse generator. We describe steps for building the pulse generator, installing software, connecting devices, and running experimental sessions. We then detail signal analysis, temporal alignment, and duration normalization. This protocol offers flexibility and cost-effectiveness, addressing limited shared knowledge and providing a solution for signal synchronization in various experimental setups.
Project description:BackgroundPeer review is widely used in academic fields to assess a manuscript's significance and to improve its quality for publication. This scoping review will assess existing peer review guidelines and/or checklists intended for reviewers of biomedical journals and provide an overview on the review guidelines.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases were searched for review guidelines from the date of inception until February 19, 2021. There was no date restriction nor article type restriction. In addition to the database search, websites of journal publishers and non-publishers were additionally hand-searched.ResultsOf 14,633 database publication records and 24 website records, 65 publications and 14 websites met inclusion criteria for the review (78 records in total). From the included records, a total of 1,811 checklist items were identified. The items related to Methods, Results, and Discussion were found to be the highly discussed in reviewer guidelines.ConclusionThis review identified existing literature on peer review guidelines and provided an overview of the current state of peer review guides. Review guidelines were varying by journals and publishers. This calls for more research to determine the need to use uniform review standards for transparent and standardized peer review.Protocol registrationThe protocol for this study has been registered at Research Registry (www.researchregistry.com): reviewregistry881.