Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency

Timothy H. Parker, Simon C. Griffith, Judith L. Bronstein, Fiona Fidler, Susan Foster, Hannah Fraser, Wolfgang Forstmeier, Jessica Gurevitch, Julia Koricheva, Ralf Seppelt, Morgan W. Tingley, Shinichi Nakagawa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Peer review is widely considered fundamental to maintaining the rigour of science, but it often fails to ensure transparency and reduce bias in published papers, and this systematically weakens the quality of published inferences. In part, this is because many reviewers are unaware of important questions to ask with respect to the soundness of the design and analyses, and the presentation of the methods and results; also some reviewers may expect others to be responsible for these tasks. We therefore present a reviewers' checklist of ten questions that address these critical components. Checklists are commonly used by practitioners of other complex tasks, and we see great potential for the wider adoption of checklists for peer review, especially to reduce bias and facilitate transparency in published papers. We expect that such checklists will be well received by many reviewers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)929-935
Number of pages7
JournalNature Ecology and Evolution
Volume2
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Parker, T. H., Griffith, S. C., Bronstein, J. L., Fidler, F., Foster, S., Fraser, H., Forstmeier, W., Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Seppelt, R., Tingley, M. W., & Nakagawa, S. (2018). Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 2(6), 929-935. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z