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

4 Citations (Scopus)

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

Fingerprint

peers
transparency
methodology
science
method

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology

Cite this

Parker, T. H., Griffith, S. C., Bronstein, J. L., Fidler, F., Foster, S., Fraser, H., ... 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

Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency. / Parker, Timothy H.; Griffith, Simon C.; Bronstein, Judith L; Fidler, Fiona; Foster, Susan; Fraser, Hannah; Forstmeier, Wolfgang; Gurevitch, Jessica; Koricheva, Julia; Seppelt, Ralf; Tingley, Morgan W.; Nakagawa, Shinichi.

In: Nature Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 2, No. 6, 01.06.2018, p. 929-935.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Parker, TH, Griffith, SC, Bronstein, JL, Fidler, F, Foster, S, Fraser, H, Forstmeier, W, Gurevitch, J, Koricheva, J, Seppelt, R, Tingley, MW & Nakagawa, S 2018, 'Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency', Nature Ecology and Evolution, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 929-935. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z
Parker, Timothy H. ; Griffith, Simon C. ; Bronstein, Judith L ; Fidler, Fiona ; Foster, Susan ; Fraser, Hannah ; Forstmeier, Wolfgang ; Gurevitch, Jessica ; Koricheva, Julia ; Seppelt, Ralf ; Tingley, Morgan W. ; Nakagawa, Shinichi. / Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency. In: Nature Ecology and Evolution. 2018 ; Vol. 2, No. 6. pp. 929-935.
@article{7ce6b0b8e78846f1bbedb7890a9d3bef,
title = "Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency",
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.",
author = "Parker, {Timothy H.} and Griffith, {Simon C.} and Bronstein, {Judith L} and Fiona Fidler and Susan Foster and Hannah Fraser and Wolfgang Forstmeier and Jessica Gurevitch and Julia Koricheva and Ralf Seppelt and Tingley, {Morgan W.} and Shinichi Nakagawa",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "929--935",
journal = "Nature Ecology and Evolution",
issn = "2397-334X",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency

AU - Parker, Timothy H.

AU - Griffith, Simon C.

AU - Bronstein, Judith L

AU - Fidler, Fiona

AU - Foster, Susan

AU - Fraser, Hannah

AU - Forstmeier, Wolfgang

AU - Gurevitch, Jessica

AU - Koricheva, Julia

AU - Seppelt, Ralf

AU - Tingley, Morgan W.

AU - Nakagawa, Shinichi

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047763047&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047763047&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z

DO - 10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z

M3 - Article

C2 - 29789547

AN - SCOPUS:85047763047

VL - 2

SP - 929

EP - 935

JO - Nature Ecology and Evolution

JF - Nature Ecology and Evolution

SN - 2397-334X

IS - 6

ER -