ライフサイエンスコーパス: reviewer

1 nd outcomes, which were verified by a second reviewer.

2 rmed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer.

3 wers, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.

4 e site-reported and categorized by a blinded reviewer.

5 mitations; verification was done by a second reviewer.

6 of bias, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer.

7 bias, and conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer.

8 acknowledged limitations was extracted by 2 reviewers.

9 as assessment were completed by the same two reviewers.

10 ied studies were screened independently by 2 reviewers.

11 praisal was undertaken systematically by two reviewers.

12 development, journal editors, and manuscript reviewers.

13 ssessment was performed independently by two reviewers.

14 the screening of titles and abstracts by two reviewers.

15 using standardized terminology by certified reviewers.

16 underwent full-text review by 2 independent reviewers.

17 s how they can inform (and misinform) expert reviewers.

18 Criteria were applied by two independent reviewers.

19 nd 2D SE-EPI MR elastography across multiple reviewers.

20 ta extraction was performed by 2 independent reviewers.

21 in kilopascals) was measured by five blinded reviewers.

22 critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers.

23 raction of data, and quality assessment by 2 reviewers.

24 Study quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers.

25 outcomes were extracted independently by two reviewers.

26 of data was undertaken independently by two reviewers.

27 xtraction was performed independently by two reviewers.

28 es were independently reviewed by at least 2 reviewers.

29 k, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers.

30 praisal was undertaken systematically by two reviewers.

31 ntially eligible articles were screened by 2 reviewers.

32 rded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two reviewers.

33 extraction were done by pairs of independent reviewers.

34 ta extracted from medical records by blinded reviewers.

35 assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers.

36 undertaken systematically by two independent reviewers.

37 hese normal ECGs were not apparent to expert reviewers.

38 mbination were screened by three independent reviewers.

39 ity coding were performed by two independent reviewers.

40 action was completed by independent pairs of reviewers.

41 ted by the requirement for experienced human reviewers.

42 Risk of bias was assessed independently by 2 reviewers.

43 d good interrater reliability across trained reviewers.

44 ed by 1 investigator was checked by a second reviewer; 2 reviewers independently assessed study quali

45 One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological lim

46 Data Extraction: 2 reviewers abstracted data and independently rated study

47 Data Extraction: 2 reviewers abstracted study information, evaluated study

48 Image analysis was performed by 2 reviewers according to the Lugano classification for sta

49 Consequently, readers and peer-reviewers alike may either overestimate or underestimate

50 One central reviewer also used the Society for Industrial and Organi

51 action: Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer.

52 Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second.

53 Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and checked by a second.

54 Data were extracted from studies by one reviewer and checked by a second.

55 Extraction: Extraction performed by a single reviewer and confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-review

56 Data Extraction: Extraction by 1 reviewer and confirmed by a second; dual-reviewer assess

57 Committee on Resuscitation Expert Systematic Reviewer and content experts performed comprehensive rev

58 As a community of reviewers and authors, we assembled an evaluation format

59 he VF defects were analyzed by 2 independent reviewers and classified into 1 of 10 categories, divide

60 s replicability better than the base rate of reviewers and comparably as well as prediction markets,

61 led databases that have been selected by NAR reviewers and editors as 'breakthrough' contributions, d

62 use quantitative methods, as well as journal reviewers and editors, should understand this framework

63 iche modelling community, as well as journal reviewers and editors, to utilize and further develop th

64 Articles were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers and independently abstracted for treatment typ

65 n total, 18,468 studies were screened by two reviewers and one arbiter.

66 use by decision makers, risk assessors, peer reviewers and other interested stakeholders to determine

67 We provide advice on how authors, reviewers and readers can identify and resolve these mis

68 Agreement between the central reviewers and the institutional audiologist was almost p

69 ere calculated in a pairwise fashion for all reviewers and the model.

70 CT scans, there was disagreement among all 9 reviewers and the radiology report on the presence/absen

71 neously eliminating outcome bias by editors, reviewers, and authors.

72 users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patie

73 d the problem can be traced to authors, peer reviewers, and editors of journals.

74 ins a bias-free environment for all authors, reviewers, and editors.

75 se changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to im

76 s to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open pee

77 mportant by patients, clinicians, systematic reviewers, and trialists.

78 reinforced by funders, publishers, editors, reviewers, and, ultimately, the authors.

79 One reviewer appraised the methodological quality of the inc

80 Multiple reviewers appraised studies for inclusion or exclusion u

81 Three reviewers appraised the quality of the selected studies.

82 rly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise

83 It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to underst

84 Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to underst

85 The two reviewers assessed 46 full-text articles for eligibility

86 Two reviewers assessed data quality independently using the

87 A further two reviewers assessed the methodological quality against ag

88 Two reviewers assessed the relevance of papers based on the

89 An independent reviewer-assessed overall response was achieved by 20 (4

90 wer and confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-reviewer assessment of risk of bias; consensus determina

91 y 1 reviewer and confirmed by a second; dual-reviewer assessment of risk of bias; consensus determina

92 The primary outcome was the blinded reviewers' assessment that the intensivist had presented

93 s having diagnostic quality, while the other reviewer believed two of the standard images and one of

94 A reviewer blinded to case status used a standardized form

95 an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one si

96 A second reviewer checked all the data.

97 Reviewers classified each subject as follows: epilepsy,

98 ing a pre-prepared data extraction form, one reviewer collected data on the characteristics and perfo

99 H staff weigh these points in the context of reviewer comments, the existing literature, and current

100 The reviewers' comments contributed to creating the final ve

101 Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic search of the 4 databas

102 Reviewers conducted an independent search of the Nationa

103 Five reviewers (consensus group) met to discuss all CT scans

104 eLife editors and reviewers consult with one another before sending out a

105 The AGREE II assessment helps reviewers determine whether published guidelines are rob

106 The reviewers directly visualized the anastomosis more often

107 gator (PI), which opens the possibility that reviewers discriminate on the basis of PI race and gende

108 ant anatomy improved with 3D ultrasound by 2 reviewers [DM = 7.1% and 8.9% (95% CI = 1%-13% and 4%-14

109 One reviewer drew regions of interest around psoas muscles a

110 a single reviewer and confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-reviewer assessment of risk of bias; cons

111 study characteristics confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-reviewer risk-of-bias assessment; consens

112 dology with the goal of stimulating authors, reviewers, editors and funders to put experimental guide

113 Continuous analysis allows reviewers, editors or readers to verify reproducibility

114 ge evaluation while simultaneously promoting reviewer efficiency.

115 Two nonblinded consensus reviewers established the reference standard using the p

116 ber 21, 2016, through December 14, 2016, one reviewer evaluated visual acuity reporting among all art

117 Two reviewers evaluated each term.

118 Two independent reviewers evaluated the following inclusion criteria: ra

119 Time was taken and two independent reviewers evaluated the surgical proficiency.

120 One reviewer extracted data; another verified extraction acc

121 One reviewer extracted data; the other verified extraction a

122 Paired reviewers extracted data about study characteristics and

123 Two reviewers extracted data and assessed quality independen

124 Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality usin

125 Reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently

126 For each eligible manuscript, 2 of 5 reviewers extracted data on study design, population (tr

127 Two reviewers extracted data, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Sca

128 Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data.

129 Two reviewers extracted summary data by consensus.

130 Independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed risk of bias i

131 Independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of

132 Two independent reviewers extracted the data.

133 Data Extraction: Single-reviewer extraction of study characteristics confirmed b

134 Papers were screened by two independent reviewers following selection and exclusion criteria.

135 Mary University of London, UK, and a valued reviewer for Genome Biology.

136 Agreement rates with the expert reviewer for positive and negative cases were 100% (95%

137 xcellent for measured stiffness between five reviewers for both 2D GRE (ICC, 0.97; 95% confidence int

138 e 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use repo

139 perfect interobserver agreement between two reviewers for detecting abnormalities on chest radiograp

140 References were checked by two reviewers for inclusion.

141 out the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show

142 independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56 620 participants

143 is can be used by investigators and authors, reviewers, funding agencies, and editors.

144 at area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender had little or no impact.

145 nfluence of research area, type of review or reviewer gender on the linguistic characteristics is a s

146 n, area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender.

147 -review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential.

148 As a reviewer, I wish that I had the opportunity to tell the

149 Two reviewers identified nodules and obtained measurements o

150 d abstracts is essential to help readers and reviewers identify potentially relevant studies and deci

151 racts should help authors, editors, and peer reviewers improve the transparency of NPT trial reports.

152 re interpreted with visual assessment by two reviewers in consensus.

153 extraction was performed by two independent reviewers, in accordance with a pre-registered protocol

154 A second reviewer independently verified these appraisals.

155 Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and assess

156 DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently abstracted trial-level data incl

157 Two reviewers independently appraised each selected article

158 Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extra

159 Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibilit

160 Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibilit

161 Four reviewers independently assessed data quality and method

162 Two reviewers independently assessed each study to identify

163 Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of

164 Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility for inclusi

165 Data Extraction: Three reviewers independently assessed guideline quality using

166 Two reviewers independently assessed papers for inclusion, e

167 In addition, 2 reviewers independently assessed quality with Quality As

168 stigator was checked by a second reviewer; 2 reviewers independently assessed study quality, and the

169 Two reviewers independently assessed study quality.

170 Data Extraction: Three reviewers independently assessed study types and charact

171 Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias.

172 Four reviewers independently assessed the study data and meth

173 Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts to

174 Two reviewers independently assessed titles/abstracts and fu

175 Two reviewers independently assessed titles/abstracts and fu

176 Two reviewers independently collected and summarized the dat

177 Two reviewers independently conducted study selection.

178 Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studi

179 Two reviewers independently determined the percentage RC and

180 Two reviewers independently examined titles and abstracts to

181 Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk

182 DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated met

183 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data and ranked study

184 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characte

185 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of

186 Two reviewers independently extracted data.

187 Two reviewers independently extracted individual study data,

188 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics

189 Two reviewers independently extracted the data from selected

190 Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled

191 After a comprehensive search for trials, two reviewers independently identified randomized trials com

192 Two reviewers independently identified studies that included

193 Quality appraisal was completed by two reviewers independently in duplicate using standardized

194 Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extrac

195 Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extrac

196 Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently rated risk of bias and strength

197 The 2 reviewers independently rated the quality of each PSMA-P

198 Two masked reviewers independently reported the scans.

199 Two reviewers independently reviewed citations.

200 Two reviewers independently screened 1811 identified article

201 Two reviewers independently screened 6,666 abstracts.

202 Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text

203 Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and studies.

204 Two reviewers independently screened articles for congruence

205 Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted dat

206 Three reviewers independently screened citations by title and

207 Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion,

208 Two reviewers independently screened studies reporting preva

209 Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data

210 Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data

211 Pairs of reviewers independently screened the studies, abstracted

212 Three reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, r

213 Two reviewers independently selected manuscripts describing

214 Two reviewers independently selected relevant incident repor

215 Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted d

216 Two reviewers independently selected studies evaluating the

217 Three reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data

218 Two reviewers independently selected the reviews and extract

219 Two reviewers independently selected the studies, assessed t

220 Three reviewers independently used Covidence software to scree

221 Data were abstracted by two reviewers independently using a standardized abstraction

222 extraction and risk-of-bias assessment by 2 reviewers independently; overall strength of evidence (S

223 Five-minute EEG epochs were assessed by 2 reviewers, independently, at 8 predefined time points fr

224 veloped a tool called InterVar to help human reviewers interpret the clinical significance of variant

225 ach, frequently used by other attractiveness reviewers, is preferable for drawing unbiased conclusion

226 Two reviewers (KZ and CC) independently extracted data from

227 Two reviewers masked to all other clinical, demographic, and

228 ed secondary reviews of possible errors, and reviewers met periodically to adjudicate errors by conse

229 s, with discrepancies discussed with a third reviewer (NT).

230 Reviewers of angiography were blinded to results of phys

231 ull texts and then collaborated with another reviewer on excluding ineligible studies.

232 Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers on a predesigned, standardized form.

233 Reviewer pairs extracted data on methods and findings us

234 Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, a

235 Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and quality asse

236 A remote expert reviewer provided diagnostic and management feedback on

237 adiographs evaluated by three reviewers, two reviewers rated all images as having diagnostic quality,

238 Two reviewers rated ROB.

239 Two reviewers rated study quality using USPSTF criteria.

240 d signaling question and guides researchers, reviewers, readers, and guideline developers in how to u

241 We found that reviewer recommendation had the biggest impact on the li

242 and morality) were studied as a function of reviewer recommendation, area of research, type of peer

243 iewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors

244 ts led to decisive agreement between the two reviewers regarding MRI-derived tumor volume (ICC, 0.979

245 o a good degree of agreement between the two reviewers regarding unidimensional measurements of D (ma

246 s concepts, and subjective judgment from the reviewers relating to which concepts featured in each st

247 majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommend

248 The JCI and JCI Insight announce the Reviewer Rewards program to recognize the outstanding co

249 ristics confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-reviewer risk-of-bias assessment; consensus determinatio

250 not based on a written plan, and following a reviewer's comments, some material was moved to suppleme

251 Four reviewers scored issues, interactions, modifiable stress

252 One reviewer screened the titles, abstracts and full texts a

253 Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, titles, and full texts, an

254 Two reviewers screened all citations and extracted data inde

255 Two reviewers screened citations independently.

256 Two independent reviewers screened reference lists, extracted the data a

257 Two independent reviewers screened the returned citations to identify re

258 Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data.

259 e evaluated based on title and abstract with reviewers selecting 46 to assess by full text.

260 Data Extraction: Two reviewers serially abstracted data and independently ass

261 Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promo

262 isk factors, were extracted by 2 independent reviewers, supplemented with de novo data from PROSPER (

263 Two independent reviewers systematically searched PubMed and Ovid in Jan

264 Reviewers thereby act as critical gatekeepers to high-qu

265 on assessment tool was used by 2 independent reviewers to appraise each guideline.

266 We encourage editors and peer reviewers to consider requiring these key data when revi

267 (or more) of these systems was analyzed by 2 reviewers to determine the presence of discrete elements

268 s to verify the software's accuracy, and (3) reviewers to evaluate the methods used in publications a

269 guage restriction, were screened by pairs of reviewers to identify observational studies related to t

270 erature search was performed by 2 individual reviewers to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs)

271 Many granting agencies allow reviewers to know the identity of a proposal's principal

272 cognize the outstanding contribution of peer reviewers to our evaluation process.

273 3) of the 63 reviews were judged by Cochrane reviewers to provide inadequate evidence of the effectiv

274 ethical and 82% agreeing that identifying co-reviewers to the journal is valuable.

275 ortable chest radiographs evaluated by three reviewers, two reviewers rated all images as having diag

276 Two reviewers undertook the study selection, quality assessm

277 Two independent reviewers used standard forms for data extraction and qu

278 Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers using a predesigned data collection form.

279 r observational and descriptive abilities by reviewers using an a priori rubric and masked to group a

280 Risk of bias was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Rev

281 abstracted, and quality was assessed by two reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

282 ty appraised and analysed by two independent reviewers, using predefined criteria.

283 This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being

284 The reviewers visualized the anastomosis more clearly with 3

285 n bone age estimates of the model and of the reviewers was 0 years, with a mean RMS and MAD of 0.63 a

286 The agreement between the reviewers was assessed with Cohen's kappa.

287 e clinical report and three additional human reviewers was used as the reference standard.

288 d of our series of articles celebrating peer reviewers, we talk to Robert Lowe, who is a Lecturer in

289 Reviewers were blinded to the symptomatic status and MRI

290 he model, the clinical report, and the three reviewers were within the 95% limits of agreement.

291 As a token of our appreciation, eligible reviewers who have completed 3 or more reviews may desig

292 Reviewers who insist that quantitative bias analysis be

293 y was used for each study by two independent reviewers who subsequently reached a shared decision on

294 n of all selected records was performed by 2 reviewers, who also conducted data extraction and qualit

295 were downloaded and adjudicated by 2 blinded reviewers with an overreader for disagreements and commi

296 To help reviewers with this process, the authors developed PROBA

297 %) regarding anastomosis visualization among reviewers with wide-ranging experience.

298 ndom sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate.

299 Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third review

300 etermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, nine reviewers working in pairs assessed the eligibility of t