Scientific Communication and Education

  1. Scientific civility and academic performance

    1. Emma Camacho
    2. Quigly Dragotakes
    3. Isabella Hartshorn
    4. Arturo Casadevall
    5. Daniel L Buccino

    Reviewed by preLights

    1 evaluationAppears in 1 listLatest version Latest activity

  3. Finding the right words to evaluate research: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabulary

    1. Tom E. Hardwicke
    2. Sarah R. Schiavone
    3. Beth Clarke
    4. Simine Vazire

    Reviewed by preLights

    1 evaluationAppears in 1 listLatest version Latest activity

  4. More than a token photo: humanizing scientists enhances student engagement

    1. Robin A. Costello
    2. Emily P. Driessen
    3. Melissa K. Kjelvik
    4. Elizabeth H. Schultheis
    5. Rachel M. Youngblood
    6. Ash T. Zemenick
    7. Marjorie G. Weber
    8. Cissy J. Ballen

    Reviewed by PREreview

    1 evaluationAppears in 1 listLatest version Latest activity

  6. Biomedical researchers’ perspectives on the reproducibility of research: a cross-sectional international survey

    1. Kelly D. Cobey
    2. Sanam Ebrahimzadeh
    3. Matthew J. Page
    4. Robert T. Thibault
    5. Phi-Yen Nguyen
    6. Farah Abu-Dalfa
    7. David Moher

    Reviewed by PREreview

    1 evaluationAppears in 2 listsLatest version Latest activity

  7. “Important Enough to Show the World”: Using Authentic Research Opportunities and Micropublications to Build Students’ Science Identities

    1. Lisa DaVia Rubenstein
    2. Kelsey A. Woodruff
    3. April M. Taylor
    4. James B. Olesen
    5. Philip J. Smaldino
    6. Eric M. Rubenstein

    Reviewed by PREreview

    1 evaluationAppears in 1 listLatest version Latest activity

  8. Controlled experiment finds no detectable citation bump from Twitter promotion

    1. Trevor A. Branch
    2. Isabelle M. Cȏté
    3. Solomon R. David
    4. Joshua A. Drew
    5. Michelle LaRue
    6. Melissa C. Márquez
    7. E. C. M. Parsons
    8. D. Rabaiotti
    9. David Shiffman
    10. David A. Steen
    11. Alexander L. Wild

    Reviewed by PREreview

    1 evaluationAppears in 3 listsLatest version Latest activity

  9. Mentoring practices predictive of doctoral student outcomes in a biological sciences cohort

    1. Reena Debray
    2. Emily A. Dewald-Wang
    3. Katherine K. Ennis

    Reviewed by preLights

    1 evaluationAppears in 2 listsLatest version Latest activity

  10. ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review

    1. Jeroen PH Verharen

    • Curated by eLife

      eLife assessment

      This study used ChatGPT to assess certain linguistic characteristics (sentiment and politeness) of 500 peer reviews for 200 neuroscience papers published in Nature Communications. The vast majority of reviews were polite, but papers with female first authors received less polite reviews than papers with male first authors, whereas papers with a female senior author received more favourable reviews than papers with a male senior author. Overall, the study is an important contribution to work on gender bias, and the evidence for the potential utility of generative AI programs like ChatGPT in meta-research is solid.

    Reviewed by eLife

    8 evaluationsAppears in 3 listsLatest version Latest activity
Previous Page 4 of 16 Next