- Feb 2024
-
www.cedefop.europa.eu www.cedefop.europa.eu
-
The mainfactors limiting the level of trust include: doubts about the quality of somemicrocredentials, no agreed standards for quality assurance, and uncertainty as towhether certain microcredentials will be recognised by national authorities,employers or education and training providers
Seeds of doubt on MC quality
-
- Oct 2023
-
www.spectrumnews.org www.spectrumnews.org
- Apr 2022
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
The Lancet. (2021, April 16). Quantity > quality? The magnitude of #COVID19 research of questionable methodological quality reveals an urgent need to optimise clinical trial research—But how? A new @LancetGH Series discusses challenges and solutions. Read https://t.co/z4SluR3yuh 1/5 https://t.co/94RRVT0qhF [Tweet]. @TheLancet. https://twitter.com/TheLancet/status/1383027527233515520
-
- Jul 2021
-
www.washingtonpost.com www.washingtonpost.com
-
Why crowded meetings and conference rooms make you so, so tired—The Washington Post. (n.d.). Retrieved July 19, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/06/why-crowded-meetings-conference-rooms-make-you-so-so-tired/
-
- Jun 2021
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Moss, A. J., Rosenzweig, C., Jaffe, S. N., Gautam, R., Robinson, J., & Litman, L. (2021). Bots or inattentive humans? Identifying sources of low-quality data in online platforms [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wr8ds
-
-
www.jclinepi.com www.jclinepi.com
-
Calster, B. V., Wynants, L., Riley, R. D., Smeden, M. van, & Collins, G. S. (2021). Methodology over metrics: Current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.018
-
- May 2021
-
dataforpolicy.org dataforpolicy.org
-
Special Track 3. (n.d.). Data for Policy CIC. Retrieved 8 March 2021, from https://dataforpolicy.org/data-fof-policy-2021/special-track-3/
-
- Mar 2021
-
nisoplus21.sched.com nisoplus21.sched.com
-
NISO Plus 2021: Quality and reliability of preprints. (n.d.). Retrieved 19 February 2021, from https://nisoplus21.sched.com/event/fMlf/quality-and-reliability-of-preprints
-
-
www.reddit.com www.reddit.com
-
- Feb 2021
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Lo, C., Mani, N., Kartushina, N., Mayor, J., & Hermes, J. (2021, February 11). e-Babylab: An Open-source Browser-based Tool for Unmoderated Online Developmental Studies. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u73sy
-
- Jan 2021
-
arxiv.org arxiv.org
-
Mambrini. A. Baronchelli. A. Starnini. M. Marinazzo. D. De Domenico, M. (2020) .PRINCIPIA: a Decentralized Peer-Review Ecosystem. Retrieved from: chrome-extension://bjfhmglciegochdpefhhlphglcehbmek/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F2008.09011.pdf
-
- Nov 2020
-
-
Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T., Schiavone, S. R., Bottesini, J. G., Thorn, F. S., Vazire, S., Esterling, K. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2020). Research Quality of Registered Reports Compared to the Traditional Publishing Model. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/7x9vy
-
- Oct 2020
-
metascience.com metascience.com
-
Fiona Fidler: Misinterpretations of evidence, and worse misinterpretations of evidence (Video). (n.d.). Metascience.com. Retrieved 29 October 2020, from https://metascience.com/events/metascience-2019-symposium/fiona-fidler-misinterpretations-of-evidence/
-
- Sep 2020
-
www.newscientist.com www.newscientist.com
-
Scientist, N. (n.d.). How to sniff out the good coronavirus studies from the bad. New Scientist. Retrieved July 1, 2020, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242835-how-to-sniff-out-the-good-coronavirus-studies-from-the-bad/
-
- Aug 2020
-
academic.oup.com academic.oup.com
-
van Smeden, M., Lash, T. L., & Groenwold, R. H. H. (2020). Reflection on modern methods: Five myths about measurement error in epidemiological research. International Journal of Epidemiology, 49(1), 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz251
-
-
www.thelancet.com www.thelancet.com
-
Lancet, T. (2020). Research and higher education in the time of COVID-19. The Lancet, 396(10251), 583. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31818-3
-
- Jul 2020
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Nieto, I., Navas, J. F., & Vazquez, C. (2020). The quality of research on mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic: A note of caution after a systematic review. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ndgkj
-
-
critical-analysis.org critical-analysis.org
-
Project background – Critical Analysis Project. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from http://critical-analysis.org/project-background/
-
-
gss.civilservice.gov.uk gss.civilservice.gov.uk
-
An analyst’s job is never done – GSS. (n.d.). Retrieved July 3, 2020, from https://gss.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/an-analysts-job-is-never-done/
-
- Jun 2020
-
www.reddit.com www.reddit.com
-
BehSciMeta repost. (2020, June 17). "Reproducibility scores for behavioural science: what are the merits and drawbacks?" Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/har2np/reproducibility_scores_for_behavioural_science/
-
-
featuredcontent.psychonomic.org featuredcontent.psychonomic.org
-
Lindsay, D. S. (2020, May 29). Enhancing Peer Review of Scientific Reports. Psychonomic Society Featured Content. https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/enhancing-peer-review-of-scientific-reports/
-
- May 2020
-
www.nature.com www.nature.com
-
Lakens, D. (2020). Pandemic researchers—Recruit your own best critics. Nature, 581(7807), 121–121. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01392-8
-
- Nov 2018
-
www-nejm-org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu www-nejm-org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu
-
In the academic setting especially, a premium will beplaced on clinical quality improvement, the develop-ment of practice guidelines, and outcomes research,not only to provide the physician with a creative out-let and a potential source of funding during thenonclinical months but also to give the academiccenter a practical research-and-development arm
-
- May 2018
-
www.audit.vic.gov.au www.audit.vic.gov.au
-
Negative values included when assessing air quality In computing average pollutant concentrations, EPA includes recorded values that are below zero. EPA advised that this is consistent with NEPM AAQ procedures. Logically, however, the lowest possible value for air pollutant concentrations is zero. Either it is present, even if in very small amounts, or it is not. Negative values are an artefact of the measurement and recording process. Leaving negative values in the data introduces a negative bias, which potentially under represents actual concentrations of pollutants. We noted a considerable number of negative values recorded. For example, in 2016, negative values comprised 5.3 per cent of recorded hourly PM2.5 values, and 1.3 per cent of hourly PM10 values. When we excluded negative values from the calculation of one‐day averages, there were five more exceedance days for PM2.5 and one more for PM10 during 2016.
-