Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(60)
The number of reviewers volunteering their critical expertise to the peer review process grew from 750 in 2006 to over 2000 experts in 2009, with an average number of reviews completed per reviewer declining from 2.5 to 1.6.
After the search and selection of the data was completed, two reviewers independently extracted the data, while a third reviewer solved any discrepancies.
Electronic data extraction forms were completed by reviewers trained in the critical assessment of evidence.
Alternatively, if the ratings form is completed by reviewers after the collaborative process, how have the authors accounted for the potential confounding effect of the collaboration?
Two reviewers (UTK & KPJ), blinded to the abstract selections of the first reviewer, completed the abstract selection by reviewing half the total number of abstracts each.
We used a serial review process such that a primary reviewer completed the quality assessment and data abstraction forms and a second reviewer, after reading the article, checked each item on the form for completeness and accuracy.
They were then verified and completed by one reviewer (LAF), and furthermore checked by another reviewer (MA-L) for accuracy.
Each reviewer completed the data extraction matrix separately, and review results were compiled into a single matrix for analysis.
Each reviewer completed a data extraction form for each article reviewed.
Data extraction was completed by one reviewer with an independent second review on a randomly selected 10% sample.
Data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and all data collected was verified by a second reviewer.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com