Sentence examples for evaluation of publication from inspiring English sources

Especially, there were very poor descriptions and/or implementations regarding the registration (2%), evaluation of publication bias (12%), and appropriate conclusions based on scientific quality of the included studies (27%).

The components of the systematic review will be explained step by step: the research question, search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria and the selection of primary studies, data extraction, presentation of study characteristics, risk of bias assessment, estimation of the common effect, examination of study heterogeneity, and evaluation of publication bias.

Evaluation of publication bias by funnel plot (Figure 2b), Begg's test (P = 0.855) or Egger's test (P = 0.984) didn't reveal significant results.

We also used Egger's test and the Begg-Mazumdar test with 95% CI for evaluation of publication bias, which are considered to be significant for P<0.10.

Evaluation of publication records and citations was performed in ISI Web of Science for the entire career of each scientist until December 2007.

[23] It also has to be noted that evaluation of publication bias cannot be done in a robust manner with such few data points, the statistical power of the Egger's test to suspect publication bias is very limited here.

An evaluation of publications during the last 15 years shows some trends in the application of a number of CPA metrics and methods in different process industries.

It also has a wider focus than recent articles on peer review, thus including the evaluation of publications, projects (ex-ante, but a similar discussion would be valid for ex-post evaluations), institutions and researchers.

Several key areas will be discussed, including selection of patients, trial design, psychological intervention considerations, outcomes and evaluation of results, publication of trial results, and special issues related to pediatric clinical trials.

The modern science system relies on intense evaluation of scientific publication, in which scientific impact is highly emphasized, but its contribution to the progress of science has been controversial.

Bornmann (2008a; 2009) suggests that a complete evaluation of researchers' publication outputs can be achieved by combining two indices; one that describes the most productive core of a researcher (such as the h-index) and one that describes the impact of the papers in the core (such as the m-index) [9], [10].