Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1098/rsos.201520 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1098/rsos.201520 33204484!7657885!33204484     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       R+Soc+Open+Sci 2020 ; 7 (10): 201520 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33204484|t=2020. Credibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers |pdf=|usr=}}{{33204484}} gab.com Text Credibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers JO: R Soc Open Sci http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33204484 #FOAvip Preprints increase accessibility and can speed scholarly communication if researchers view them as credible enough to read and use. Preprint services do not provide the heuristic cues of a journal's reputation, selection, and peer-review processes that, regardless of their flaws, are often used as a guide for deciding what to read. We conducted a survey of 3759 researchers across a wide range of disciplines to determine the importance of different cues for assessing the credibility of individual preprints and preprint services. We found that cues related to information about open science content and independent verification of author claims were rated as highly important for judging preprint credibility, and peer views and author information were rated as less important. As of early 2020, very few preprint services display any of the most important cues. By adding such cues, services may be able to help researchers better assess the credibility of preprints, enabling scholars to more confidently use preprints, thereby accelerating scientific communication and discovery. Twit Text FOAVip Credibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers ????R Soc Open Sci http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33204484 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33204484 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33204484}}</ref> Credibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers #MMPMID33204484 Soderberg CK; Errington TM; Nosek BA R Soc Open Sci 2020[Oct]; 7 (10): 201520 PMID33204484show ga Preprints increase accessibility and can speed scholarly communication if researchers view them as credible enough to read and use. Preprint services do not provide the heuristic cues of a journal's reputation, selection, and peer-review processes that, regardless of their flaws, are often used as a guide for deciding what to read. We conducted a survey of 3759 researchers across a wide range of disciplines to determine the importance of different cues for assessing the credibility of individual preprints and preprint services. We found that cues related to information about open science content and independent verification of author claims were rated as highly important for judging preprint credibility, and peer views and author information were rated as less important. As of early 2020, very few preprint services display any of the most important cues. By adding such cues, services may be able to help researchers better assess the credibility of preprints, enabling scholars to more confidently use preprints, thereby accelerating scientific communication and discovery. äCredibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing