Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Filters

Tony Ross-Hellauer

Showing results (1-10 of 21) with videos related to

Pageof 3
Sort By:
Nature|March 15, 2022
Open science, done wrong, will compound inequitiesTony Ross-Hellauer
F1000Research|September 20, 2017
What is open peer review? A systematic reviewTony Ross-Hellauer
Plos Biology|January 12, 2023
Strategic priorities for reproducibility reformTony Ross-Hellauer
Research Integrity and Peer Review|March 13, 2019
Guidelines for open peer review implementationTony Ross-Hellauer, Edit Görögh
Research Integrity and Peer Review|May 6, 2020
The limitations to our understanding of peer reviewJonathan P Tennant, Tony Ross-Hellauer
Plos One|December 14, 2017
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewersTony Ross-Hellauer, Arvid Deppe, Birgit Schmidt
Royal Society Open Science|February 9, 2023
Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchersNicki Lisa Cole, Stefan Reichmann, Tony Ross-Hellauer
Nature|April 3, 2020
Defining predatory journals: no peer review, no pointLeonhard Dobusch, Maximilian Heimstädt, Katja Mayer, et al.
F1000Research|August 24, 2018
Ten considerations for open peer reviewBirgit Schmidt, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Xenia van Edig, et al.
Royal Society Open Science|March 6, 2025
The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping reviewThomas Klebel, Vincent Traag, Ioanna Grypari, et al.
Pageof 3

Showing results (1-10 of 21) with videos related to

Sort By:
Pageof 3
Nature|March 15, 2022
Open science, done wrong, will compound inequitiesTony Ross-Hellauer
F1000Research|September 20, 2017
What is open peer review? A systematic reviewTony Ross-Hellauer
Plos Biology|January 12, 2023
Strategic priorities for reproducibility reformTony Ross-Hellauer
Research Integrity and Peer Review|March 13, 2019
Guidelines for open peer review implementationTony Ross-Hellauer, Edit Görögh
Research Integrity and Peer Review|May 6, 2020
The limitations to our understanding of peer reviewJonathan P Tennant, Tony Ross-Hellauer
Plos One|December 14, 2017
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewersTony Ross-Hellauer, Arvid Deppe, Birgit Schmidt
Royal Society Open Science|February 9, 2023
Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchersNicki Lisa Cole, Stefan Reichmann, Tony Ross-Hellauer
Nature|April 3, 2020
Defining predatory journals: no peer review, no pointLeonhard Dobusch, Maximilian Heimstädt, Katja Mayer, et al.
F1000Research|August 24, 2018
Ten considerations for open peer reviewBirgit Schmidt, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Xenia van Edig, et al.
Royal Society Open Science|March 6, 2025
The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping reviewThomas Klebel, Vincent Traag, Ioanna Grypari, et al.
Pageof 3