DOI . ORG {}

Analyzed Page
Matching Content Categories
CMS
Monthly Traffic Estimate
How Does Doi.org Make Money
Keywords
Topics
Questions
Schema
Social Networks
External Links
Analytics And Tracking
Libraries
Hosting Providers
CDN Services

We began analyzing https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-016-0167-7, but it redirected us to https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-016-0167-7. The analysis below is for the second page.

Title[redir]:
Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review | BMC Psychology | Full Text
Description:
The evidence that many of the findings in the published literature may be unreliable is compelling. There is an excess of positive results, often from studies with small sample sizes, or other methodological limitations, and the conspicuous absence of null findings from studies of a similar quality. This distorts the evidence base, leading to false conclusions and undermining scientific progress. Central to this problem is a peer-review system where the decisions of authors, reviewers, and editors are more influenced by impressive results than they are by the validity of the study design. To address this, BMC Psychology is launching a pilot to trial a new ‘results-free’ peer-review process, whereby editors and reviewers are blinded to the study’s results, initially assessing manuscripts on the scientific merits of the rationale and methods alone. The aim is to improve the reliability and quality of published research, by focusing editorial decisions on the rigour of the methods, and preventing impressive ends justifying poor means.

Matching Content Categories {📚}

Education
Science
Law & Government

Content Management System {📝}

What CMS is doi.org built with?

Custom-built

No common CMS systems were detected on Doi.org, and no known web development framework was identified.

Traffic Estimate {📈}

What is the average monthly size of doi.org audience?

🌟 Strong Traffic: 100k - 200k visitors per month

Based on our best estimate, this website will receive around 100,019 visitors per month in the current month.
However, some sources were not loaded, we suggest to reload the page to get complete results.

check SE Ranking
check Ahrefs
check Similarweb
check Ubersuggest
check Semrush

How Does Doi.org Make Money? {💸}

We can't tell how the site generates income.

Not every website is profit-driven; some are created to spread information or serve as an online presence. Websites can be made for many reasons. This could be one of them. Doi.org has a secret sauce for making money, but we can't detect it yet.

Keywords {🔍}

results, publication, article, bias, google, scholar, null, positive, studies, study, review, pubmed, research, scientific, findings, authors, decisions, reviewers, editorial, quality, published, bmc, process, resultsfree, psychology, data, methods, evidence, journals, peerreview, reporting, publish, psychol, central, based, design, power, editors, hypothesis, peer, science, methodological, trial, publishing, statistical, effects, social, limitations, studys, manuscripts,

Topics {✒️}

�results-free’ peer-review process results-free peer-review trial �results-free’ peer review anna clark & tim shipley results-free review model time-sharing experiments springer nature peer-review process offers �results-free’ review results-free review peer-review process [19] peer-review workflow peer-review system peer review system data collection commences peer-review katherine traditional review process family/marital psychotherapy literature privacy choices/manage cookies �results-free’ reviews publishing initiative berkeley initiative actual review process bmc psychology launches null results receive peer review peer-review post-hoc justification creative commons license questionable research practices editorial decision-making process authors scientific editing data collection rosenthal famously referred state privacy rights references beck open access journals cognit ther res include public repositories biomed central introduced randomised controlled trial confirms accepted theories submitting low-quality studies peer-reviewed publications randomized efficacy trials high-profile cases higher impact journals small sample sizes biomed central journals competitive research environments

Questions {❓}

Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
Can results-free review reduce publication bias?
Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias?
How many studies are in the file drawer?
What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers?

Schema {🗺️}

WebPage:
      mainEntity:
         headline:Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review
         description:The evidence that many of the findings in the published literature may be unreliable is compelling. There is an excess of positive results, often from studies with small sample sizes, or other methodological limitations, and the conspicuous absence of null findings from studies of a similar quality. This distorts the evidence base, leading to false conclusions and undermining scientific progress. Central to this problem is a peer-review system where the decisions of authors, reviewers, and editors are more influenced by impressive results than they are by the validity of the study design. To address this, BMC Psychology is launching a pilot to trial a new ‘results-free’ peer-review process, whereby editors and reviewers are blinded to the study’s results, initially assessing manuscripts on the scientific merits of the rationale and methods alone. The aim is to improve the reliability and quality of published research, by focusing editorial decisions on the rigour of the methods, and preventing impressive ends justifying poor means.
         datePublished:2016-12-01T00:00:00Z
         dateModified:2016-12-01T00:00:00Z
         pageStart:1
         pageEnd:7
         license:http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
         sameAs:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0167-7
         keywords:
            Publication bias
            Peer review
            Results-free review
            Transparency
            Psychology Research
            Clinical Psychology
            Cognitive Psychology
         image:
         isPartOf:
            name:BMC Psychology
            issn:
               2050-7283
            volumeNumber:4
            type:
               Periodical
               PublicationVolume
         publisher:
            name:BioMed Central
            logo:
               url:https://www.springernature.com/app-sn/public/images/logo-springernature.png
               type:ImageObject
            type:Organization
         author:
               name:Katherine S. Button
               affiliation:
                     name:University of Bath
                     address:
                        name:Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK
                        type:PostalAddress
                     type:Organization
               email:[email protected]
               type:Person
               name:Liz Bal
               affiliation:
                     name:BioMed Central
                     address:
                        name:BioMed Central, London, UK
                        type:PostalAddress
                     type:Organization
               type:Person
               name:Anna Clark
               affiliation:
                     name:BioMed Central
                     address:
                        name:BioMed Central, London, UK
                        type:PostalAddress
                     type:Organization
               type:Person
               name:Tim Shipley
               affiliation:
                     name:BioMed Central
                     address:
                        name:BioMed Central, London, UK
                        type:PostalAddress
                     type:Organization
               type:Person
         isAccessibleForFree:1
         type:ScholarlyArticle
      context:https://schema.org
ScholarlyArticle:
      headline:Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review
      description:The evidence that many of the findings in the published literature may be unreliable is compelling. There is an excess of positive results, often from studies with small sample sizes, or other methodological limitations, and the conspicuous absence of null findings from studies of a similar quality. This distorts the evidence base, leading to false conclusions and undermining scientific progress. Central to this problem is a peer-review system where the decisions of authors, reviewers, and editors are more influenced by impressive results than they are by the validity of the study design. To address this, BMC Psychology is launching a pilot to trial a new ‘results-free’ peer-review process, whereby editors and reviewers are blinded to the study’s results, initially assessing manuscripts on the scientific merits of the rationale and methods alone. The aim is to improve the reliability and quality of published research, by focusing editorial decisions on the rigour of the methods, and preventing impressive ends justifying poor means.
      datePublished:2016-12-01T00:00:00Z
      dateModified:2016-12-01T00:00:00Z
      pageStart:1
      pageEnd:7
      license:http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
      sameAs:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0167-7
      keywords:
         Publication bias
         Peer review
         Results-free review
         Transparency
         Psychology Research
         Clinical Psychology
         Cognitive Psychology
      image:
      isPartOf:
         name:BMC Psychology
         issn:
            2050-7283
         volumeNumber:4
         type:
            Periodical
            PublicationVolume
      publisher:
         name:BioMed Central
         logo:
            url:https://www.springernature.com/app-sn/public/images/logo-springernature.png
            type:ImageObject
         type:Organization
      author:
            name:Katherine S. Button
            affiliation:
                  name:University of Bath
                  address:
                     name:Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK
                     type:PostalAddress
                  type:Organization
            email:[email protected]
            type:Person
            name:Liz Bal
            affiliation:
                  name:BioMed Central
                  address:
                     name:BioMed Central, London, UK
                     type:PostalAddress
                  type:Organization
            type:Person
            name:Anna Clark
            affiliation:
                  name:BioMed Central
                  address:
                     name:BioMed Central, London, UK
                     type:PostalAddress
                  type:Organization
            type:Person
            name:Tim Shipley
            affiliation:
                  name:BioMed Central
                  address:
                     name:BioMed Central, London, UK
                     type:PostalAddress
                  type:Organization
            type:Person
      isAccessibleForFree:1
["Periodical","PublicationVolume"]:
      name:BMC Psychology
      issn:
         2050-7283
      volumeNumber:4
Organization:
      name:BioMed Central
      logo:
         url:https://www.springernature.com/app-sn/public/images/logo-springernature.png
         type:ImageObject
      name:University of Bath
      address:
         name:Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK
         type:PostalAddress
      name:BioMed Central
      address:
         name:BioMed Central, London, UK
         type:PostalAddress
      name:BioMed Central
      address:
         name:BioMed Central, London, UK
         type:PostalAddress
      name:BioMed Central
      address:
         name:BioMed Central, London, UK
         type:PostalAddress
ImageObject:
      url:https://www.springernature.com/app-sn/public/images/logo-springernature.png
Person:
      name:Katherine S. Button
      affiliation:
            name:University of Bath
            address:
               name:Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK
               type:PostalAddress
            type:Organization
      email:[email protected]
      name:Liz Bal
      affiliation:
            name:BioMed Central
            address:
               name:BioMed Central, London, UK
               type:PostalAddress
            type:Organization
      name:Anna Clark
      affiliation:
            name:BioMed Central
            address:
               name:BioMed Central, London, UK
               type:PostalAddress
            type:Organization
      name:Tim Shipley
      affiliation:
            name:BioMed Central
            address:
               name:BioMed Central, London, UK
               type:PostalAddress
            type:Organization
PostalAddress:
      name:Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK
      name:BioMed Central, London, UK
      name:BioMed Central, London, UK
      name:BioMed Central, London, UK

Social Networks {👍}(2)

External Links {🔗}(191)

Analytics and Tracking {📊}

Google Tag Manager

Libraries {📚}

Prism.js

Emails and Hosting {✉️}

Mail Servers:

mx.zoho.eu
mx2.zoho.eu
mx3.zoho.eu

Name Servers:

josh.ns.cloudflare.com
zita.ns.cloudflare.com

CDN Services {📦}

Crossref

3.78s.