ArticleF1000Research2016
Teaching and learning based on peer review: a realistic approach in forensic sciences.
Article in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Forensic science or sciences? The recognition as an independent science and redefinition of expert practices based on transdisciplinary.Forensic sciences research · 2025Article
- One image is worth more than a thousand words: producing an atlas of medical signs for teaching clinical and forensic toxicology.Forensic sciences research · 2022Article
- Predatory journals and meetings in forensic sciences: what every expert needs to know about this "parasitic" publishing model.Forensic sciences research · 2021Review
- Students' perception of online learning amidst the Covid-19 pandemic: A study of junior, senior high school and college students in a remote area.F1000Research · 2021Article
- COVID-19 research: pandemicForensic sciences research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Teaching and learning methods need a continuous upgrade in higher education. However it is also true that some of the modern methodologies do not reduce or prevent school failure. Perhaps the real limitation is the inability to identify the true reasons that may explain it or ignore/undervalue the problem. In our opinion, one of the current constraints of the teaching/learning process is the excess of and inadequate bibliography recommended by the teacher, which results in continuous student difficulties and waste of time in searching and selecting useful information. The need to change the paradigm of the teaching/learning process comes also from employers. They claim forensic experts armed with useful knowledge to face professional life. It is therefore mandatory to identify the new needs and opportunities regarding pedagogical methodologies. This article reflects on the recent importance of peer review in teaching/learning forensic sciences based on the last 10 years of pedagogical experience inseparably from the scientific activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.