600 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Sep 2020
    1. Siemieniuk, R. A., Bartoszko, J. J., Ge, L., Zeraatkar, D., Izcovich, A., Kum, E., Pardo-Hernandez, H., Rochwerg, B., Lamontagne, F., Han, M. A., Liu, Q., Agarwal, A., Agoritsas, T., Chu, D. K., Couban, R., Darzi, A., Devji, T., Fang, B., Fang, C., … Brignardello-Petersen, R. (2020). Drug treatments for covid-19: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ, 370. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2980

  3. Aug 2020
    1. Mambrini. A. Baronchelli. A. Starnini. M. Marinazzo. D. De Domenico, M. (2020) .PRINCIPIA: a Decentralized Peer-Review Ecosystem. Retrieved from: chrome-extension://bjfhmglciegochdpefhhlphglcehbmek/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F2008.09011.pdf

  4. Jul 2020
    1. Authors should annotate code before the review occurs because annotations guide the reviewer through the changes

      Guide the reviewer during the review process

    2. It´s also useful to watch internal process metrics, including:

      Inspection rate Defect rate Defect density

    3. Before implementing a process, your team should decide how you will measure the effectiveness of peer review and name a few tangible goals.

      Set few tangible goals. Fix more bugs is not a good example.

    4. Code reviews in reasonable quantity, at a slower pace for a limited amount of time results in the most effective code review.

      Only less than 500 LOC per hour

    5. The brain can only effectively process so much information at a time; beyond 400 LOC, the ability to find defects diminishes.

      <400 LOC

  5. Jun 2020
    1. Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., Schünemann, H. J., Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., El-harakeh, A., Bognanni, A., Lotfi, T., Loeb, M., Hajizadeh, A., Bak, A., Izcovich, A., Cuello-Garcia, C. A., Chen, C., Harris, D. J., Borowiack, E., … Schünemann, H. J. (2020). Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9

  6. twitter.com twitter.com