WorldWideScience

Sample records for included peer-reviewed manuscripts

  1. Writing Quality Peer Reviews of Research Manuscripts

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ward, Phillip; Graber, Kim C.; van der Mars, Hans

    2015-01-01

    Peer review is an important mechanism for advancing knowledge in a manner deemed as acceptable by the research community. It can also serve the function of providing guidance to an author(s) to improve the likelihood that manuscripts will be accepted in peer reviewed journals. There is, however, little assistance for new or existing reviewers of…

  2. A systematic review of peer review for scientific manuscripts.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Larson, Bradley P; Chung, Kevin C

    2012-03-01

    The usefulness of peer review has been expressed as a method to improve the quality of published work. However, there has been a lack of systematic reviews to date to highlight the essential themes of the peer-review process. We performed a search of the English language literature published prior to October 2011 using PubMed to identify articles regarding peer review. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed a priori. Data were extracted and then analyzed for the prevalence of peer-review themes contained within the literature. Of the 941 articles found during our original literature search, 37 were selected for review. The majority were commentary/editorial articles. The themes in our search included the structure and process of the peer-review system, the criteria for papers, ethics, and the different forms of the peer-review process. The criteria for submission will vary, but our systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of what reviewers expect from authors. Our systematic review also highlighted ethical considerations for both authors and reviewers during the peer-review process. Although the topic of peer review is expansive and its process may vary from journal to journal, the understanding of the themes outlined in this paper will help authors recognize how to write a more successful paper. Also, more research must be carried out to establish the efficacy of the different styles of peer review, and it would be presumptuous to draw conclusions until further research is established.

  3. Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Janke, Kristin K; Bzowyckyj, Andrew S; Traynor, Andrew P

    2017-05-01

    Objectives. To identify peer reviewer and peer review characteristics that enhance manuscript quality and editorial decisions, and to identify valuable elements of peer reviewer training programs. Methods. A three-school, 15-year review of pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration faculty's publications was conducted to identify high-publication volume journals for inclusion. Editors-in-chief identified all editors managing manuscripts for participation. A three-round modified Delphi process was used. Rounds advanced from open-ended questions regarding actions and attributes of good reviewers to consensus-seeking and clarifying questions related to quality, importance, value, and priority. Results. Nineteen editors representing eight pharmacy journals participated. Three characteristics of reviews were rated required or helpful in enhancing manuscript quality by all respondents: includes a critical analysis of the manuscript (88% required, 12% helpful), includes feedback that contains both strengths and areas of improvement (53% required, 47% helpful), and speaks to the manuscript's utility in the literature (41% required, 59% helpful). Hands-on experience with review activities (88%) and exposure to good and bad reviews (88%) were identified as very valuable to peer reviewer development. Conclusion. Reviewers, individuals involved in faculty development, and journals should work to assist new reviewers in defining focused areas of expertise, building knowledge in these areas, and developing critical analysis skills.

  4. Editors’ Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development

    Science.gov (United States)

    Janke, Kristin K.; Traynor, Andrew P.

    2017-01-01

    Objectives. To identify peer reviewer and peer review characteristics that enhance manuscript quality and editorial decisions, and to identify valuable elements of peer reviewer training programs. Methods. A three-school, 15-year review of pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration faculty’s publications was conducted to identify high-publication volume journals for inclusion. Editors-in-chief identified all editors managing manuscripts for participation. A three-round modified Delphi process was used. Rounds advanced from open-ended questions regarding actions and attributes of good reviewers to consensus-seeking and clarifying questions related to quality, importance, value, and priority. Results. Nineteen editors representing eight pharmacy journals participated. Three characteristics of reviews were rated required or helpful in enhancing manuscript quality by all respondents: includes a critical analysis of the manuscript (88% required, 12% helpful), includes feedback that contains both strengths and areas of improvement (53% required, 47% helpful), and speaks to the manuscript’s utility in the literature (41% required, 59% helpful). Hands-on experience with review activities (88%) and exposure to good and bad reviews (88%) were identified as very valuable to peer reviewer development. Conclusion. Reviewers, individuals involved in faculty development, and journals should work to assist new reviewers in defining focused areas of expertise, building knowledge in these areas, and developing critical analysis skills. PMID:28630514

  5. Implementation and Outcomes of a Faculty-Based, Peer Review Manuscript Writing Workshop.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kulage, Kristine M; Larson, Elaine L

    2016-01-01

    The publication of scholarly work and research findings is an important expectation for nursing faculty; however, academic writing is often neglected, leaving dissemination through manuscript writing an area of concern for the nursing profession. Writing initiatives have been utilized to promote scholarly dissemination in schools of nursing, but those described in the literature have been primarily non-United States based and student focused. This article describes a faculty-based manuscript writing workshop, assesses participants' impressions, and describes its impact on scholarly output. The workshop is a collaborative learning process utilizing peer review to improve manuscript quality and model behaviors for improving writing and peer-reviewing skills. Seventeen workshop participants including three predoctoral students, 6 postdoctoral fellows, and 8 faculty members completed an anonymous workshop survey (81% response rate). All but 1 of 17 manuscripts reviewed in the workshop are published, accepted, or in the review process. All participants indicated that the workshop was a valuable use of time and would recommend it to colleagues. The greatest reported workshop benefit was its function as an impetus to complete and submit manuscripts. We recommend the manuscript writing workshop model for other schools of nursing seeking ways to expand their scholarly output and create accountability for dissemination through manuscript writing. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  6. Submitting a manuscript for peer review--integrity, integrity, integrity.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Murphy, Sean P; Bulman, Christopher; Shariati, Behnam; Hausmann, Laura

    2014-02-01

    Publication of a flawed manuscript has significant consequences for the progress of science. When this proves to be intentional, science is brought into disrepute and this puts even more pressure on the shrinking resources that society is prepared to invest in research. All scientific journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, have witnessed a marked increase in the number of corrections and retractions of published articles over the last 10 years, and uncovered a depressingly large number of fabrications among submitted manuscripts. The increase in number of 'spoiled' manuscripts reflects not only the improved methods that journals employ to detect plagiarism in its many forms but also suggests a measurable change in the behavior of authors. The increased policing of submissions by reviewers, editors, and publishers expends time and money. The sanctions imposed by journal editors on authors found guilty of malpractice are transparent and severe. © 2013 International Society for Neurochemistry.

  7. 'Peer review' for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Das, A K

    2016-04-01

    Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring quality control of scientific manuscripts published in any journal. The traditional double blind peer review, although a time-tested method, has come under increasing criticism in the face of emerging trends in the review process with the primary concern being the delays in completion of the review process. Other issues are the inability to detect errors/fraud, lack of transparency, lack of reliability, potential for bias, potential for unethical practices, lack of objectivity, inconsistencies amongst reviewers, lack of recognition and motivation of reviewers. Alternative options to classical peer review being propagated are: open review, immediate self-publication using preprint servers, nonselective review focusing primarily on the scientific content, and post-publication review. These alternative review processes, however, may suffer from the inability to validate quality control. In addition, anecdotal instances of peer review frauds are being reported more often than earlier. Suggested means to ensure quality of peer review process includes:(a) each journal to have its own database of reviewers, (b) verification of email IDs of reviewers provided by authors along with details of their institutions, (c) ensure credibility of reviewers before requesting for review, (d) check for plagiarism at the editorial level, (e) editors to distinguish between a good review from a possible biased/bad review, and (f) give recognition for reviewers once in a year. To conclude, quickness of review and publication should not dictate the scientific publication process at the cost of quality of contents.

  8. Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bayne, Stephen C; McGivney, Glen P; Mazer, Sarah C

    2003-02-01

    This article provides an extensive tutorial for writers and reviewers involved with the preparation and evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication in dental journals. The contents were compiled from the Instructions for Authors printed in various peer-reviewed dental journals and from feedback from 10 workshops conducted for the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. The 10 major sections of a scientific manuscript are reviewed in detail in terms of content, format, and common errors; examples of good content are provided. The review process is described, and instructions on conducting fair and expeditious manuscript evaluations are provided for reviewers. In addition, a number of special topics are addressed, including potential conflicts of interest for an author, institutional review of experiments that involve human subjects or animals, and the reproduction of photographs and other images in color versus black and white. In summary, this article presents key guidelines to ensure compliance with the principles of sound scientific writing and the expeditious review of manuscripts prepared for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.

  9. Mentored peer review of standardized manuscripts as a teaching tool for residents: a pilot randomized controlled multi-center study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wong, Victoria S S; Strowd, Roy E; Aragón-García, Rebeca; Moon, Yeseon Park; Ford, Blair; Haut, Sheryl R; Kass, Joseph S; London, Zachary N; Mays, MaryAnn; Milligan, Tracey A; Price, Raymond S; Reynolds, Patrick S; Selwa, Linda M; Spencer, David C; Elkind, Mitchell S V

    2017-01-01

    There is increasing need for peer reviewers as the scientific literature grows. Formal education in biostatistics and research methodology during residency training is lacking. In this pilot study, we addressed these issues by evaluating a novel method of teaching residents about biostatistics and research methodology using peer review of standardized manuscripts. We hypothesized that mentored peer review would improve resident knowledge and perception of these concepts more than non-mentored peer review, while improving review quality. A partially blinded, randomized, controlled multi-center study was performed. Seventy-eight neurology residents from nine US neurology programs were randomized to receive mentoring from a local faculty member or not. Within a year, residents reviewed a baseline manuscript and four subsequent manuscripts, all with introduced errors designed to teach fundamental review concepts. In the mentored group, mentors discussed completed reviews with residents. Primary outcome measure was change in knowledge score between pre- and post-tests, measuring epidemiology and biostatistics knowledge. Secondary outcome measures included level of confidence in the use and interpretation of statistical concepts before and after intervention, and RQI score for baseline and final manuscripts. Sixty-four residents (82%) completed initial review with gradual decline in completion on subsequent reviews. Change in primary outcome, the difference between pre- and post-test knowledge scores, did not differ between mentored (-8.5%) and non-mentored (-13.9%) residents ( p  = 0.48). Significant differences in secondary outcomes (using 5-point Likert scale, 5 = strongly agree) included mentored residents reporting enhanced understanding of research methodology (3.69 vs 2.61; p  = 0.001), understanding of manuscripts (3.73 vs 2.87; p  = 0.006), and application of study results to clinical practice (3.65 vs 2.78; p  = 0.005) compared to non

  10. Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kotsis, Sandra V; Chung, Kevin C

    2014-04-01

    Many instructional guides have been published on how to write scientific papers. Likewise, many published articles have focused on the reasons why submitted manuscripts are rejected. However, fewer publications have been presented to guide authors on how to address reviewers' comments in a manuscript revision. Even fewer counsel authors on how to deal with a rejection decision. In this article, the authors present a literature review on the strategies to get a manuscript accepted, despite an initial unfavorable review. The authors share their experience with addressing reviewers' comments to get a manuscript accepted and published. Finally, the authors discuss the process of peer review and offer tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer.

  11. A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Glonti, Ketevan; Cauchi, Daniel; Cobo, Erik; Boutron, Isabelle; Moher, David; Hren, Darko

    2017-10-22

    The primary functions of peer reviewers are poorly defined. Thus far no body of literature has systematically identified the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. A clear establishment of these can lead to improvements in the peer review process. The purpose of this scoping review is to determine what is known on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers. We will use the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and subsequently adapted by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The scoping review will include all study designs, as well as editorials, commentaries and grey literature. The following eight electronic databases will be searched (from inception to May 2017): Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Two reviewers will use inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the 'Population-Concept-Context' framework to independently screen titles and abstracts of articles considered for inclusion. Full-text screening of relevant eligible articles will also be carried out by two reviewers. The search strategy for grey literature will include searching in websites of existing networks, biomedical journal publishers and organisations that offer resources for peer reviewers. In addition we will review journal guidelines to peer reviewers on how to perform the manuscript review. Journals will be selected using the 2016 journal impact factor. We will identify and assess the top five, middle five and lowest-ranking five journals across all medical specialties. This scoping review will undertake a secondary analysis of data already collected and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in peer review in biomedical research. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the

  12. Why Participate in Peer Review as a Journal Manuscript Reviewer: What's in It for You?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pytynia, Kristen B

    2017-06-01

    The peer review process for scientific journals relies on the efforts of volunteer reviewers. Reviewers are selected due to their expertise in their fields. With so many demands on professional time, the benefits of participating in peer review may not be obvious. However, reviewers benefit by exposure to the latest developments in their fields, facilitating their keeping up-to-date with the latest publications. Tenure committees look favorably on participation in peer review, and invitations to review underscore that the reviewer is a respected subject matter expert. Contacts made during the peer review process can lead to long-lasting collaboration. Continuing medical education credit can be obtained through various mechanisms. Overall, participating in peer review is an important part of career development and should be viewed as a critical component of advancement.

  13. Submission of scientifically sound and ethical manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - a reviewer's personal perspective on bioanalytical publications.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Weng, Naidong

    2012-11-01

    In the pharmaceutical industry, bioanalysis is very dynamic and is probably one of the few fields of research covering the entire drug discovery, development and post-marketing process. Important decisions on drug safety can partially rely on bioanalytical data, which therefore can be subject to regulatory scrutiny. Bioanalytical scientists have historically contributed significant numbers of scientific manuscripts in many peer-reviewed analytical journals. All of these journals provide some high-level instructions, but they also leave sufficient flexibility for reviewers to perform independent critique and offer recommendations for each submitted manuscript. Reviewers play a pivotal role in the process of bioanalytical publication to ensure the publication of high-quality manuscripts in a timely fashion. Their efforts usually lead to improved manuscripts. However, it has to be a joint effort among authors, reviewers and editors to promote scientifically sound and ethically fair bioanalytical publications. Most of the submitted manuscripts were well written with only minor or moderate revisions required for further improvement. Nevertheless, there were small numbers of submitted manuscripts that did not meet the requirements for publications because of scientific or ethical deficiencies, which are discussed in this Letter to the Editor. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  14. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schriger, David L; Kadera, Samantha P; von Elm, Erik

    2016-03-01

    Academic medical researchers are judged by how often their publications are cited in the literature. When serving as journal reviewers, they may be more favorably disposed to manuscripts that cite their work. We investigate whether manuscripts that contain a citation to the reviewer's work receive higher evaluations than those that do not and whether peer reviewers encourage authors to cite that reviewer's work. We analyzed all research manuscripts submitted in 2012 to Annals of Emergency Medicine to determine whether they contained citations to each reviewer's work. To determine whether citation affected reviewer scores, we obtained each reviewer's score of the manuscript's overall desirability (1=worst to 5=best) and used descriptive statistics and regression modeling to compare scores of cited and noncited reviewers. We also enumerated how often reviewers suggested that authors add citations to the reviewer's work or other work. There were 395 manuscripts and 999 corresponding reviews with an manuscript desirability score. The 83 reviews by cited reviewers (8.3%) had a mean score of 2.8 (SD 1.4); the 916 reviews by noncited reviewers (91.7%), 2.5 (1.2; Δ=0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 0.6). The mean score in the 117 reviews of the noncited reviewers of the 57 manuscripts that had both cited and noncited reviewers was 2.9 (SD 1.2) compared with 2.9 (SD 1.1) for the 68 reviews by cited reviewers (Δ=0; 95% CI -0.3 to 0.4). In the final ordinal regression model, the unadjusted OR for the manuscript desirability score was 1.6 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.7); when adjusting for the manuscripts' mean desirability score, it was 1.4 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.2), demonstrating that manuscript quality was a confounder. Authors were asked to add a citation to the reviewer's work in 28 reviews (3%) but to others' work in 98 (10%). In a leading specialty journal, cited reviewers gave higher scores than noncited reviewers. However, this was likely due to their being assigned

  15. Peer review and the publication process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ali, Parveen Azam; Watson, Roger

    2016-10-01

    To provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, selection of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals. Discussion paper. This paper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and experience of contributing as peer reviewers and editors in the field of health care, including nursing. There are various types of peer review: single blind; double blind; open; and post-publication review. The role of the reviewers in reviewing manuscripts and their contribution to the scientific and academic community remains important.

  16. A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals

    OpenAIRE

    Glonti, Ketevan; Cauchi, Daniel; Cobo, Erik; Boutron, Isabelle; Moher, David; Hren, Darko

    2017-01-01

    Introduction The primary functions of peer reviewers are poorly defined. Thus far no body of literature has systematically identified the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. A clear establishment of these can lead to improvements in the peer review process. The purpose of this scoping review is to determine what is known on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers. Methods We will use the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and subsequently ada...

  17. Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).

    Science.gov (United States)

    Galipeau, James; Moher, David; Skidmore, Becky; Campbell, Craig; Hendry, Paul; Cameron, D William; Hébert, Paul C; Palepu, Anita

    2013-06-17

    An estimated $100 billion is lost to 'waste' in biomedical research globally, annually, much of which comes from the poor quality of published research. One area of waste involves bias in reporting research, which compromises the usability of published reports. In response, there has been an upsurge in interest and research in the scientific process of writing, editing, peer reviewing, and publishing (that is, journalology) of biomedical research. One reason for bias in reporting and the problem of unusable reports could be due to authors lacking knowledge or engaging in questionable practices while designing, conducting, or reporting their research. Another might be that the peer review process for journal publication has serious flaws, including possibly being ineffective, and having poorly trained and poorly motivated reviewers. Similarly, many journal editors have limited knowledge related to publication ethics. This can ultimately have a negative impact on the healthcare system. There have been repeated calls for better, more numerous training opportunities in writing for publication, peer review, and publishing. However, little research has taken stock of journalology training opportunities or evaluations of their effectiveness. We will conduct a systematic review to synthesize studies that evaluate the effectiveness of training programs in journalology. A comprehensive three-phase search approach will be employed to identify evaluations of training opportunities, involving: 1) forward-searching using the Scopus citation database, 2) a search of the MEDLINE In-Process and Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO databases, as well as the databases of the Cochrane Library, and 3) a grey literature search. This project aims to provide evidence to help guide the journalological training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors. While there is ample evidence that many members of these groups are not getting the necessary training needed to excel

  18. Reviewing the Review Process: Towards Good Practice in the Peer Review of Manuscripts Submitted to Nursing Journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Burnard, Philip; Hannigan, Ben

    2001-01-01

    Notes that there is little consistency among review processes of nursing journals. Recommends a standardized peer review system, establishment of guidelines for referees, and introduction of open rather than anonymous reviewing. (SK)

  19. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Manchikanti, Laxmaiah; Kaye, Alan D; Boswell, Mark V; Hirsch, Joshua A

    2015-01-01

    Scientific peer review is pivotal in health care research in that it facilitates the evaluation of findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. While the origins of peer review can be traced to the societies of the eighteenth century, it became an institutionalized part of the scholarly process in the latter half of the twentieth century. This was a response to the growth of research and greater subject specialization. With the current increase in the number of specialty journals, the peer review process continues to evolve to meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The peer review process itself faces challenges. Unblinded peer review might suffer from positive or negative bias towards certain authors, specialties, and institutions. Peer review can also suffer when editors and/or reviewers might be unable to understand the contents of the submitted manuscript. This can result in an inability to detect major flaws, or revelations of major flaws after acceptance of publication by the editors. Other concerns include potentially long delays in publication and challenges uncovering plagiarism, duplication, corruption and scientific misconduct. Conversely, a multitude of these challenges have led to claims of scientific misconduct and an erosion of faith. These challenges have invited criticism of the peer review process itself. However, despite its imperfections, the peer review process enjoys widespread support in the scientific community. Peer review bias is one of the major focuses of today's scientific assessment of the literature. Various types of peer review bias include content-based bias, confirmation bias, bias due to conservatism, bias against interdisciplinary research, publication bias, and the bias of conflicts of interest. Consequently, peer review would benefit from various changes and improvements with appropriate training of reviewers to provide quality reviews to maintain the quality and integrity of

  20. Peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Twaij, H; Oussedik, S; Hoffmeyer, P

    2014-04-01

    The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals. This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

  1. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Stahel, Philip F; Moore, Ernest E

    2014-09-26

    The lack of formal training programs for peer reviewers places the scientific quality of biomedical publications at risk, as the introduction of 'hidden' bias may not be easily recognized by the reader. The exponential increase in the number of manuscripts submitted for publication worldwide, estimated in the millions annually, overburdens the capability of available qualified referees. Indeed, the workload imposed on individual reviewers appears to be reaching a 'breaking point' that may no longer be sustainable. Some journals have made efforts to improve peer review via structured guidelines, courses for referees, and employing biostatisticians to ensure appropriate study design and analyses. Further strategies designed to incentivize and reward peer review work include journals providing continuing medical education (CME) credits to individual referees by defined criteria for timely and high-quality evaluations. Alternative options to supplement the current peer review process consist of 'post-publication peer review,' 'decoupled peer review,' 'collaborative peer review,' and 'portable peer review'. This article outlines the shortcomings and flaws in the current peer review system and discusses new innovative options on the horizon.

  2. Manuscripts

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    François Delsarte

    2012-11-01

    Full Text Available In these excerpts from a manuscript from the François Delsarte archive, the French author offers us passages from his notebooks, with considerations on the techniques used by singers, especially on degrees and expression. It presents the foundations of his work and offers advices to students. The text explains Delsarte’s viewpoint on inspiration and its role in artistic work. It discusses aspects related to his form of pedagogy in the form of dialogue.

  3. PEER REVIEWER

    OpenAIRE

    4.Indrianty, Sudirman

    2016-01-01

    - PEER REVIEWER Understanding The Dynamics Interaction Within Indonesia Healthcare Competition (Penulis: Indrianty Sudirman). Jurnal International: European Journal of Business and Management ISSN: 2222-1905 (Paper), 2222-2839 (Online), Vol. 4, No.11. Tahun 2012. Hal. 94-100. Penerbit: IISTE www.iiste.org

  4. PEER REVIEWER

    OpenAIRE

    27.Ade, Rosmana

    2016-01-01

    - PEER REVIEWER Effectiveness of Fungal and Bacterial Isolates Fruits Againts Fusarium oxysporum f, sp passifl (Penulis: Hilda Karim, Tutik Kuswinanti, Ade Rosmana Burhanuddin). International Journal of agricultural system. (IJAS) ISSN: 2337-9782. Vol. 1 . No. 2, December 2013. Penerbit: Pascasarjana Unhas. Hal.120-126 www.pasca.unhas.ac.id

  5. A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Martin Almquist

    Full Text Available Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS, after surveying authors' and reviewers' opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process.In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale.The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9% responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%. Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40% received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75 versus 2.84 (± 0.71, P<0.001.Open online peer review is feasible in this setting, but it attracts few reviews, of lower quality than conventional peer reviews.

  6. A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Almquist, Martin; von Allmen, Regula S; Carradice, Dan; Oosterling, Steven J; McFarlane, Kirsty; Wijnhoven, Bas

    2017-01-01

    Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), after surveying authors' and reviewers' opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process. In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale. The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9%) responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%). Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40%) received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75) versus 2.84 (± 0.71), Ponline peer review is feasible in this setting, but it attracts few reviews, of lower quality than conventional peer reviews.

  7. Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Levis, Alexander W; Leentjens, Albert F G; Levenson, James L; Lumley, Mark A; Thombs, Brett D

    2015-12-01

    Some peer reviewers may inappropriately, or coercively request that authors include references to the reviewers' own work. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether, compared to reviews for a journal with single-blind peer review, reviews for a journal with open peer review included (1) fewer self-citations; (2) a lower proportion of self-citations without a rationale; and (3) a lower ratio of proportions of citations without a rationale in self-citations versus citations to others' work. Peer reviews for published manuscripts submitted in 2012 to a single-blind peer review journal, the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, were previously evaluated (Thombs et al., 2015). These were compared to publically available peer reviews of manuscripts published in 2012 in an open review journal, BMC Psychiatry. Two investigators independently extracted data for both journals. There were no significant differences between journals in the proportion of all reviewer citations that were self-citations (Journal of Psychosomatic Research: 71/225, 32%; BMC Psychiatry: 90/315, 29%; p=.50), or in the proportion of self-citations without a rationale (Journal of Psychosomatic Research: 15/71, 21%; BMC Psychiatry: 12/90, 13%; p=.21). There was no significant difference between journals in the proportion of self-citations versus citations to others' work without a rationale (p=.31). Blind and open peer review methodologies have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The present study found that, in reasonably similar journals that use single-blind and open review, there were no substantive differences in the pattern of peer reviewer self-citations. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  8. Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Dumenco, Luba; Engle, Deborah L; Goodell, Kristen; Nagler, Alisa; Ovitsh, Robin K; Whicker, Shari A

    2017-02-01

    After participating in a group peer-review exercise at a workshop presented by Academic Medicine and MedEdPORTAL editors at the 2015 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical Education Meeting, the authors realized that the way their work group reviewed a manuscript was very different from the way by which they each would have reviewed the paper as an individual. Further, the group peer-review process yielded more robust feedback for the manuscript's authors than did the traditional individual peer-review process. This realization motivated the authors to reconvene and collaborate to write this Commentary to share their experience and propose the expanded use of group peer review in medical education scholarship.The authors consider the benefits of a peer-review process for reviewers, including learning how to improve their own manuscripts. They suggest that the benefits of a team review model may be similar to those of teamwork and team-based learning in medicine and medical education. They call for research to investigate this, to provide evidence to support group review, and to determine whether specific paper types would benefit most from team review (e.g., particularly complex manuscripts, those receiving widely disparate initial individual reviews). In addition, the authors propose ways in which a team-based approach to peer review could be expanded by journals and institutions. They believe that exploring the use of group peer review potentially could create a new methodology for skill development in research and scholarly writing and could enhance the quality of medical education scholarship.

  9. The ethics of peer review in bioethics

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

    2014-01-01

    A good deal has been written on the ethics of peer review, especially in the scientific and medical literatures. In contrast, we are unaware of any articles on the ethics of peer review in bioethics. Recognising this gap, we evaluate the extant proposals regarding ethical standards for peer review in general and consider how they apply to bioethics. We argue that scholars have an obligation to perform peer review based on the extent to which they personally benefit from the peer review process. We also argue, contrary to existing proposals and guidelines, that it can be appropriate for peer reviewers to benefit in their own scholarship from the manuscripts they review. With respect to bioethics in particular, we endorse double-blind review and suggest several ways in which the peer review process might be improved. PMID:24131903

  10. [Quality of manuscript evaluation in Gaceta Sanitaria].

    Science.gov (United States)

    García, A M; Plasència, A; Fernández, E

    2002-01-01

    To describe strengths and weaknesses of peer reviews of manuscripts received in Gaceta Sanitaria in order to guide reviewers selection, to improve quality of peer reviews and to establish an internal system to be incorporated to the editorial process of handling manuscripts. 100 peer reviews of 55 manuscripts received during 2000 and 2001 were included. A questionnaire containing closed questions assessing specific and general components of reviews' quality was applied (answers Yes/No or on a 5-points scale). Descriptive and correlation analyses were performed for the different items in the questionnaire. An Index of Quality was obtained by adding the ratings on the items in the questionnaire measuring specific quality components. Peer reviews were rated high regarding completeness of the forms for reviewers (84%), constructiveness of the comments (reviews over 3: 63%), identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the method (reviews over 3: 59%) and substantiation of the reviewer comments (reviews over 3: 58%). Assessment of the manuscript's relevance (reviews over 3: 40%) or originality (reviews over 3: 35%) were less frequent. Quality of peer reviews in Gaceta Sanitaria is good. Some weaknesses in the reviews have been pointed out. It is possible to establish a systematic process for assessing peer reviewers using simple indicators such as general utility of the review for the editorial decision and general quality of the review.

  11. [The peer review procedure and its place in medicine].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chop, Ines; Eberlein-Gonska, Maria

    2012-01-01

    Peer Review literally meaning "re-inspection by a peer" is a special form of external evaluation whose roots go back to Ancient Greece and which is widely employed in science to assess manuscripts submitted for publication. In the medical context the Peer Review process is defined as structured critical self-reflection through dialogue with colleagues. Its prime objective is to improve the quality of patient care by identifying potentials for improvement and by deriving an action plan. Amongst other things, this includes medical standards and guidelines, indications and their traceability, the monitoring of the treatment process as well as the interdisciplinary cooperation and teamwork between different professional groups. The Peer Review practice in Germany has received strong impetus from comprehensive hospital operator projects like IQM, the "Initiative Qualitätsmedizin", and the Peer Review practice in intensive care. This practice, which has primarily been developed by practitioners for practitioners of their own accord, offers the chance to integrate medical quality with little bureaucratic effort and direct transfer of knowledge back into daily clinical work. Another important approach to promote peer reviewer qualifications is the curriculum "Medical Peer Review", which has been published by the German Medical Association since 2011. (As supplied by publisher). Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

  12. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

    Science.gov (United States)

    D'Andrea, Rafael; O'Dwyer, James P

    2017-01-01

    Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

  13. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Rafael D'Andrea

    Full Text Available Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

  14. 2015 Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None, None

    2016-03-01

    In the spring and summer of 2015, the Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO or the Office) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) implemented an external peer review of the projects in its research, development and demonstration (RD&D) portfolio. The Office manages a diverse portfolio of technologies across the spectrum of applied RD&D within the dynamic context of changing budgets and Administration priorities. The Office portfolio is organized according to the biomass-to-bioenergy supply chain—from the feedstock source to the end user (see Figure 1)—with major focus on feedstock supply and biomass conversion. The 2015 Project Peer Review took place March 23-27, 2015, outside of Washington, D.C., in Alexandria, Virginia, and evaluated most of the publicly funded projects in BETO’s portfolio. The subsequent Program Management Review took place on June 25, 2015, in Washington, D.C., and provided an Office- level assessment of strategic planning and programmatic initiatives. The peer review process enables external stakeholders to provide feedback on the responsible use of taxpayer funding and develop recommendations for the most efficient and effective ways to accelerate the development of an advanced bioenergy industry. The planning and execution of these reviews was completed over the course of 10 months, and this report includes the results of both events.

  15. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Thombs, Brett D; Levis, Alexander W; Razykov, Ilya; Syamchandra, Achyuth; Leentjens, Albert F G; Levenson, James L; Lumley, Mark A

    2015-01-01

    Peer reviewers sometimes request that authors cite their work, either appropriately or via coercive self-citation to highlight the reviewers' work. The objective of this study was to determine in peer reviews submitted to one biomedical journal (1) the extent of peer reviewer self-citation; (2) the proportion of reviews recommending revision or acceptance versus rejection that included reviewer self-citations; and (3) the proportion of reviewer self-citations versus citations to others that included a rationale. Peer reviews for manuscripts submitted in 2012 to the Journal of Psychosomatic Research were evaluated. Data extraction was performed independently by two investigators. There were 616 peer reviews (526 reviewers; 276 manuscripts), of which 444 recommended revision or acceptance and 172 rejection. Of 428 total citations, there were 122 peer reviewer self-citations (29%) and 306 citations to others' work (71%). Self-citations were more common in reviews recommending revision or acceptance (105 of 316 citations; 33%) versus rejection (17/112; 15%; pcitations with no rationale (26 of 122; 21%) was higher than for citations to others' work (15 of 306; 5%; pcitation in peer reviews is common and may reflect a combination of appropriate citation to research that should be cited in published articles and inappropriate citation intended to highlight the work of the peer reviewer. Providing instructions to peer reviewers about self-citation and asking them to indicate when and why they have self-cited may help to limit self-citation to appropriate, constructive recommendations. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  16. Incentivizing Peer Review

    OpenAIRE

    Kennedy, Ann Blair

    2017-01-01

    Since the 1700s, peer review has been a part of scientific publication. Quality peer reviews take extensive time and effort yet reviewers are not often compensated. This editorial announces the new offering of the National Certification Board for Thereputic Massage & Bodywork (NCBTMB)-approved continuing education hours for our peer reviewers who complete timely reviews. Instructions to register as a peer reviewer and how to conduct a review are offered. Thank you to our 2016 and 2017 peer re...

  17. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Shattell, Mona M; Chinn, Peggy; Thomas, Sandra P; Cowling, W Richard

    2010-03-01

    This study examined the quality of peer review in three scholarly nursing journals from the perspectives of authors and editors. Specifically, the study examined the extent to which manuscript reviews provided constructive guidance for authors to further develop their work for publication, and for editors to make informed and sound decisions on the disposition of manuscripts. Corresponding authors who had submitted manuscripts to the study journals in 2005-2007 were invited via email to complete an online survey about the quality of the peer review process; 320 authors responded. In addition, one third of the reviews of manuscripts submitted in 2005-2007 (a total of 528) were selected for rating by journal editors on level of detail, bias, and constructive tone; usefulness to authors in revising/developing the manuscript; and usefulness to the editor in making a decision. A majority (73.8%) of authors agreed that peer reviews provided constructive guidance, and 75.6% agreed that reviews provided adequate rationale for editors' decisions. New authors generally reported less satisfaction with reviews than more experienced authors. Ratings of reviews by the editors revealed some problem areas, including inconsistency, insufficient feedback to the author, reviewer bias, and disrespectful tone. Given the inexperience of many nurse authors, it is incumbent upon editors and reviewers to provide guidance and support. Manuscript reviews could be improved by increasing the consistency of numeric ratings, narrative comments, and recommendations regarding disposition of the manuscripts. Nevertheless, the results of this study reaffirm the worth of the peer review approach. Publication of research and other forms of scholarly work is critical to the development of nursing knowledge that can be used in clinical practice. Authors with a variety of backgrounds, knowledge, and skills have important work to share that can serve healthcare providers and their clients. Thus, ensuring

  18. The ethics of peer review in bioethics.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

    2014-10-01

    A good deal has been written on the ethics of peer review, especially in the scientific and medical literatures. In contrast, we are unaware of any articles on the ethics of peer review in bioethics. Recognising this gap, we evaluate the extant proposals regarding ethical standards for peer review in general and consider how they apply to bioethics. We argue that scholars have an obligation to perform peer review based on the extent to which they personally benefit from the peer review process. We also argue, contrary to existing proposals and guidelines, that it can be appropriate for peer reviewers to benefit in their own scholarship from the manuscripts they review. With respect to bioethics in particular, we endorse double-blind review and suggest several ways in which the peer review process might be improved. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

  19. CONTAIN independent peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Boyack, B.E.; Corradini, M.L.; Khatib-Rahbar, M.; Loyalka, S.K.; Smith, P.N.

    1995-01-01

    The CONTAIN code was developed by Sandia National Laboratories under the sponsorship of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide integrated analyses of containment phenomena. It is used to predict nuclear reactor containment loads, radiological source terms, and associated physical phenomena for a range of accident conditions encompassing both design-basis and severe accidents. The code's targeted applications include support for containment-related experimental programs, light water and advanced light water reactor plant analysis, and analytical support for resolution of specific technical issues such as direct containment heating. The NRC decided that a broad technical review of the code should be performed by technical experts to determine its overall technical adequacy. For this purpose, a six-member CONTAIN Peer Review Committee was organized and a peer review as conducted. While the review was in progress, the NRC issued a draft ''Revised Severe Accident Code Strategy'' that incorporated revised design objectives and targeted applications for the CONTAIN code. The committee continued its effort to develop findings relative to the original NRC statement of design objectives and targeted applications. However, the revised CONTAIN design objectives and targeted applications. However, the revised CONTAIN design objectives and targeted applications were considered by the Committee in assigning priorities to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee determined some improvements are warranted and provided recommendations in five code-related areas: (1) documentation, (2) user guidance, (3) modeling capability, (4) code assessment, and (5) technical assessment

  20. CONTAIN independent peer review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Boyack, B.E. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States); Corradini, M.L. [Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (United States). Nuclear Engineering Dept.; Denning, R.S. [Battelle Memorial Inst., Columbus, OH (United States); Khatib-Rahbar, M. [Energy Research Inc., Rockville, MD (United States); Loyalka, S.K. [Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO (United States); Smith, P.N. [AEA Technology, Dorchester (United Kingdom). Winfrith Technology Center

    1995-01-01

    The CONTAIN code was developed by Sandia National Laboratories under the sponsorship of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide integrated analyses of containment phenomena. It is used to predict nuclear reactor containment loads, radiological source terms, and associated physical phenomena for a range of accident conditions encompassing both design-basis and severe accidents. The code`s targeted applications include support for containment-related experimental programs, light water and advanced light water reactor plant analysis, and analytical support for resolution of specific technical issues such as direct containment heating. The NRC decided that a broad technical review of the code should be performed by technical experts to determine its overall technical adequacy. For this purpose, a six-member CONTAIN Peer Review Committee was organized and a peer review as conducted. While the review was in progress, the NRC issued a draft ``Revised Severe Accident Code Strategy`` that incorporated revised design objectives and targeted applications for the CONTAIN code. The committee continued its effort to develop findings relative to the original NRC statement of design objectives and targeted applications. However, the revised CONTAIN design objectives and targeted applications. However, the revised CONTAIN design objectives and targeted applications were considered by the Committee in assigning priorities to the Committee`s recommendations. The Committee determined some improvements are warranted and provided recommendations in five code-related areas: (1) documentation, (2) user guidance, (3) modeling capability, (4) code assessment, and (5) technical assessment.

  1. Science and Technology Peer Review: GPRA

    Science.gov (United States)

    2003-11-30

    is secrecy: reviewer anonymity and reviewee non-anonymity ( Altura , 1990; Clayson, 1995; Gresty, 1995; Neetens, 1995). If honest and frank viewpoints...personal gain. BIBLIOGRAPHY Altura , B.T. 1990. Is Anonymous Peer-Review The Best Way To Review And Accept Manuscripts? In: Magnesium And Trace Elements. 9

  2. Technology and peer review: the open and participatory dimension

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Fedeli Laura

    2015-12-01

    Full Text Available Peer review is a consolidated procedure in the academic context and its process affects various range of research outputs from project funding applications to manuscript publication. Peer review can be developed through modalities that imply a different level of transparency in the relationship between anonymity of the author and the reviewer/s.

  3. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Allison Hirst

    Full Text Available Pre-publication peer review of manuscripts should enhance the value of research publications to readers who may wish to utilize findings in clinical care or health policy-making. Much published research across all medical specialties is not useful, may be misleading, wasteful and even harmful. Reporting guidelines are tools that in addition to helping authors prepare better manuscripts may help peer reviewers in assessing them. We examined journals' instructions to peer reviewers to see if and how reviewers are encouraged to use them.We surveyed websites of 116 journals from the McMaster list. Main outcomes were 1 identification of online instructions to peer reviewers and 2 presence or absence of key domains within instructions: on journal logistics, reviewer etiquette and addressing manuscript content (11 domains.Only 41/116 journals (35% provided online instructions. All 41 guided reviewers about the logistics of their review processes, 38 (93% outlined standards of behaviour expected and 39 (95% contained instruction about evaluating the manuscript content. There was great variation in explicit instruction for reviewers about how to evaluate manuscript content. Almost half of the online instructions 19/41 (46% mentioned reporting guidelines usually as general statements suggesting they may be useful or asking whether authors had followed them rather than clear instructions about how to use them. All 19 named CONSORT for reporting randomized trials but there was little mention of CONSORT extensions. PRISMA, QUOROM (forerunner of PRISMA, STARD, STROBE and MOOSE were mentioned by several journals. No other reporting guideline was mentioned by more than two journals.Although almost half of instructions mentioned reporting guidelines, their value in improving research publications is not being fully realised. Journals have a responsibility to support peer reviewers. We make several recommendations including wider reference to the EQUATOR Network

  4. Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Allen, Thomas Wesley

    2013-12-01

    Peer review is essential to the quality of scientific publications. As the volume of submissions to these journals increases, the need for an expanding cadre of trained reviewers also increases. Many reviewers do not receive formal training on conducting a peer review or education on the peer review process, however. The author presents an overview of the peer review process and provides guidance for conducting high-quality reviews of manuscripts submitted to The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association and other scientific journals.

  5. EERE Peer Review Guide

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None

    2009-01-18

    The primary purpose of this guide is to provide managers and staff guidance in establishing formal in-progress peer review that provides intellectually fair expert evaluation of EERE RD3 and supporting business administration programs, both retrospective and prospective.

  6. On the evolving open peer review culture for chemical information science

    OpenAIRE

    Walters, W. Patrick; Bajorath, J?rgen

    2015-01-01

    Compared to the traditional anonymous peer review process, open post-publication peer review provides additional opportunities -and challenges- for reviewers to judge scientific studies. In this editorial, we comment on the open peer review culture and provide some guidance for reviewers of manuscripts submitted to the Chemical Information Science channel of F1000Research.

  7. On the evolving open peer review culture for chemical information science.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Walters, W Patrick; Bajorath, Jürgen

    2015-01-01

    Compared to the traditional anonymous peer review process, open post-publication peer review provides additional opportunities -and challenges- for reviewers to judge scientific studies. In this editorial, we comment on the open peer review culture and provide some guidance for reviewers of manuscripts submitted to the Chemical Information Science channel of F1000Research.

  8. Evaluation for citation metrics and peer reviewer acknowledgments.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Green, Bart N

    2016-10-01

    This editorial discusses the indexing systems that include the Journal of Chiropractic Education, reflects on the increased international participation in chiropractic education scholarly meetings and peer review, and acknowledges the editorial board and peer reviewers for the journal.

  9. Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Benson, P J

    2015-10-01

    'Medical science can only flourish in a free society and dies under totalitarian repression.' (1) Peer review post-publication is relatively easy to define: when the world decides the importance of publication. Peer review pre-publication is what the scientific community frequently means when using the term 'peer review'. But what it is it? Few will agree on an exact definition; generally speaking, it refers to an independent, third party scrutiny of a manuscript by scientific experts (called peers) who advise on its suitability for publication. Peer review is expensive; although reviewers are unpaid, the cost in time is enormous and it is slow. There is often little agreement among reviewers about whether an article should be published and peer review can be a lottery. Often referred to as a quality assurance process, there are many examples of when peer review failed. Many will be aware of Woo-Suk Hwang's shocking stem cell research misconduct at Seoul National University. (2) Science famously published two breakthrough articles that were found subsequently to be completely fabricated and this happened in spite of peer review. Science is not unique in making this error. However, love it or hate it, peer review, for the present time at least, is here to stay. In this article, Philippa Benson, Managing Editor of Science Advances (the first open access journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), discusses the merits of peer review. Dr Benson has extensive experience in the publishing world and was Executive Director of PJB Consulting, a not-for-profit organisation supporting clients on issues related to converting to full electronic publishing workflows as well as challenges working with international authors and publishers. Her clients included the Public Library of Science journals, the American Society for Nutrition and the de Beaumont Foundation. She recently co-authored a book, What Editors Want: An Author's Guide to Scientific Journal

  10. [A guide to the peer review of scientific papers].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Giunta, R E; Prommersberger, K-J

    2012-08-01

    The "peer-review" of scientific manuscripts is an honorable and important task to optimize the quality of a medical journal. The reviewer has the following 2 tasks: first, to provide to the editor an overall assessment of the manuscript and make a recommendation regarding the acceptance, revision or rejection of a scientific manuscript. Second, to supply the authors with objective and constructive criticism and also with detailed suggestions for improvement of a manuscript -aiming to improve its scientific quality.The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations for a systematic assessment in order to further improve the quality of the peer review process. Both general principles specific criteria are addressed. Our target is to further enhance the academic value of the journal Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, Plastische Chirurgie by optimizing the peer review process. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

  11. An open science peer review oath

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Aleksic, Jelena; Adrian Alexa, Adrian Alexa; Attwood, Teresa K.

    2015-01-01

    : specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal...... impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously...

  12. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2018-01-01

    All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the proceedings Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.

  13. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2014-12-01

    All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the proceedings Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.

  14. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2018-03-01

    All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the proceedings Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.

  15. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2018-02-01

    All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the proceedings Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.

  16. An OAI repository centric peer-review model

    CERN Multimedia

    CERN. Geneva

    2005-01-01

    Pre-print repositories have seen a significant increase in use over the past fifteen years across multiple research domains. Researchers are beginning to develop applications capable of using these repositories to assist the scientific community above and beyond the pure dissemination of information. The contributions set forth by this paper emphasize a deconstructed publication model where in which the peer-review certification phase of a pre-print is mediated by an OAI-compliant peer-review service. This peer-review service uses a social-network algorithm for determining potential reviewers for a submitted manuscript and for weighting the influence of each participating reviewer’s evaluations. The paper also provides a set of peer-review specific metadata tags that can accompany a pre-prints existing metadata record. The combinations of these contributions provide a unique repository-centric peer-review model within the framework of the current OAI standards existing today.

  17. Peer Review of Best Practices

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pearlman, J.; Buttigieg, P. L.; Simpson, P.; Munoz, C.; Dufois, F.; Heslop, E. E.

    2017-12-01

    To ensure the quality of oceanographic data, there is a clear need to employ best practices (BPs) for ocean observation and information management. However, effectively discovering these BPs is a challenge, hindering harmonized quality assurance across projects and programmes. To remedy this, we are prototyping a resource for the stable archiving and efficient discovery of BPs through a granular, semantically indexed, and consistently formatted web resource. While these technical advances have value, they cannot ensure improved oceanographic data quality without effective and inclusive peer review processes. Peer review of digitized best practices can take a number of forms from traditional (blind) peer review as practiced by journal publishers through to the evolving "open" approach where community reviews have both the authors and reviewers identified. This presentation will discuss the options for peer review mechanisms for best practices, including a hybrid approach where both expert panels and open community review are used to improve methodologies and thus downstream data quality. It is not yet clear if the ocean community prefers open versus blind reviews for best practices. It is also unclear the extent to which innovation versus solid technical base should have a higher priority in the reviews. Further, it is not clear whether the reviews should use an internal expert panel of the IODE OceanBestPractices Repository (http://www.oceanbestpractices.net/) or should be done as part of a journal publications process or both, as mentioned above. Thus, we will also describe our future approach to `field test' these review models on a multi-stakeholder compendium of digitized best practice documents.

  18. Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Liemohn, Michael W.; Balikhin, Michael; Kepko, Larry; Rodger, Alan; Wang, Yuming

    2016-01-01

    The Editors of the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics are deeply indebted to the many people among the research community that serve this journal through peer review. The journal could not exist without the time and effort invested by the community through this voluntary activity, providing expert evaluations and thoughtful assessments of the work of others. In 2015, the journal had 1506 scientists contribute to the process with at least one peer review, for a total of 3575 reviews completed, including additional reviews of resubmitted manuscripts. There were 277 reviewers that contributed four or more reports in 2015. The average number of reviews per referee in 2015 was, therefore, 2.4. Note that the total number of manuscript final decisions (i.e., accept or reject) for Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) Space Physics was 1147 in 2015. Of this, 774 were accepted and 373 were declined, for an acceptance rate of 67% last year. If the 1334 "revision" decisions are included in the tally, then the total number of decisions made in 2015 was 2481. Working out the arithmetic, it means that on average, a manuscript gets about 1.2 revision decisions before a final accept-or-reject decision. This explains the 3.1 average number of reviews per manuscript throughout each paper's lifetime in the submission-revision editorial process. We are pleased and happy that the research community is willing and able to devote their resources toward this service endeavor. We appreciate each and every one of you that helped maintain the high quality of papers in JGR Space Physics last year. We look forward to another excellent year working with all of you through the year ahead.

  19. Review the 'peer review'.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Blockeel, Christophe; Drakopoulos, Panagiotis; Polyzos, Nikolaos P; Tournaye, Herman; García-Velasco, Juan Antonio

    2017-12-01

    Peer review has been the main form of appraisal of scientific knowledge for over a century. In essence, this process involves the evaluation of a scientific finding by independent experts prior to its dissemination to the scientific community, in an attempt to ensure that both the research and conclusions meet the necessary standards regarding quality, accuracy, relevance and novelty. However, although 'peer review' is considered the current gold standard, it is far from perfect. A focus on the methodology of an article and reviewers' training are key messages for the scientific community. Guidelines on how to review an article are needed and may help reviewers deal with this difficult process. Copyright © 2017 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  20. MELCOR Peer Review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Boyack, B.E.; Dhir, V.K.; Gieseke, J.A.; Haste, T.J.; Kenton, M.A.; Khatib-Rahbar, M.; Leonard, M.T.; Viskanta, R.

    1992-03-01

    MELCOR is a fully integrated, engineering-level computer code that models the progression of severe accidents in light water reactor nuclear power plants. The newest version of MELCOR is Version 1.8.1, July 1991. MELCOR development has reached the point that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission sponsored a broad technical review by recognized experts to determine or confirm the technical adequacy of the code for the serious and complex analyses it is expected to perform. For this purpose, an eight-member MELCOR Peer Review Committee was organized. The Committee has completed its review of the MELCOR code: the review process and findings of the MELCOR Peer Review Committee are documented in this report. The Committee has determined that recommendations in five areas are appropriate: (1) MELCOR numerics, (2) models missing from MELCOR Version 1.8.1, (3) existing MELCOR models needing revision, (4) the need for expanded MELCOR assessment, and (5) documentation

  1. MELCOR Peer Review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Boyack, B.E. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States); Dhir, V.K. [Santa Monica, CA. (United States); Gieseke, J.A. [Battelle, Columbus, OH (United States); Haste, T.J. [AEA Technology, Winfrith (United Kingdom); Kenton, M.A. [Gabor, Kenton and Associates, Inc., Westmont, IL (United States); Khatib-Rahbar, M. [Energy Research, Inc., Rockville, MD (United States); Leonard, M.T. [Science Applications International Corp., Wolfheze (Netherlands); Viskanta, R. [Purdue Univ., Lafayette, IN (United States). Heat Transfer Lab.

    1992-03-01

    MELCOR is a fully integrated, engineering-level computer code that models the progression of severe accidents in light water reactor nuclear power plants. The newest version of MELCOR is Version 1.8.1, July 1991. MELCOR development has reached the point that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission sponsored a broad technical review by recognized experts to determine or confirm the technical adequacy of the code for the serious and complex analyses it is expected to perform. For this purpose, an eight-member MELCOR Peer Review Committee was organized. The Committee has completed its review of the MELCOR code: the review process and findings of the MELCOR Peer Review Committee are documented in this report. The Committee has determined that recommendations in five areas are appropriate: (1) MELCOR numerics, (2) models missing from MELCOR Version 1.8.1, (3) existing MELCOR models needing revision, (4) the need for expanded MELCOR assessment, and (5) documentation.

  2. The Power of Peer Reviewing to Enhance Writing in Horticulture: Greenhouse Management

    Science.gov (United States)

    Anderson, Neil O.; Flash, Pamela

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is not included in undergraduate horticultural curricula. Our research objectives in an 8- year study, which ranged from 2000 to 2007 in two sections (2000-2002 non-peer reviewed and 2003-2007 peer-reviewed) of Greenhouse Management students at the University of Minnesota were to determine whether iterative peer reviews would result in…

  3. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-11-01

    All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the editors of the 26th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems proceedings. Reviews were conducted by expert referees from the International Technical Committee to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. The members of the Scientific Committee who selected and reviewed the papers included in the Proceedings of the 26th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems are: Yulin WU Tsinghua University China François AVELLAN EPFL-LMH Switzerland (principal) Xingqi LUO Xi'an University of Sci & Tech China Martin BÖHLE Kaiserslautern University Germany Gerard BOIS Arts et Métiers ParisTech France Luca D'AGOSTINO University of Pisa Italy Eduard EGUSQUIZA Polytechnical University Catalonia Spain Richard FISHER Voith Hydro Inc USA Regiane FORTES-PATELLA Institute Polytechnique de Grenoble France Aleksandar GAJIC University of Belgrade Serbia Wei YANG China Agriculture University China YinLu YOUNG University of Michigan USA Adrian LUNGU Dunarea de Jos University of Galati Romania Arpad FAY University of Miskolcz Hungary José GONZÁLEZ Universidad de Oviedo Spain Baoshan ZHU Tsinghua University China Hongxun CHEN Shanghai University China Chisachi KATO University of Tokyo Japan Zhenyue MA Dalian University of Sci & Tech China Honggang FAN Tsinghua University China François GUIBAULT Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Canada Pengcheng GUO Xian University of Technology China Leqing WANG Zhejiang University China Toshiaki IKOHAGI Tohoku University Japan Jiandong YANG Wuhan University China Jianzhong ZHOU Huazhong University of Sci & Tech China Jinwei LI NULL China Rennian LI Lanzhou University of Sci & Tech China Houlin LIU NULL China Juan LIU Tsinghua University China Shuhong LIU Tsinghua University China Xianwu LUO Tsinghua University China Michihiro NISHI Tsinghua

  4. Thank you to our 2016 peer reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hauck, Steven A.; Baratoux, David; Stanley, Sabine

    2017-02-01

    Peer review is one of most fundamental aspects of the modern practice of science. As scientists we hold our own work up to scrutiny by experts among our peers in order to encourage the best practices in scientific conduct and communication. Thorough consideration and review by professional colleagues of scientific papers are critical aspects of ensuring that the manuscripts published by JGR-Planets are accurate, valuable, and clearly communicated. Peer review is an essential element of the process of refining understanding and sharing science, and the effort and expertise shared by each reviewer are crucial to the advancement of planetary science. In 2016, JGR Planets benefited from more than 451 reviews provided by 337 of our peers for papers submitted to the journal. Thank you all for your dedication to advancing planetary science.

  5. Sealed source peer review plan

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Feldman, Alexander; Leonard, Lee; Burns, Ron

    2009-01-01

    Sealed sources are known quantities of radioactive materials that have been encapsulated in quantities that produce known radiation fields. Sealed sources have multiple uses ranging from instrument calibration sources to sources that produce radiation fields for experimental applications. The Off-Site Source Recovery (OSR) Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), created in 1999, under the direction of the Waste Management Division of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Albuquerque has been assigned the responsibility to recover and manage excess and unwanted radioactive sealed sources from the public and private sector. LANL intends to ship drums containing qualified sealed sources to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for disposal. Prior to shipping, these drums must be characterized with respect to radiological content and other parameters. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that ten radionulcides be quantified and reported for every container of waste to be disposed in the WIPP. The methods traditionally approved by the EPA include non-destructive assay (NDA) in accordance with Appendix A of the Contact-Handled Transuranic Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (DOE, 2002) (CH WAC). However, because of the nature and pedigree of historical records for sealed sources and the technical infeasibility of performing NDA on these sources, LANL proposes to characterize the content of these waste drums using qualified existing radiological data in lieu of direct measurement. This plan describes the process and documentation requirements for the use of the peer review process to qualify existing data for sealed radiological sources in lieu of perfonning radioassay. The peer review process will be performed in accordance with criteria provided in 40 CFR (section) 194.22 which specifies the use of the NUREG 1297 guidelines. The plan defines the management approach, resources, schedule, and technical requirements

  6. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara; Adeli, Khosrow

    2014-10-01

    Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article

  7. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Michael L Callaham

    2007-01-01

    Full Text Available BACKGROUND: Peer review is considered crucial to the selection and publication of quality science, but very little is known about the previous experiences and training that might identify high-quality peer reviewers. The reviewer selection processes of most journals, and thus the qualifications of their reviewers, are ill defined. More objective selection of peer reviewers might improve the journal peer review process and thus the quality of published science. METHODS AND FINDINGS: 306 experienced reviewers (71% of all those associated with a specialty journal completed a survey of past training and experiences postulated to improve peer review skills. Reviewers performed 2,856 reviews of 1,484 separate manuscripts during a four-year study period, all prospectively rated on a standardized quality scale by editors. Multivariable analysis revealed that most variables, including academic rank, formal training in critical appraisal or statistics, or status as principal investigator of a grant, failed to predict performance of higher-quality reviews. The only significant predictors of quality were working in a university-operated hospital versus other teaching environment and relative youth (under ten years of experience after finishing training. Being on an editorial board and doing formal grant (study section review were each predictors for only one of our two comparisons. However, the predictive power of all variables was weak. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that there are no easily identifiable types of formal training or experience that predict reviewer performance. Skill in scientific peer review may be as ill defined and hard to impart as is "common sense." Without a better understanding of those skills, it seems unlikely journals and editors will be successful in systematically improving their selection of reviewers. This inability to predict performance makes it imperative that all but the smallest journals implement routine review ratings

  8. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Faggion, C M

    2016-02-26

    The peer-review process is a fundamental component in the advancement of science. In this process, independent reviewers evaluate the quality of a manuscript and its suitability for publication in a particular scientific journal. Thus, to favour the publication of the highest-level information, the peer-review system should be as unbiased as possible. Although the peer-review system is the most commonly used method to select manuscripts for publication, it has several potential limitations. The main objective of this manuscript is to discuss some limitations of the peer-review system and suggest potential solutions from the perspective of an author and reviewer. This article may contribute to the always-dynamic development of the peer-review process.

  9. The Biosphere International Peer Review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Van Luik, Abraham

    2002-01-01

    Abe van Luik (US DOE- YM, USA), ended the presentation by giving feedback from the IAEA peer review on the biosphere modelling strategy developed by the DOE Yucca Mountain Site Characterisation Office (YMSCO). This review was based on available international standards and guidance. The peer review team was constituted of both experts from regulatory and waste management organisations and national advisory committees. The implementation of the review consisted of an examination of biosphere reports mainly regarding the modelling and question and answer exchanges. The final report was submitted in April 2000. It contained twenty-three recommendations within two broad classifications; one concerning the regulatory framework, the other one regarding the framework to increase stakeholders' confidence in modelling. The three main categories of recommendations were outlined, namely (i) the DOE' s Biosphere assessment Approach, (ii) the definition of the biosphere system, and (iii) the model development, data and results. Regarding in particular the treatment of the uncertainties in the biosphere, it was viewed as a key issue during the review and thus it will be re-evaluated in the future performance assessment. The summary highlighted most of the recommendations received are to be acted on, and are to be included in the License Application plan for biosphere modelling

  10. Thanking our peer reviewers

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Storey Alan

    2013-03-01

    Full Text Available Contributing reviewers As 2013 commences I would like to take a moment to reflect and recognize the peer reviewers that made the previous year possible. Listed below are those people who reviewed for Molecular Cancer last year. All are generous individuals who donated their time to assessing and improving our authors’ submissions. Your combined efforts have been invaluable to the editorial staff in maintaining the continued success of the journal in the Open Access forum. The editors of Molecular Cancer would like to thank all the reviewers who contributed to the journal in Volume 11 (2012 by participating in the review process - taking time out of your busy schedules and even to volunteer - without your critical insights, hard work and support for the journal we wouldn’t be able to do what we do.

  11. How do I peer-review a scientific article?-a personal perspective.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lippi, Giuseppe

    2018-02-01

    Peer-review is an essential activity for the vast majority of credited scientific journals and represents the cornerstone for assessing the quality of potential publications, since it is substantially aimed to identify drawbacks or inaccuracies that may flaw the outcome or the presentation of scientific research. Since the importance of this activity is seldom underestimated by some referees, the purpose of this article is to present a personal and arbitrary perspective on how a scientific article should be peer-reviewed, offering a tentative checklist aimed to describe the most important criteria that should be considered. These basically include accepting the assignment only when the topic is in accordance with referee's background, disclosing potential conflicts of interest, checking availability and time according to size and complexity of the article, identifying the innovative value of the manuscript, providing exhaustive and clear comments, expressing disagreement with a fair and balanced approach, weighting revisions according to the importance of the journal, summarizing recommendations according to previous comments, maintaining confidentiality throughout and after the peer-review process. I really hope that some notions reported in this dissertation may be a guide or a help, especially for young scientists, who are willing to be engaged in peer-review activity for scientific journals.

  12. How do I peer-review a scientific article?—a personal perspective

    Science.gov (United States)

    2018-01-01

    Peer-review is an essential activity for the vast majority of credited scientific journals and represents the cornerstone for assessing the quality of potential publications, since it is substantially aimed to identify drawbacks or inaccuracies that may flaw the outcome or the presentation of scientific research. Since the importance of this activity is seldom underestimated by some referees, the purpose of this article is to present a personal and arbitrary perspective on how a scientific article should be peer-reviewed, offering a tentative checklist aimed to describe the most important criteria that should be considered. These basically include accepting the assignment only when the topic is in accordance with referee’s background, disclosing potential conflicts of interest, checking availability and time according to size and complexity of the article, identifying the innovative value of the manuscript, providing exhaustive and clear comments, expressing disagreement with a fair and balanced approach, weighting revisions according to the importance of the journal, summarizing recommendations according to previous comments, maintaining confidentiality throughout and after the peer-review process. I really hope that some notions reported in this dissertation may be a guide or a help, especially for young scientists, who are willing to be engaged in peer-review activity for scientific journals. PMID:29610756

  13. Peer Review: The CHAMPUS Program.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Stricker, George

    This paper examines the use of the peer review system in evaluating out-patient clinical services for a third-party payer seeking justification for payment of services. Peer review is defined as a process by which one professional, in an official capacity, makes a judgment about a co-professional in a matter involving professional functioning. The…

  14. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cooper, Richelle J; Gupta, Malkeet; Wilkes, Michael S; Hoffman, Jerome R

    2006-12-01

    We undertook this investigation to characterize conflict of interest (COI) policies of biomedical journals with respect to authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, and to ascertain what information about COI disclosures is publicly available. We performed a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 135 editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals that publish original research. We chose an international selection of general and specialty medical journals that publish in English. Selection was based on journal impact factor, and the recommendations of experts in the field. We developed and pilot tested a 3-part web-based survey. The survey included questions about the presence of specific policies for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, specific restrictions on authors, peer-reviewers, and editors based on COI, and the public availability of these disclosures. Editors were contacted a minimum of 3 times. The response rate for the survey was 91 (67%) of 135, and 85 (93%) of 91 journals reported having an author COI policy. Ten (11%) journals reported that they restrict author submissions based on COI (e.g., drug company authors' papers on their products are not accepted). While 77% report collecting COI information on all author submissions, only 57% publish all author disclosures. A minority of journals report having a specific policy on peer-reviewer 46% (42/91) or editor COI 40% (36/91); among these, 25% and 31% of journals state that they require recusal of peer-reviewers and editors if they report a COI. Only 3% of respondents publish COI disclosures of peer-reviewers, and 12% publish editor COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information is available upon request. Many more journals have a policy regarding COI for authors than they do for peer-reviewers or editors. Even author COI policies are variable, depending on the type of manuscript submitted. The COI information that is collected by journals is often not published

  15. PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS' VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Oehrlein, Elisabeth M; Graff, Jennifer S; Perfetto, Eleanor M; Mullins, C Daniel; Dubois, Robert W; Anyanwu, Chinenye; Onukwugha, Eberechukwu

    2018-01-01

    Peer-review publication is a critical step to the translation and dissemination of research results into clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessment (HTA) and payment policies, and clinical care. The objective of this study was to examine current views of journal editors regarding: (i) The value of real-world evidence (RWE) and how it compares with other types of studies; (ii) Education and/or resources journal editors provide to their peer reviewers or perceive as needed for authors, reviewers, and editors related to RWE. Journal editors' views on the value of RWE and editorial procedures for RWE manuscripts were obtained through telephone interviews, a survey, and in-person, roundtable discussion. In total, seventy-nine journals were approached, resulting in fifteen telephone interviews, seventeen survey responses and eight roundtable participants. RWE was considered valuable by all interviewed editors (n = 15). Characteristics of high-quality RWE manuscripts included: novelty/relevance, rigorous methodology, and alignment of data to research question. Editors experience challenges finding peer reviewers; however, these challenges persist across all study designs. Journals generally do not provide guidance, assistance, or training for reviewers, including for RWE studies. Health policy/health services research (HSR) editors were more likely than specialty or general medicine editors to participate in this study, potentially indicating that HSR researchers are more comfortable/interested in RWE. Editors report favorable views of RWE studies provided studies examine important questions and are methodologically rigorous. Improving peer-review processes across all study designs, has the potential to improve the evidence base for decision making, including HTA.

  16. Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Irene Hames

    2014-02-01

    Full Text Available Vigorous debate currently surrounds peer review, and polarized views are often expressed. Despite criticisms about the process, studies have found that it is still valued by researchers, with rigorous peer review being rated by authors as the most important service they expect to receive when paying to have their papers published open access. The expectations of peer review and what it can achieve need, however, to be realistic. Peer review is also only as good and effective as the people managing the process, and the large variation in standards that exists is one of the reasons some of the research and related communities have become critical of and disillusioned with the traditional model of peer review. The role of the editor is critical. All editors must act as proper editors, not just moving manuscripts automatically through the various stages, but making critical judgements throughout the process to reach sound and unbiased editorial decisions. New models and innovations in peer review are appearing. Many issues, however, remain the same: rigorous procedures and high ethical standards should be in place, those responsible for making decisions and managing the process need to be trained to equip them for their roles and responsibilities, and systems need to be adapted to deal with new challenges such as the increasing amounts of data being generated and needing to be taken into account when assessing the validity and soundness of work and the conclusions being drawn.

  17. Factors in the Peer Review of Reviews.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Murray, Frank B.; Raths, James

    1996-01-01

    Factors that might influence the editorial process of peer review of articles are explored. These include the willingness of reviewers to perform the review, uninformed reviews, ideological or political bias, ethical conflicts of interest, and mistaken views of fairness. Awareness of these factors can help ensure article quality. (SLD)

  18. 2017 Project Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None, None

    2018-02-06

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2017 U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office's Peer Review meeting.

  19. Peer review in forensic science.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ballantyne, Kaye N; Edmond, Gary; Found, Bryan

    2017-08-01

    Peer review features prominently in the forensic sciences. Drawing on recent research and studies, this article examines different types of peer review, specifically: editorial peer review; peer review by the scientific community; technical and administrative review; and verification (and replication). The article reviews the different meanings of these quite disparate activities and their utility in relation to enhancing performance and reducing error. It explains how forensic practitioners should approach and use peer review, as well as how it should be described in expert reports and oral testimony. While peer review has considerable potential, and is a key component of modern quality management systems, its actual value in most forensic science settings has yet to be determined. In consequence, forensic practitioners should reflect on why they use specific review procedures and endeavour to make their actual practices and their potential value transparent to consumers; whether investigators, lawyers, jurors or judges. Claims that review increases the validity of a scientific technique or accuracy of opinions within a particular case should be avoided until empirical evidence is available to support such assertions. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

  20. Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yarris, Lalena M; Gottlieb, Michael; Scott, Kevin; Sampson, Christopher; Rose, Emily; Chan, Teresa M; Ilgen, Jonathan

    2017-06-01

    Peer review, a cornerstone of academia, promotes rigor and relevance in scientific publishing. As educators are encouraged to adopt a more scholarly approach to medical education, peer review is becoming increasingly important. Junior educators both receive the reviews of their peers, and are also asked to participate as reviewers themselves. As such, it is imperative for junior clinician educators to be well-versed in the art of peer reviewing their colleagues' work. In this article, our goal was to identify and summarize key papers that may be helpful for faculty members interested in learning more about the peer-review process and how to improve their reviewing skills. The online discussions of the 2016-17 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator program included a robust discussion about peer review, which highlighted a number of papers on that topic. We sought to augment this list with further suggestions by guest experts and by an open call on Twitter for other important papers. Via this process, we created a list of 24 total papers on the topic of peer review. After gathering these papers, our authorship group engaged in a consensus-building process incorporating Delphi methods to identify the papers that best described peer review, and also highlighted important tips for new reviewers. We found and reviewed 24 papers. In our results section, we present our authorship group's top five most highly rated papers on the topic of peer review. We also summarize these papers with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers. We present five key papers on peer review that can be used for faculty development for novice writers and reviewers. These papers represent a mix of foundational and explanatory papers that may provide some basis from which junior faculty members might build upon as they both undergo the peer-review process and act as reviewers in turn.

  1. Timely deposition of macromolecular structures is necessary for peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Joosten, Robbie P.; Soueidan, Hayssam; Wessels, Lodewyk F. A.; Perrakis, Anastassis

    2013-01-01

    Deposition of crystallographic structures should be concurrent with or prior to manuscript submission for peer review, enabling validation and increasing reliability of the PDB. Most of the macromolecular structures in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), which are used daily by thousands of educators and scientists alike, are determined by X-ray crystallography. It was examined whether the crystallographic models and data were deposited to the PDB at the same time as the publications that describe them were submitted for peer review. This condition is necessary to ensure pre-publication validation and the quality of the PDB public archive. It was found that a significant proportion of PDB entries were submitted to the PDB after peer review of the corresponding publication started, and many were only submitted after peer review had ended. It is argued that clear description of journal policies and effective policing is important for pre-publication validation, which is key in ensuring the quality of the PDB and of peer-reviewed literature

  2. Current and Evolving Models of Peer Review

    OpenAIRE

    Fresco Santalla, Ana; Hernández Pérez, Antonio

    2014-01-01

    New models of scientific publishing and new ways of practicing peer review have injected a recent dynamism into the scholarly communication system. In this article, we delineate the context of the traditional peer review model, reflect upon some of the first experiences with open peer review and forecast some of the challenges that new models for peer review will have to meet. Our findings suggest that the peer review function has the potential to be divorced from the journal system, so that ...

  3. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52... composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and... Department. (4) Whether the panel includes knowledgeable individuals with disabilities, or parents, family...

  4. The New Radiation Therapy Clinical Practice: The Emerging Role of Clinical Peer Review for Radiation Therapists and Medical Dosimetrists

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Adams, Robert D.; Marks, Lawrence B.; Pawlicki, Todd; Hayman, James; Church, Jessica

    2010-01-01

    The concept of peer review for radiation therapists and medical dosimetrists has been studied very little in radiation oncology practice. The purpose of this manuscript is to analyze the concept of peer review in the clinical setting for both radiation therapists and medical dosimetrists. The literature reviewed both the percentages and causes of radiation therapy deviations. The results indicate that peer review can be both implemented and evaluated into both the radiation therapist and medical dosimetrist clinical practice patterns.

  5. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system

    OpenAIRE

    Stahel, Philip F; Moore, Ernest E

    2014-01-01

    The lack of formal training programs for peer reviewers places the scientific quality of biomedical publications at risk, as the introduction of ‘hidden’ bias may not be easily recognized by the reader. The exponential increase in the number of manuscripts submitted for publication worldwide, estimated in the millions annually, overburdens the capability of available qualified referees. Indeed, the workload imposed on individual reviewers appears to be reaching a ‘breaking point’ that may no ...

  6. Peer review in hematopoietic cell transplantation: are we doing our fair share?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Giralt, S; Korngold, R; Lazarus, H M

    2016-09-01

    Peer review is believed to be important in maintaining the quality and integrity of research in academic endeavors. Recently, the value of the current peer review process, which is more than 100 years old has come into question. In the field of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), peer review was unable to prevent the publication of the largest and most notorious scientific fraud in our field. In order to assess how the HCT community views and how engaged it is with the peer review process, the American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation conducted a survey of all of its members in 2014. The survey was sent to all active members through multiple email communications in August and September 2014. Of a total of 1183 members, 149 responded. Almost all of the respondents had participated in the peer review process, with few respondents declining ever to review manuscripts. The most common cause for declining review requests was lack of time. Most respondents (68%) thought that the current peer review process was relatively fair and unbiased, whereas only 9% of the respondents stated that they did not believe in the peer review process. In conclusion, among the respondents of this survey most felt the peer review process to be valuable and fair, however, the lack of response suggests that further study into improving the peer review process in the field of HCT is warranted in the era of electronic publishing and communication.

  7. Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Aliaksandr eBirukou

    2011-12-01

    Full Text Available In this paper we review several novel approaches for research evaluation. We start with a brief overview of the peer review, its controversies, and metrics for assessing efficiency and overall quality of the peer review. We then discuss five approaches, including reputation-based ones, that come out of the research carried out by the LiquidPub project and research groups collaborated with LiquidPub. Those approaches are alternative or complementary to traditional peer review. We discuss pros and cons of the proposed approaches and conclude with a vision for the future of the research evaluation, arguing that no single system can suit all stakeholders in various communities.

  8. 2009 Biomass Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Ferrell, John [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2009-12-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program‘s 2009 peer review meeting, held on July 14–15, 2009, in Arlington, Virginia. The document also includes summary information from the six separate platform reviews conducted between March and April 2009 in the Washington, D.C., and Denver, Colorado, areas. The platform reviews provide evaluations of the program‘s projects in applied research, development, and demonstration as well as analysis and deployment activities. The July program peer review was an evaluation of the program‘s overall strategic planning, management approach, priorities across research areas, and resource allocation.

  9. Geothermal Technologies Office 2012 Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2013-04-01

    On May 7-10, 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Geothermal Technologies Office conducted its annual program peer review in Westminster, CO. In accordance with the EERE Peer Review Guide, the review provides an independent, expert evaluation of the strategic goals and direction of the office and is a forum for feedback and recommendations on future office planning. The purpose of the review was to evaluate DOE-funded projects for their contribution to the mission and goals of the office and to assess progress made against stated objectives. Project scoring results, expert reviewer comments, and key findings and recommendations are included in this report.

  10. How peer-review constrains cognition

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Cowley, Stephen

    2015-01-01

    Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting ‘impact’: as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose. Endorsing the consensus, I offer a reframing: while a normative social process, peer-review also shapes the writing of a scientific paper. In so far as ‘cognit......Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting ‘impact’: as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose. Endorsing the consensus, I offer a reframing: while a normative social process, peer-review also shapes the writing of a scientific paper. In so far...

  11. Bridging the Otolaryngology Peer Review Knowledge Gap: A Call for a Residency Development Program.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schmalbach, Cecelia E

    2016-07-01

    Current otolaryngology literature and future scientific direction rely heavily on a rigorous peer review process. Just as manuscripts warrant thoughtful review with constructive feedback to the authors, the same can be said for critiques written by novice peer reviewers. Formal scientific peer review training programs are lacking. Recognizing this knowledge gap, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery is excited to offer its new Resident Reviewer Development Program. All otolaryngology residents who are postgraduate year 2 and above and in excellent academic standing are eligible to participate in this mentored program, during which they will conduct 6 manuscript reviews under the direction of a seasoned reviewer in his or her subspecialty area of interest. By completing reviews alongside a mentor, participants gain the required skills to master the peer review process-a first step that often leads to journal editorial board and associate editor invitations. © American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2016.

  12. An open science peer review oath.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Aleksic, Jelena; Alexa, Adrian; Attwood, Teresa K; Chue Hong, Neil; Dahlö, Martin; Davey, Robert; Dinkel, Holger; Förstner, Konrad U; Grigorov, Ivo; Hériché, Jean-Karim; Lahti, Leo; MacLean, Dan; Markie, Michael L; Molloy, Jenny; Schneider, Maria Victoria; Scott, Camille; Smith-Unna, Richard; Vieira, Bruno Miguel

    2014-01-01

    One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions.

  13. Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review

    OpenAIRE

    Praharaj, Samir Kumar; Ameen, Shahul

    2017-01-01

    Objective: The objective of the study was to study the methodological quality and error detection of the review by the participants of a peer review workshop. Methods: All participants of the workshop were invited to peer review a randomized controlled trial. The manuscript was E-mailed to them after introducing eight deliberate errors to it. Specific instructions and a deadline were provided. All the reviews were analyzed using review quality instrument (RQI). Furthermore, the rate and the t...

  14. Revised White House Peer Review Guidelines Draw Generally Favorable Respons

    Science.gov (United States)

    Showstack, Randy

    2004-04-01

    A new bulletin from the White House Office of Management and Budget outlines minimum standards for peer review of scientific information that includes findings representing an official position of a department or agency of the federal government. The OMB Revised Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, released on 15 April, substantially modifies a previous draft issued on 15 September 2003, which some had criticized as restrictive and imbalanced.

  15. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Callaham, Michael L; Schriger, David L

    2002-09-01

    We sought to determine whether peer reviewers who attend a formal interactive training session produce better reviews. Peer reviewers were invited to attend a formal, 4-hour, highly interactive workshop on peer review. Attendees received a sample manuscript to read and review in writing in advance. The workshop included presentations on analyzing a study and the journal's expectations for a quality review, discussion of the sample manuscript's flaws and how to address them in a review, discussion of the reviews written by the attendees, and discussion of real reviews of other manuscripts illustrating key points. The performance of attendees on the basis of standard editor quality ratings (1 to 5) was assessed for the 2 years after workshop attendance. Control reviewers matched for previous review quality and volume were selected from nonattendees of the workshop. In study 1, all average reviewers received a standard written invitation. In study 2, 75 randomly selected average reviewers were personally and actively recruited with intensive follow-up by means of e-mail and telephone calls in an effort to reduce self-selection bias. In study 1, 25 reviewers volunteered for the course, were eligible for study, attended, and were compared with 25 matched control reviewers. Of attendees filling out evaluations, 19% thought it somewhat and 81% thought it very helpful. All thought it would improve their subsequent reviews, and 85% thought it would improve their review ratings. The mean change in rating after the workshop was 0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.25 to 0.48) for control reviewers and 0.10 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.39) for attendees. In study 2, of 75 reviewers intensively recruited, only 12 (41%) of those who said they would attend did. All of the participants thought the workshop would improve their performance and ratings. Test scores at the end of the workshop improved in 73% of participants compared with scores on pretests. The control reviewers' average

  16. SALTO Peer Review Guidelines. Guidelines for Peer Review of Safety Aspects of Long Term Operation of Nuclear Power Plants

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2014-01-01

    International peer review is a useful tool for Member States to exchange experiences, learn from each other and apply good practices in the long term operation (LTO) of nuclear power plants (NPPs). The peer review is also an important mechanism through which the IAEA supports Member States in enhancing the safety of NPPs. The IAEA has conducted various types of safety review that indirectly address aspects of LTO, including safety reviews for design, engineering, operation and external hazards. Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) services include review of ageing management programmes. In addition, several Member States have requested Ageing Management Assessment Team (AMAT) missions. Through these experiences, it was recognized that a comprehensive peer review on LTO would be very useful to Member States. The Safety Aspects of Long Term Operation (SALTO) peer review addresses strategy and key elements for the safe LTO of NPPs, which includes AMAT objectives and complements OSART reviews. The SALTO peer review is designed to assist operating organizations in adopting a proper approach to LTP including implementing appropriate activities to ensure that plant safety will be maintained during the LTO period. The SALTO peer review can be tailored to focus on ageing management programmes (AMPs) or on other activities related to LTO to support the Member State in enhancing the safety of its NPPs. The SALTO peer review can also support regulators in establishing or improving regulatory and licensing strategies for the LTO of NPPs. The guidelines in this publication are primarily intended for members of a SALTO review team and provide a basic structure and common reference for peer reviews of LTO. Additionally, the guidelines also provide useful information to the operating organizations of NPPs (or technical support organizations) for carrying out their own self-assessments or comprehensive programme reviews. The guidelines are intended to be generic, as there are

  17. AJOL Recommended Peer-Reviewer Guidelines

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer Reviewers need to recognize the ...

  18. Peer Review of Teaching: Sharing Best Practices

    Science.gov (United States)

    Golparian, Shaya; Chan, Judy; Cassidy, Alice

    2015-01-01

    In this paper, we share examples of best peer review of teaching practices, drawing on our involvement in the design and implementation of the Peer Review of Teaching program at the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology. We review the history of the Peer Review of Teaching Initiative at the University of British Columbia and explain key…

  19. Imbalance in individual researcher's peer review activities quantified for four British Ecological Society journals, 2003-2010.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Petchey, Owen L; Fox, Jeremy W; Haddon, Lindsay

    2014-01-01

    Researchers contribute to the scientific peer review system by providing reviews, and "withdraw" from it by submitting manuscripts that are subsequently reviewed. So far as we are aware, there has been no quantification of the balance of individual's contributions and withdrawals. We compared the number of reviews provided by individual researchers (i.e., their contribution) to the number required by their submissions (i.e. their withdrawals) in a large and anonymised database provided by the British Ecological Society. The database covered the Journal of Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Journal of Applied Ecology, and Functional Ecology from 2003-2010. The majority of researchers (64%) did not have balanced contributions and withdrawals. Depending on assumptions, 12% to 44% contributed more than twice as much as required; 20% to 52% contributed less than half as much as required. Balance, or lack thereof, varied little in relation to the number of years a researcher had been active (reviewing or submitting). Researchers who contributed less than required did not lack the opportunity to review. Researchers who submitted more were more likely to accept invitations to review. These finding suggest overall that peer review of the four analysed journals is not in crisis, but only due to the favourable balance of over- and under-contributing researchers. These findings are limited to the four journals analysed, and therefore cannot include researcher's other peer review activities, which if included might change the proportions reported. Relatively low effort was required to assemble, check, and analyse the data. Broader analyses of individual researcher's peer review activities would contribute to greater quality, efficiency, and fairness in the peer review system.

  20. A quick guide to writing a solid peer review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Nicholas, Kimberly A.; Gordon, Wendy S.

    2011-07-01

    Scientific integrity and consensus rely on the peer review process, a defining feature of scientific discourse that subjects the literature forming the foundation of credible knowledge in a scientific field to rigorous scrutiny. However, there is surprisingly little training in graduate school on how to develop this essential skill [Zimmerman et al., 2011] or discussion of best practices to ensure that reviewers at all levels efficiently provide the most useful review. Even more challenging for the novice peer reviewer is that journals also vary widely in their review guidelines. Nonetheless, the goals of peer review are crystal clear: to ensure the accuracy and improve the quality of published literature through constructive criticism. To make the peer review process as efficient and productive as possible, you may want to consider a few useful approaches to tackling major steps throughout your review, from contemplating a review request and reading and assessing the manuscript to writing the review and interacting with the journal's editors (see Figure 1). These tips are particularly relevant for graduate students or other first-time reviewers, but they may also be useful to experienced reviewers and to journal editors seeking to enhance their publication's processes.

  1. History, Research, and Challenges: A Systematic Analysis of Peer Review for Journals, Grants, and Faculty Appointments

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mu-Hsuan Huang

    2016-06-01

    Full Text Available Peer review is a self-regulation mechanism for scientific inquiry. Institutionalized and incorporated into the structure and operation of science, it has received considerable support in the academic setting. The legitimacy of peer review is based on trust and integrity. In various ways, it allocates scarce resources such as journal space, research funding, faculty recruitment, recognition, and rewards for academic achievements. But there are growing indications that peer review has yet to fulfill its potential functions, leading to negative assessments as to whether it is effective, efficient, or reliable. Many studies have found links between potential sources of bias and judgments in peer review and expressed reservations over the fairness of the process. It is, therefore, important that the peer review process should be subjected to serious scrutiny and regular evaluation that would lead to better quality and greater fairness. This study presents a systematic review of the empirical literature on peer review of journal manuscripts, grant applications, and faculty appointments and promotions. Historical and contextual information is provided as a basis for interpreting this review. Finally, the authors discuss international recommendations for good practice in peer review and the potential and problems of peer review and bibliometrics. [Article content in Chinese

  2. Peer Review of Launch Environments

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wilson, Timmy R.

    2011-01-01

    Catastrophic failures of launch vehicles during launch and ascent are currently modeled using equivalent trinitrotoluene (TNT) estimates. This approach tends to over-predict the blast effect with subsequent impact to launch vehicle and crew escape requirements. Bangham Engineering, located in Huntsville, Alabama, assembled a less-conservative model based on historical failure and test data coupled with physical models and estimates. This white paper summarizes NESC's peer review of the Bangham analytical work completed to date.

  3. The "peer" in "peer review"

    Science.gov (United States)

    Perry, Gad; Bertoluci, Jaime; Bury, R. Bruce; Hansen, Robert W.; Jehle, Robert; Measey, John; Moon, Brad R.; Muths, Erin L.; Zuffi, Marco A.L.

    2011-01-01

    Peer review is the best available mechanism for assessing and improving the quality of scientific work. As herpetology broadens its disciplinary and geographic boundaries, high-quality external review is ever more essential. We are writing this editorial jointly because the review process has become increasingly difficult. The resulting delays slow publication times, negatively affect performance reviews, tenure, promotions, and grant proposal success. It harms authors, agencies, and institutions (Ware 2011).

  4. How authors can maximise the chance of manuscript acceptance and article visibility

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Kalwij, Jesse M.; Smit, Christian

    The current peer-review system is being overloaded with manuscript submissions that increasingly exceed reviewer availability and journal publication space. Consequently manuscript rejections rates, peer-review requests, and subject-editors' workloads are mounting. Here we outline common problems

  5. Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Byrne, Jennifer A

    2016-01-01

    As the size of the published scientific literature has increased exponentially over the past 30 years, review articles play an increasingly important role in helping researchers to make sense of original research results. Literature reviews can be broadly classified as either "systematic" or "narrative". Narrative reviews may be broader in scope than systematic reviews, but have been criticised for lacking synthesis and rigour. The submission of more scientific manuscripts requires more researchers acting as peer reviewers, which requires adding greater numbers of new reviewers to the reviewing population over time. However, whereas there are many easily accessible guides for reviewers of primary research manuscripts, there are few similar resources to assist reviewers of narrative reviews. Here, I summarise why literature reviews are valued by their diverse readership and how peer reviewers with different levels of content expertise can improve the reliability and accessibility of narrative review articles. I then provide a number of recommendations for peer reviewers of narrative literature reviews, to improve the integrity of the scientific literature, while also ensuring that narrative review articles meet the needs of both expert and non-expert readers.

  6. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Azer, Samy A; Ramani, Subha; Peterson, Ray

    2012-01-01

    Peer reviewing for medical education journals is an art, a privilege, a responsibility and a service to the profession. Writing a review report requires skills and commitment and takes time. Novice reviewers may be interested in participating in this service, but they might lack sufficient knowledge of their role as peer reviewers and the skills needed to conduct a comprehensive and fair review. The aims of this article are to help novice reviewers in their preparation of manuscript review reports and improve their confidence and skills in their role as reviewers. We reviewed the literature in this area and applied lessons learned from our experience as peer reviewers. In addition, one of the authors has presented several training workshops for faculty reviewers. Incorporating all the methods described, we have developed a series of simple strategies that medical educators can utilise to perform high-quality reviews of manuscripts. Though the development of skills in reviewing medical education papers is the outcome of continuous practice and experience; the strategies described in this article will be of value to those starting their professional contribution as reviewers and enhance their skills in this area.

  7. Improving the peer review skills of young rheumatologists and researchers in rheumatology: the EMEUNET Peer Review Mentoring Program.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rodríguez-Carrio, Javier; Putrik, Polina; Sepriano, Alexandre; Moltó, Anna; Nikiphorou, Elena; Gossec, Laure; Kvien, Tore K; Ramiro, Sofia

    2018-01-01

    Although peer review plays a central role in the maintenance of high standards in scientific research, training of reviewing skills is not included in the common education programmes. The Emerging EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) Network (EMEUNET) developed a programme to address this unmet need. The EMEUNET Peer Review Mentoring Program for Rheumatology Journals promotes a systematic training of reviewing skills by engaging mentees in a 'real world' peer review experience supervised by experienced mentors with support from rheumatology journals. This viewpoint provides an overview of this initiative and its outcomes, and discusses its potential limitations. Over 4 years, 18 mentors and 86 mentees have participated. Among the 33 participants who have completed the programme, 13 (39.3%) have become independent reviewers for Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases after the training. This programme has been recently evaluated by a survey and qualitative interviews, revealing a high interest in this initiative. The main strengths (involvement of a top journal and learning opportunities) and weaknesses of the programme (limited number of places and insufficient dissemination) were identified. Overall, this programme represents an innovative and successful approach to peer review training. Continuous evaluation and improvement are key to its functioning. The EMEUNET Peer Review Mentoring Program may be used as a reference for peer review training in areas outside rheumatology.

  8. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Richard L Kravitz

    Full Text Available BACKGROUND: Editorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship between external reviewers' recommendations and the editorial outcome of manuscripts undergoing external peer-review at the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We examined reviewer recommendations and editors' decisions at JGIM between 2004 and 2008. For manuscripts undergoing peer review, we calculated chance-corrected agreement among reviewers on recommendations to reject versus accept or revise. Using mixed effects logistic regression models, we estimated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC at the reviewer and manuscript level. Finally, we examined the probability of rejection in relation to reviewer agreement and disagreement. The 2264 manuscripts sent for external review during the study period received 5881 reviews provided by 2916 reviewers; 28% of reviews recommended rejection. Chance corrected agreement (kappa statistic on rejection among reviewers was 0.11 (p<.01. In mixed effects models adjusting for study year and manuscript type, the reviewer-level ICC was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.29 and the manuscript-level ICC was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.12-0.22. The editors' overall rejection rate was 48%: 88% when all reviewers for a manuscript agreed on rejection (7% of manuscripts and 20% when all reviewers agreed that the manuscript should not be rejected (48% of manuscripts (p<0.01. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to reject vs. accept/revise at levels barely beyond chance, yet editors placed considerable weight on reviewers' recommendations. Efforts are needed to improve the reliability of the peer-review process while helping editors understand the limitations of reviewers' recommendations.

  9. Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Knudson, Duane V; Morrow, James R; Thomas, Jerry R

    2014-06-01

    Peer review of scholarship is essential to journal quality, evidence, knowledge advancement, and application of that knowledge in any field. This commentary summarizes recent literature on issues related to peer-review quality and current review practice in kinesiology and provides recommendations to improve peer review in kinesiology journals. We reviewed the literature on the characteristics of peer review in scientific journals and describe the status of peer review in kinesiology journals. Although the majority of scholars and editors strongly support the peer-review process, systematic research in several disciplines has shown somewhat positive but mixed results for the efficacy of peer review in evaluating the quality of and improving research reports. Past recommendations for improvement have focused on agreement between reviewers, standards for evaluating quality, and clarification of the editorial team roles. Research on interventions, however, indicates that improving reviewer performance is difficult. The specific research on peer review in kinesiology is limited. Six recommendations to improve peer review are proposed: publishing clear evaluation standards, establishing collaborative evaluation procedures and editorial team roles, utilizing online submission data to help improve reviewer comments, creating author appeals procedures, protecting reviewer time commitments, and improving reviewer recognition. There is considerable variation in peer-review criteria and procedures in kinesiology, and implementing several reasonable improvements may advance knowledge development and the field of kinesiology.

  10. Commercial Lighting Solutions, Webtool Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Jones, Carol C.; Meyer, Tracy A.

    2009-06-17

    The Commercial Lighting Solutions (CLS) project directly supports the U.S. Department of Energy’s Commercial Building Energy Alliance efforts to design high performance buildings. CLS creates energy efficient best practice lighting designs for widespread use, and they are made available to users via an interactive webtool that both educates and guides the end user through the application of the Lighting Solutions. This report summarizes the peer review of the beta version of the CLS webtool, which contains retail box lighting solutions. The methodology for the peer review process included data collection (stakeholder input), analysis of the comments, and organization of the input into categories for prioritization of the comments against a set of criteria. Based on this process, recommendations were developed about which feedback should be addressed for the release of version 1.0 of the webtool at the Lightfair conference in New York City in May 2009. Due to the volume of data (~500 comments) the methodology for addressing the peer review comments was central to the success of the ultimate goal of improving the tool. The comments were first imported into a master spreadsheet, and then grouped and organized in several layers. Solutions to each comment were then rated by importance and feasibility to determine the practicality of resolving the concerns of the commenter in the short-term or long-term. The rating system was used as an analytical tool, but the results were viewed thoughtfully to ensure that they were not the sole the factor in determining which comments were recommended for near-term resolution. The report provides a list of the top ten most significant and relevant improvements that will be made within the webtool for version 1.0 as well as appendices containing the short-term priorities in additional detail. Peer review comments that are considered high priority by the reviewers and the CLS team but cannot be completed for Version 1.0 are listed as

  11. How peer-review constrains cognition: on the frontline in the knowledge sector.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cowley, Stephen J

    2015-01-01

    Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting 'impact': as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose. Endorsing the consensus, I offer a reframing: while a normative social process, peer-review also shapes the writing of a scientific paper. In so far as 'cognition' describes enabling conditions for flexible behavior, the practices of peer-review thus constrain knowledge-making. To pursue cognitive functions of peer-review, however, manuscripts must be seen as 'symbolizations', replicable patterns that use technologically enabled activity. On this bio-cognitive view, peer-review constrains knowledge-making by writers, editors, reviewers. Authors are prompted to recursively re-aggregate symbolizations to present what are deemed acceptable knowledge claims. How, then, can recursive re-embodiment be explored? In illustration, I sketch how the paper's own content came to be re-aggregated: agonistic review drove reformatting of argument structure, changes in rhetorical ploys and careful choice of wordings. For this reason, the paper's knowledge-claims can be traced to human activity that occurs in distributed cognitive systems. Peer-review is on the frontline in the knowledge sector in that it delimits what can count as knowing. Its systemic nature is therefore crucial to not only discipline-centered 'real' science but also its 'post-academic' counterparts.

  12. How peer review constrains cognition: on the frontline in the knowledge sector

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Stephen John Cowley

    2015-11-01

    Full Text Available Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting ‘impact’: as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose. Given this consensus, I propose another framing: while a normative social process, peer-review also shapes the flexible behavior called ‘writing’ a scientific paper. In so far as ‘cognition’ describes the enabling conditions for flexible behaviour, the practices of peer-review thus constrain knowledge-making. To pursue cognitive functions of peer-review, however, manuscripts must be seen as ‘symbolizations’, replicable patterns that use technologically enabled activity. On this bio-cognitive view, peer-review constrains knowledge-making by writers, editors, reviewers. Authors are prompted to recursively re-aggregate symbolizations to present what are deemed acceptable knowledge claims. How, then, can recursive re-embodiment be explored? In illustration, I sketch how the paper’s own content came to be re-aggregated: agonistic review drove reformatting of argument structure, changes in rhetorical ploys and careful choice of wordings. For this reason, the paper’s knowledge-claims can be traced to human activity that occurs in distributed cognitive systems. Peer-review is on the frontline in the knowledge sector in that it delimits what can count as knowing. Its systemic nature is therefore crucial to not only discipline-centered ‘real’ science but also its ‘post-academic’ counterparts.

  13. Peer Portal: Quality Enhancement in Thesis Writing Using Self-Managed Peer Review on a Mass Scale

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Naghmeh Aghaee

    2013-03-01

    Full Text Available This paper describes a specially developed online peer-review system, the Peer Portal, and the first results of its use for quality enhancement of bachelor’s and master’s thesis manuscripts. The peer-review system is completely student driven and therefore saves time for supervisors and creates a direct interaction between students without interference from supervisors. The purpose is to improve thesis manuscript quality, and thereby use supervisor time more efficiently, since peers review basic aspects of the manuscripts and give constructive suggestions for improvements. The process was initiated in 2012, and, in total, 260 peer reviews were completed between 1st January and 15th May, 2012. All peer reviews for this period have been analyzed with the help of content analysis. The purpose of analysis is to assess the quality of the students work. The results are categorized in four groups: 1 excellent (18.1%, 2 good (22.7%, 3 fragmented (18.5%, and 4 poor (40.7%. The overall result shows that almost 40% of the students produced excellent or good peer reviews and almost as many produced poor peer reviews. The result shows that the quality varies considerably. Explanations of these quality variations need further study. However, alternative hypotheses followed by some strategic suggestions are discussed in this study. Finally, a way forward in terms of improving peer reviews is outlined: 1 development of a peer wizard system and 2 rating of received peer reviews based on the quality categories created in this study. A Peer Portal version 2.0 is suggested, which will eliminate the fragmented and poor quality peer reviews, but still keep this review system student driven and ensure autonomous learning.

  14. The purpose of peer review in the case of an open-access publication

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Alexandrov Georgii A

    2006-09-01

    Full Text Available Abstract First scientific journals were simply a way of informing colleagues about new research findings. In due course, they started filtering out unreasonable claims, and introduced a peer-review system. The purpose of peer reviewing changed with time. Since the middle of the past century, commercial publishers have owned a large number of scientific journals and as a result, the marketable value of a submitted manuscript has become an increasingly important factor in publishing decisions. Recently some publishers have developed business schemes which may stop this tendency. In the case of an open-access publication, the marketable value of a manuscript is not the primary consideration, since access to the research is not being sold. This innovation challenges scientists to re-consider the purpose of peer review. This editorial indicates some of the commonly used criteria for publication that consequently should receive less or little emphasis under the open-access model.

  15. Improving your journal article using feedback from peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Price, Bob

    2014-09-30

    While preparation of a journal article for submission may often include informal review by colleagues, an article is not accepted for publication until it has been formally peer reviewed. Peer review is the process whereby journal editors ask expert reviewers to examine the work submitted and prepare a report on its suitability for publication. Two or more revisions of the article may be required following peer review, with the author reworking the article in the light of feedback received on each occasion. This can be challenging for some authors, but used well, it offers a chance to improve the work to the required standard of the journal, and help the author present a more precise and coherent account of the arguments. The extent to which the author responds to the critical commentary of peer reviewers is important, because this may determine whether or not the article is published. This article explores the aims of peer reviewers and recommends ways in which authors can respond to the feedback provided.

  16. Writing peer-reviewed articles with diverse teams: considerations for novice scholars conducting community-engaged research.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Flicker, Sarah; Nixon, Stephanie A

    2018-02-01

    Given the growth of interdisciplinary and community-engaged health promotion research, it has become increasingly common to conduct studies in diverse teams. While there is literature to guide collaborative research proposal development, data collection and analysis, little has been written about writing peer-reviewed publications collaboratively in teams. This gap is particularly important for junior researchers who lead articles involving diverse and community-engaged co-authors. The purpose of this article is to present a series of considerations to guide novice researchers in writing for peer-reviewed publication with diverse teams. The following considerations are addressed: justifying the value of peer-reviewed publication with non-academic partners; establishing co-author roles that respect expertise and interest; clarifying the message and audience; using the article outline as a form of engagement; knowledge translation within and beyond the academy; and multiple strategies for generating and reviewing drafts. Community-engaged research often involves collaboration with communities that have long suffered a history of colonial and extractive research practices. Authentic engagement of these partners can be supported through research practices, including manuscript development, that are transparent and that honour the voices of all team members. Ensuring meaningful participation and diverse perspectives is key to transforming research relationships and sharing new insights into seemingly intractable health problems. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

  17. Procedures for conducting independent peer reviews of probabilistic safety assessment

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1990-01-01

    Independent peer review should be an integral part of any Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA). The value of the benefits of a valid PSA may be many times the cost of the study, as demonstrated by a recent report in the United States (EPRI NP-5664) based on utility experience and USNRC perspectives in the practical application of probabilistic risk assesssment (PRA). Independent peer review and revisions, as necessary, give a degree of assurance of validity. The basic disciplines typically covered in a review include event tree analyses, systems analyses, human reliability analyses, data analyses, quantification and uncertainty propagation and external event analyses (if these are included in the PSA). This document is intended to serve as guidelines both for the conduct of an independent peer review of a PSA and for the IPERS programme. The document gives guidance on how an IPER service is conducted, the procedure and steps needed for preparation of an IPER and the technical areas normally covered. 4 tabs

  18. Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Snell, Richard R

    2015-01-01

    Peer review represents the primary mechanism used by funding agencies to allocate financial support and by journals to select manuscripts for publication, yet recent Cochrane reviews determined literature on peer review best practice is sparse. Key to improving the process are reduction of inherent vulnerability to high degree of randomness and, from an economic perspective, limiting both the substantial indirect costs related to reviewer time invested and direct administrative costs to funding agencies, publishers and research institutions. Use of additional reviewers per application may increase reliability and decision consistency, but adds to overall cost and burden. The optimal number of reviewers per application, while not known, is thought to vary with accuracy of judges or evaluation methods. Here I use bootstrapping of replicated peer review data from a Post-doctoral Fellowships competition to show that five reviewers per application represents a practical optimum which avoids large random effects evident when fewer reviewers are used, a point where additional reviewers at increasing cost provides only diminishing incremental gains in chance-corrected consistency of decision outcomes. Random effects were most evident in the relative mid-range of competitiveness. Results support aggressive high- and low-end stratification or triaging of applications for subsequent stages of review, with the proportion and set of mid-range submissions to be retained for further consideration being dependent on overall success rate.

  19. Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Richard R Snell

    Full Text Available Peer review represents the primary mechanism used by funding agencies to allocate financial support and by journals to select manuscripts for publication, yet recent Cochrane reviews determined literature on peer review best practice is sparse. Key to improving the process are reduction of inherent vulnerability to high degree of randomness and, from an economic perspective, limiting both the substantial indirect costs related to reviewer time invested and direct administrative costs to funding agencies, publishers and research institutions. Use of additional reviewers per application may increase reliability and decision consistency, but adds to overall cost and burden. The optimal number of reviewers per application, while not known, is thought to vary with accuracy of judges or evaluation methods. Here I use bootstrapping of replicated peer review data from a Post-doctoral Fellowships competition to show that five reviewers per application represents a practical optimum which avoids large random effects evident when fewer reviewers are used, a point where additional reviewers at increasing cost provides only diminishing incremental gains in chance-corrected consistency of decision outcomes. Random effects were most evident in the relative mid-range of competitiveness. Results support aggressive high- and low-end stratification or triaging of applications for subsequent stages of review, with the proportion and set of mid-range submissions to be retained for further consideration being dependent on overall success rate.

  20. Review Article: Writing Biomedical Manuscripts Part I: Fundamentals ...

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    ... the rigorous peer review process. The expectations of standard journals, and common pitfalls the major elements of a manuscript are covered. Keywords: IMRAD, Biomedical manuscripts, Guidelines, Structure, Rules, IMRAD, Scientific writing, Writing guidelines, Study design, Qualitative research, Primary publications, ...

  1. Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Seeber, Marco; Bacchelli, A.

    2017-01-01

    Several fields of research are characterized by the coexistence of two different peer review modes to select quality contributions for scientific venues, namely double blind (DBR) and single blind (SBR) peer review. In the first, the identities of both authors and reviewers are not known to each

  2. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... compatible with NUREG-1297, “Peer Review for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories,” published February 1988... 40 Protection of Environment 24 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review. 194.27 Section 194.27 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAMS CRITERIA...

  3. 2009 Water Power Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Murphy, Michael [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States); Higgins, Mark [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States); Reed, Mike [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2011-04-01

    This report contains the findings of the 2009 Water Power Peer Review Panel, as well as the Water Power Program's responses to those findings. This Peer Review focused on the Program's marine and hydrokinetic energy projects.

  4. The Problem of Humiliation in Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Comer, Debra R.; Schwartz, Michael

    2014-01-01

    This paper examines the problem of vituperative feedback from peer reviewers. We argue that such feedback is morally unacceptable, insofar as it humiliates authors and damages their dignity. We draw from social-psychological research to explore those aspects of the peer-review process in general and the anonymity of blind reviewing in particular…

  5. The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Ulysses Paulino de Albuquerque

    2011-03-01

    Full Text Available The peer review process is the dominant system adopted in science to evaluate the quality of articles submitted for publication. Various social players are involved in this process, including authors, editors and reviewers. Much has been discussed about the need to improve the scientific quality of what is published. The main focus of these discussions has been the work of the authors. However, the editors and reviewers also fulfill an important role. In this opinion article, we discuss some proposals to improve the peer review system, emphasizing the role of reviewers and editors.

  6. 2013 Building Technologies Office Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2013-11-01

    The 2013 Building Technologies Office Program Peer Review Report summarizes the results of the 2013 Building Technologies Office (BTO) peer review, which was held in Washington, D.C., on April 2–4, 2013. The review was attended by over 300 participants and included presentations on 59 BTO-funded projects: 29 from BTO’s Emerging Technologies Program, 20 from the Commercial Buildings Integration Program, 6 from the Residential Buildings Integration Program, and 4 from the Building Energy Codes Program. This report summarizes the scores and comments provided by the independent reviewers for each project.

  7. Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Padma R Jirge

    2017-01-01

    Full Text Available Publishing original research in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal is an important milestone for a scientist or a clinician. It is an important parameter to assess academic achievements. However, technical and language barriers may prevent many enthusiasts from ever publishing. This review highlights the important preparatory steps for creating a good manuscript and the most widely used IMRaD (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion method for writing a good manuscript. It also provides a brief overview of the submission and review process of a manuscript for publishing in a biomedical journal.

  8. Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hopewell, Sally; Witt, Claudia M; Linde, Klaus; Icke, Katja; Adedire, Olubusola; Kirtley, Shona; Altman, Douglas G

    2018-01-11

    primary outcome, or funding source. Thirty-six percent (n = 94) of authors had been asked to include additional analyses that had not been included in the original manuscript; in 77% (n = 72) these were not pre-specified in the protocol. Twenty-three percent (n = 60) had been asked to modify their overall conclusion, usually (n = 53; 88%) to provide a more cautious conclusion. Overall, most changes, as a result of the peer review process, resulted in improvements to the published manuscript; there was little evidence of a negative impact in terms of post hoc changes of the primary outcome. However, some suggested changes might be considered inappropriate, such as unplanned additional analyses, and should be discouraged.

  9. The relationship between manuscript title structure and success: editorial decisions and citation performance for an ecological journal.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fox, Charles W; Burns, C Sean

    2015-05-01

    A poorly chosen article title may make a paper difficult to discover or discourage readership when discovered, reducing an article's impact. Yet, it is unclear how the structure of a manuscript's title influences readership and impact. We used manuscript tracking data for all manuscripts submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from 2004 to 2013 and citation data for papers published in this journal from 1987 to 2011 to examine how title features changed and whether a manuscript's title structure was predictive of success during the manuscript review process and/or impact (citation) after publication. Titles of manuscripts submitted to Functional Ecology became marginally longer (after controlling for other variables), broader in focus (less frequent inclusion of genus and species names), and included more humor and subtitles over the period of the study. Papers with subtitles were less likely to be rejected by editors both pre- and post-peer review, although both effects were small and the presence of subtitles in published papers was not predictive of citations. Papers with specific names of study organisms in their titles fared poorly during editorial (but not peer) review and, if published, were less well cited than papers whose titles did not include specific names. Papers with intermediate length titles were more successful during editorial review, although the effect was small and title word count was not predictive of citations. No features of titles were predictive of reviewer willingness to review papers or the length of time a paper was in peer review. We conclude that titles have changed in structure over time, but features of title structure have only small or no relationship with success during editorial review and post-publication impact. The title feature that was most predictive of manuscript success: papers whose titles emphasize broader conceptual or comparative issues fare better both pre- and post-publication than do papers with organism

  10. Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Parikh, Laura I; Benner, Rebecca S; Riggs, Thomas W; Hazen, Nicholas; Chescheir, Nancy C

    2017-02-01

    To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation. We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression. There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, Pobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty. Obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty and reviewer experience have implications for manuscript rejection recommendation. Reviewer assignment is pivotal to maintaining a rigorous manuscript selection process.

  11. Science, Policy, and Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kennedy, D.

    2006-12-01

    These are intense times at the convergence between science and public policy. Because issues like climate change, stem cell research and environmental protection are being contested in choppy political water, political interests are being deployed to challenge science and researchers, and also to generate pseudo- scientific claims made in the interest of particular policy ends. In a number of cases reported in Science, administration officials have silenced their own employees, or withheld data selectively from draft reports. Added to that challenge to integrity, there is a new statutory environment that adds some complexity of its own. Beginning with the Data Quality Act, more familiarly the "Shelby Amendment," research results with significant economic impacts through regulation are now available through the Freedom of Information Act. Its successor, the Data Quality Act -- which opens a route of challenge to information released by government or gathered by others and used in advice or regulation has exposed scientists not only to having their primary data reanalyzed for the purposes of others, but to charges of research misconduct. These influences have made journal peer review more challenging in several ways, and I will outline some case examples.

  12. Resources from waste peer reviews : peer reviews and responses

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    McNeill, C.I. [United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY (United States). Environment and Energy Group; Hamilton, D.A. [Lewis and Zimmerman Associates Inc., Tacoma, WA (United States); Nilsen, C. [Altus Group, Vancouver, BC (Canada); Dawson, R.N. [Stantec Consulting Ltd., Surrey, BC (Canada)

    2008-02-29

    The Resources from Waste Integrated Resource Management (IRM) study was commissioned by the British Columbia Ministry of Community Services to examine the feasibility of using solid and liquid waste to create energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water and recover nutrients. The Ministry of Community Services wanted to know if IRM could be applied province-wide as well as to the Capital Region District (CRD). The study assessed the potential contribution that the IRM approach can make to achieve the province's climate change agenda and Green Cities Program. This document provided comments on the IRM study report by 4 peer reviewers who generally agreed about the usefulness of the IRM concept. However, there were differences of opinion about how best to apply the concept and about potential costs and revenues. IRM is a concept and process that mimics ecological cycles of reuse and offers a means to address future challenges regarding climate change and population growth. In its optimal deployment, IRM can potentially result in zero waste. The reviewers indicated that IRM has the potential to be a viable solution to water, solid and liquid waste management that should be less expensive, result in fewer environmental impacts, and provide greater flexibility than traditional approaches to waste management. The advent of a graduated carbon tax on fossil based fuels will add value over time to the IRM model because it can generate significant amounts of non-fossil-based energy sources and contribute to GHG reduction targets. All the technologies presented in the IRM study are well-established, currently operational and in use in various jurisdictions. It was concluded, however, that further work is needed to evaluate IRM before it can be adopted without reservation. refs.

  13. Peer Collaboration: Improving Teaching through Comprehensive Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Smith, Shelley L.

    2014-01-01

    This article includes a brief rationale and review of the literature on peer review of teaching (PRT). Based on that literature review, it offers a proposal for an optimal formative review process that results in a teaching portfolio that would reflect a faculty member's efforts and successes in a critically reflective PRT process, and contributes…

  14. Manuscript Submission Form

    Indian Academy of Sciences (India)

    Mr.XAVIER

    To: Indian Academy of Sciences. From: Author or Corresponding author with institutional/corresponding address including e-mail. (on behalf of, and binding upon, all the authors). Journal: Title of manuscript: Date of submission of manuscript: In respect of the work mentioned above, I/we undertake to ensure that: i).

  15. Peer-review: An IOP Publishing Perspective

    Science.gov (United States)

    Smith, Timothy

    2015-03-01

    Online publishing is challenging, and potentially changing, the role of publishers in both managing the peer-review process and disseminating the work that they publish in meeting contrasting needs from diverse groups of research communities. Recognizing the value of peer-review as a fundamental service to authors and the research community, the underlying principles of managing the process for journals published by IOP Publishing remain unchanged and yet the potential and demand for alternative models exists. This talk will discuss the traditional approach to peer-review placed in the context of this changing demand.

  16. Manuscript Cultures

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    What do Mesoamerica, Greece, Byzantium, Island, Chad, Ethiopia, India, Tibet, China and Japan have in common? Like many other cultures of the world, they share a particular form of cultural heritage: ancient handwritten documents. In 2007, scholars from some20 countries around the world gathered...... at the University of Copenhagen for a workshop on manuscripts to compare notes. This event led to the publication of this volume, which brings together16 articles on philological, cultural, and material aspects of manuscripts in search for a common ground across disciplines and cultures....

  17. EERE Peer Review Guide - August 2004

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None

    2009-01-18

    Provides guidance in establishing formal in-progress peer review that provides intellectually fair expert evaluation of EERE research, development, demonstration, & deployment (supporting business administration) programs, both retrospective and pr

  18. Science and Technology Peer Review: GPRA

    National Research Council Canada - National Science Library

    Kostoff, Ronald

    2003-01-01

    This report describes practical issues for federal agencies to consider if they choose program peer review for internal purposes and/ or to contribute to satisfying the requirements of the Government...

  19. 2013 Bioenergy Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None, None

    2014-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2013 U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office's Peer Review meeting.

  20. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Walker, Richard; Rocha da Silva, Pascal

    2015-01-01

    "Classical peer review" has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. Based on an initial literature review, we construct a sample of 82 channels of scientific communication covering all forms of review identified by the survey, and analyze the review mechanisms used by each channel. We identify two major trends: the rapidly expanding role of preprint servers (e.g., ArXiv) that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, and the growth of "non-selective review," focusing on papers' scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty. Other potentially important developments include forms of "open review," which remove reviewer anonymity, and interactive review, as well as new mechanisms for post-publication review and out-of-channel reader commentary, especially critical commentary targeting high profile papers. One of the strongest findings of the survey is the persistence of major differences between the peer review processes used by different disciplines. None of these differences is likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. The most likely scenario for the coming years is thus continued diversification, in which different review mechanisms serve different author, reader, and publisher needs. Relatively little is known about the impact of these innovations on the problems they address. These are important questions for future quantitative research.

  1. Student peer reviewers' views on teaching innovations and imaginative learning.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chan, Zenobia C Y

    2016-04-01

    Various teaching innovations have been proven effective in promoting students' critical thinking, creativity, problem solving and active learning. However, little attention has been paid to the possibility of including students as peer reviewers to evaluate these innovations in light of imaginative learning. This study explored the perspective of senior students who played the role of the student peer reviewer on three teaching innovations, namely writing poetry, composing songs and creating role-plays in problem-based learning (PBL), specifically in relation to imaginative learning. A focus group interview. Ten senior nursing students who had experienced the conventional PBL approach but not the mentioned teaching innovations were invited to participate in reviewing a video recording of a PBL class using the above teaching innovations with a total of 18 junior year students. Five themes were identified using content analysis: (i) motivation to learn, (ii) increased empathy, (iii) information retention, (iv) development of critical thinking and creativity, and (v) drawbacks of teaching innovations. It is suggested that student peer reviewers should be considered, as they can bring an outsider-learner's views on understanding the impacts of teaching innovations on imaginative learning. A call should be made to invite student peer reviewers on teaching and learning approaches, and more effort should be devoted to promoting an understanding of how imaginative learning can be achieved via teaching innovations. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  2. Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Qi, Xingshun; Deng, Han; Guo, Xiaozhong

    2017-08-01

    A faked peer review is a novel cause for retraction. We reviewed the characteristics of papers retracted due to a faked peer review. All papers retracted due to faked peer reviews were identified by searching the Retraction Watch website and by conducting a manual search. All identified papers were confirmed in published journals. The information of retracted papers was collected, which primarily included publisher, journal, journal impact factor, country, as well as publication and retraction year. Overall, 250 retracted papers were identified. They were published in 48 journals by six publishers. The top 5 journals included the Journal of Vibration and Control (24.8%), Molecular Biology Reports (11.6%), Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology (8.0%), Tumour Biology (6.8%) and European Journal of Medical Research (6.4%). The publishers included SAGE (31%), Springer (26%), BioMed Central (18%), Elsevier (13%), Informa (11%) and LWW (1%). A minority (4%) of retracted papers were published in Science Citation Index (SCI) journals with an impact factor of >5. A majority (74.8%) of retracted papers were written by Chinese researchers. In terms of the publication year, the retracted papers were published since 2010, and the number of retracted papers peaked in 2014 (40.8%). In terms of the retraction year, the retractions started in 2012, and the number of retractions peaked in 2015 (59.6%). The number of papers retracted due to faked peer reviews differs largely among journals and countries. With the improvement of the peer review mechanism and increased education about publishing ethics, such academic misconduct may gradually disappear in future. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

  3. 2016 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Building Technologies Office

    2016-12-01

    The 2016 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report summarizes the feedback submitted by reviewers of the 67 BTO projects presented at the 2016 BTO Peer Review. The report presents an overview of the goals and activities under each technology program area, a summary of project scores for each program, and a brief analysis of general evaluation trends within each program area or its constituent subprograms.

  4. 2017 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None, None

    2017-11-01

    The 2017 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report summarizes the feedback submitted by reviewers for the 109 Building Technologies Office (BTO) projects presented at the 2017 BTO Peer Review. The report presents an overview of the goals and activities under each technology program area, a summary of project scores for each program, and a brief analysis of general evaluation trends within each program area or its constituent subprograms.

  5. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Ulrich ePöschl

    2012-07-01

    Full Text Available The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to the demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today’s highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be advanced and complemented by interactive and transparent forms of review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public.The advantages of open access, public peer review and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional scientific peer review. Since 2001 the benefits and viability of this approach are clearly demonstrated by the highly successful interactive open access journal Atmo¬sphe¬ric Chemistry and Physics (ACP and a growing number of sister journals launched and operated by the European Geosciences Union (EGU and the open access publisher Copernicus.The interactive open access journals are practicing an integrative multi-stage process of publication and peer review combined with interactive public discussion, which effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance. The high efficiency and predictive validity of multi-stage open peer review have been confirmed in a series of dedicated studies by evaluation experts from the social sciences, and the same or similar concepts have recently also been adopted in other disciplines, including the life sciences and economics. Multi-stage open peer review can be flexibly adjusted to the needs and peculiarities of different scientific communities. Due to the flexibility and compatibility with traditional structures of scientific publishing and peer review, the multi-stage open peer review concept enables efficient evolution in scientific communication and quality assurance. It has the potential for swift replacement of hidden peer review as the standard of scientific quality assurance, and it provides a basis for open evaluation in

  6. Factors impacting time to acceptance and publication for peer-reviewed publications.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Toroser, Dikran; Carlson, Janice; Robinson, Micah; Gegner, Julie; Girard, Victoria; Smette, Lori; Nilsen, Jon; O'Kelly, James

    2017-07-01

    Timely publication of data is important for the medical community and provides a valuable contribution to data disclosure. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate times to acceptance and publication for peer-reviewed manuscripts, reviews, and letters to the editor. Key publication metrics for published manuscripts, reviews, and letters to the editor were identified by eight Amgen publications professionals. Data for publications submitted between 1 January 2013 and 1 November 2015 were extracted from a proprietary internal publication-tracking database. Variables included department initiating the study, publication type, number of submissions per publication, and the total number of weeks from first submission to acceptance, online publication, and final publication. A total of 337 publications were identified, of which 300 (89%) were manuscripts. Time from submission to acceptance and publication was generally similar between clinical and real-world evidence (e.g. observational and health economics studies) publications. Median (range) time from first submission to acceptance was 23.4 (0.2-226.2) weeks. Median (range) time from first submission to online (early-release) publication was 29.7 (2.4-162.6) weeks. Median (range) time from first submission to final (print) publication was 36.2 (2.8-230.8) weeks. Time from first submission to acceptance, online publication, and final publication increased accordingly with number of submissions required for acceptance, with similar times noted between each subsequent submission. Analysis of a single-company publication database showed that the median time for manuscripts to be fully published after initial submission was 36.2 weeks, and time to publication increased accordingly with the number of submissions. Causes for multiple submissions and time from clinical trial completion to first submission were not assessed; these were limitations of the study. Nonetheless, publication planners should consider

  7. 7 CFR 3401.13 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3401.13 Section... Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding § 3401.13 Composition of peer review groups. Peer review group members will be selected based upon their training or experience in relevant scientific or...

  8. 7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members and ad hoc reviewers will be selected based upon their training and... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3411.11 Section...

  9. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members and ad hoc reviewers will be selected based upon their training and... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section...

  10. 7 CFR 3400.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3400.11 Section..., EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group...

  11. Peer Review as a Strategy for Improving Students' Writing Process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Baker, Kimberly M.

    2016-01-01

    Peer review is an established strategy for improving the quality of students' writing. This study moves beyond the focus on outcomes to assess the peer-review process. In particular, this study focuses on the timing of the peer review, a highly structured feedback form, and student writers' revisions after engaging in peer review. This study draws…

  12. 75 FR 18205 - Notice of Peer Review Meeting for the External Peer Review Drafts of Two Documents on Using...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-04-09

    ... AGENCY Notice of Peer Review Meeting for the External Peer Review Drafts of Two Documents on Using... announcing that Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review, will convene an independent panel of experts and organize and conduct an external peer review meeting...

  13. The panacea statistical toolbox of a biomedical peer reviewer.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Skaik, Younis

    2015-01-01

    The main role of a peer reviewer is to make judgments on the research articles by asking a number of questions to evaluate the quality of the research article. Statistics is a major part of any biomedical research article, and most reviewers gain their experiences in manuscript reviewing by undertaking it but not through an educational process. Therefore, reviewers of the biomedical journals normally do not have enough knowledge and skills to evaluate the validity of statistical methods used in biomedical research articles submitted for consideration. Hence, inappropriate statistical analysis in medical journals can lead to misleading conclusions and incorrect results. In this paper, the most common basic statistical guidelines are described that might be a road map to the biomedical reviewers. It is not meant for statisticians or medical editors who have special interest and expertise in statistical analysis.

  14. The panacea statistical toolbox of a biomedical peer reviewer

    Science.gov (United States)

    Skaik, Younis

    2015-01-01

    The main role of a peer reviewer is to make judgments on the research articles by asking a number of questions to evaluate the quality of the research article. Statistics is a major part of any biomedical research article, and most reviewers gain their experiences in manuscript reviewing by undertaking it but not through an educational process. Therefore, reviewers of the biomedical journals normally do not have enough knowledge and skills to evaluate the validity of statistical methods used in biomedical research articles submitted for consideration. Hence, inappropriate statistical analysis in medical journals can lead to misleading conclusions and incorrect results. In this paper, the most common basic statistical guidelines are described that might be a road map to the biomedical reviewers. It is not meant for statisticians or medical editors who have special interest and expertise in statistical analysis. PMID:26430447

  15. [Improving patient safety through voluntary peer review].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kluge, S; Bause, H

    2015-01-01

    The intensive care unit (ICU) is one area of the hospital in which processes and communication are of primary importance. Errors in intensive care units can lead to serious adverse events with significant consequences for patients. Therefore quality and risk-management are important measures when treating critically ill patients. A pragmatic approach to support quality and safety in intensive care is peer review. This approach has gained significant acceptance over the past years. It consists of mutual visits by colleagues who conduct standardised peer reviews. These reviews focus on the systematic evaluation of the quality of an ICU's structure, its processes and outcome. Together with different associations, the State Chambers of Physicians and the German Medical Association have developed peer review as a standardized tool for quality improvement. The common goal of all stakeholders is the continuous and sustainable improvement in intensive care with peer reviews significantly increasing and improving communication between professions and disciplines. Peer reviews secure the sustainability of planned change processes and consequently lead the way to an improved culture of quality and safety.

  16. How to Submit a Revision and Tips on Being a Good Peer-Reviewer

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kotsis, Sandra V.; Chung, Kevin C.

    2014-01-01

    Many instructional guides have been published on how to write scientific papers. Likewise, many published articles have focused on the reasons why submitted manuscripts are rejected. However, fewer publications have been presented to guide authors on how to address reviewers’ comments in a manuscript revision. Even fewer papers counsel authors on how to deal with a rejection decision. In this paper, we will present a literature review on the strategies to get a paper accepted, despite an initial unfavorable review. We will share our experience on addressing reviewers’ comments to get a paper accepted and published. Finally, we will discuss the process of peer-review and offer tips on how to be an effective peer-reviewer. PMID:24675196

  17. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    BLOOMQUIST,DOUGLAS D.

    2000-12-01

    In 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, PL 103-62) was enacted. GPRA, which applies to all federal programs, has three components: strategic plans, annual performance plans, and metrics to show how well annual plans are being followed. As part of meeting the GRPA requirement in FY2000, a 14-member external peer review panel (the Garwin Committee) was convened on May 17-19, 2000 to review Sandia National Laboratories' Pulsed Power Programs as a component of the Performance Appraisal Process negotiated with the Department of Energy (DOE). The scope of the review included activities in inertial confinement fission (ICF), weapon physics, development of radiation sources for weapons effects simulation, x-ray radiography, basic research in high energy density physics (HEDP), and pulsed power technology research and development. In his charge to the committee, Jeffrey Quintenz, Director of Pulsed Power Sciences (1600) asked that the review be based on four criteria (1) quality of science, technology, and engineering, (2) programmatic performance, management, and planning, (3) relevance to national needs and agency missions, and (4) performance in the operation and construction of major research facilities. In addition, specific programmatic questions were posed by the director and by the DOE-Defense Programs (DP). The accompanying report, produced as a SAND document, is the report of the committee's findings.

  18. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Bloomquist, Douglas D.

    2000-01-01

    In 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, PL 103-62) was enacted. GPRA, which applies to all federal programs, has three components: strategic plans, annual performance plans, and metrics to show how well annual plans are being followed. As part of meeting the GRPA requirement in FY2000, a 14-member external peer review panel (the Garwin Committee) was convened on May 17-19, 2000 to review Sandia National Laboratories' Pulsed Power Programs as a component of the Performance Appraisal Process negotiated with the Department of Energy (DOE). The scope of the review included activities in inertial confinement fission (ICF), weapon physics, development of radiation sources for weapons effects simulation, x-ray radiography, basic research in high energy density physics (HEDP), and pulsed power technology research and development. In his charge to the committee, Jeffrey Quintenz, Director of Pulsed Power Sciences (1600) asked that the review be based on four criteria (1) quality of science, technology, and engineering, (2) programmatic performance, management, and planning, (3) relevance to national needs and agency missions, and (4) performance in the operation and construction of major research facilities. In addition, specific programmatic questions were posed by the director and by the DOE-Defense Programs (DP). The accompanying report, produced as a SAND document, is the report of the committee's findings

  19. Privileging Peer Review: Implications for Undergraduates

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Amy E. Mark

    2011-11-01

    Full Text Available Librarians and teaching faculty privilege peer review articles out of ideals rooted in academic culture more then for pedagogical reasons. Undergraduates would find greater benefit in the opportunity to search and critique sources related to their personal and creative interests as well as relevant to academic research projects. Librarians can adopt the role of change-agents by engaging relevant teaching faculty in discussions about the goal of research assignments relative to peer review literature. Framing this discussion is Paulo Freire’s theory of banking information discussed in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2000.

  20. 2013 Geothermal Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Geothermal Technologies Office

    2014-01-01

    Geothermal Technologies Office conducted its annual program peer review in April of 2013. The review provided an independent, expert evaluation of the technical progress and merit of GTO-funded projects. Further, the review was a forum for feedback and recommendations on future GTO strategic planning. During the course of the peer review, DOE-funded projects were evaluated for 1) their contribution to the mission and goals of the GTO and 2) their progress against stated project objectives. Principal Investigators (PIs) came together in sessions organized by topic “tracks” to disseminate information, progress, and results to a panel of independent experts as well as attendees.

  1. Geothermal Technologies Program 2011 Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Hollett, Douglas [Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States); Stillman, Greg [Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2011-06-01

    On June 6-10, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP or the Program) conducted its annual program peer review in Bethesda, Maryland. In accordance with the EERE Peer Review Guide, the review provides an independent, expert evaluation of the strategic goals and direction of the program and is a forum for feedback and recommendations on future program planning. The purpose of the review was to evaluate DOE-funded projects for their contribution to the mission and goals of the Program and to assess progress made against stated objectives.

  2. [The processes of manuscript evaluation and publication in Medicina Clínica. The editorial committee of Medicina Clínica].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ribera, Josep M; Cardellach, Francesc; Selva, Albert

    2005-12-01

    The decision-making process includes a series of activities undertaken in biomedical journals from the moment a manuscript is received until it is accepted or rejected. Firstly, the manuscript is evaluated by the members of the Editorial Board, who analyze both its suitability for the journal and its scientific quality. After this initial evaluation, the article is evaluated by peer reviewers, an essential process to guarantee its scientific validity. Both the Editorial Board and the peer reviewers usually use checklists which are of enormous help in this task. Once the biomedical article has been accepted, the publication process is started, which in turn includes a series of steps, beginning with technical and medical review of the article's contents and ending with the article's publication in the journal. The present article provides a detailed description of the main technical and ethical issues involved in the processes of decision-making and publication of biomedical articles.

  3. Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations. FY 1979 peer review summaries and related documentation

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1980-06-01

    The NNWSI FY 1979 Project Plan (NVO-196-9) describes the accomplishment plan and objectives of the FY 1979 investigations. Three critical tasks and one critical subtask were selected by Project management for in-depth external peer review at meetings held at the DOE/NV in Las Vegas. The four technical peer review meetings held during FY 1979 were conducted to obtain an external assessment of the sufficiency and quality of the four selected critical investigative segments of the NNWSI. Peer reviewers representing appropriate fields of expertise were invited to attend each meeting. Within about two weeks of each meeting, the invited reviewers summarized their impressions of the technical activities presented to them and transmitted their summaries and recommendations to DOE/NV by letter. This document is a compilation, according to the individual meetings, of all correspondence between reviewers and Project personnel that is relevant to the technical activities of the NNWSI. The section for each meeting briefly summarizes the major activities of the NNWSI being reviewed and the effects of the reviewers comments and recommendations on Project planning. Each section also includes a list of the invited peer reviewers, a meeting agenda, and a copy of all technical correspondence relating to the review meeting. General impressions of the overall peer review process and improvements to be incorporated into future peer review activities are discussed in the next section as an introduction to the four subsequent sections which are devoted to the individual FY 1979 peer reviews

  4. Ethical Issues in Radiology Journalism, Peer Review, and Research.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Katz, Douglas S; Gardner, James B; Hoffmann, Jason C; Patlas, Michael N; Bhargava, Puneet; Moshiri, Mariam; Remer, Erick M; Gould, Elaine S; Smith, Stacy

    2016-08-17

    Although some research and publication practices are clearly unethical, including fraud and plagiarism, other areas of research and publication, such as informed consent and conflicts of interest, fall into grayer areas. The purposes of this article are, therefore, to review a variety of relevant ethical issues in radiology-related journalism, peer review, and research; to review the radiology literature to date that has addressed these issues; and to present position statements and potential solutions to these problems.

  5. Qualitative Research and Community-Based Participatory Research: Considerations for Effective Dissemination in the Peer-Reviewed Literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Grieb, Suzanne Dolwick; Eder, Milton Mickey; Smith, Katherine C; Calhoun, Karen; Tandon, Darius

    2015-01-01

    Qualitative research is appearing with increasing frequency in the public health and medical literature. Qualitative research in combination with a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach can be powerful. However little guidance is available on how to present qualitative research within a CBPR framework for peer-review publications. This article provides a brief overview of how qualitative research can advance CBPR partnerships and outlines practical guidelines for writing for publication about qualitative research within a CBPR framework to (1) guide partners with little experience publishing in peer-reviewed journals and/or (2) facilitate effective preparation of manuscripts grounded in qualitative research for peer-reviewed journals. We provide information regarding the specific benefits of qualitative inquiry in CBPR, tips for organizing the manuscript, questions to consider in preparing the manuscript, common mistakes in the presentation of qualitative research, and examples of peer-reviewed manuscripts presenting qualitative research conducted within a CBPR framework. Qualitative research approaches have tremendous potential to integrate community and researcher perspectives to inform community health research findings. Effective dissemination of CBPR informed qualitative research findings is crucial to advancing health disparities research.

  6. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bowman, John D

    2014-12-15

    Open-access is a model for publishing scholarly, peer-reviewed journals on the Internet that relies on sources of funding other than subscription fees. Some publishers and editors have exploited the author-pays model of open-access, publishing for their own profit. Submissions are encouraged through widely distributed e-mails on behalf of a growing number of journals that may accept many or all submissions and subject them to little, if any, peer review or editorial oversight. Bogus conference invitations are distributed in a similar fashion. The results of these less than ethical practices might include loss of faculty member time and money, inappropriate article inclusions in curriculum vitae, and costs to the college or funding source.

  7. Understanding Peer Review of Scientific Research

    Science.gov (United States)

    Association of American Universities, 2011

    2011-01-01

    An important factor in the success of America's national research system is that federal funds for university-based research are awarded primarily through peer review, which uses panels of scientific experts, or "peers," to evaluate the quality of grant proposals. In this competitive process, proposals compete for resources based on their…

  8. o'Peer: open peer review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brewer, J. H.

    2014-12-01

    I have built a "demonstration" website at http://oPeer.org to illustrate how peer review and publication might be improved relative to the current model, which was designed and implemented in an era when scientific communication was either face-to-face or relied upon human delivery of ink marks on dead trees.

  9. o'Peer: open peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Brewer, J H

    2014-01-01

    I have built a ''demonstration'' website at http://oPeer.org to illustrate how peer review and publication might be improved relative to the current model, which was designed and implemented in an era when scientific communication was either face-to-face or relied upon human delivery of ink marks on dead trees

  10. The MELCOR peer review process and findings

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Boyack, B.E.; Dhir, V.K.; Haste, T.J.; Gieseke, J.A.; Viskanta, R.; Kenton, M.A.; Khatib-Rahbar, M.; Leonard, M.T.

    1991-01-01

    MELCOR is a fully integrated, engineering-level computer code the models the progression of severe accidents in light water reactor nuclear power plants. MELCOR is being developed at Sandia National Laboratories for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a second-generation plant risk assessment tool and as the successor to the Source Term Code Package. MELCOR has been under development since 1982. The code has now reached sufficient maturity that a number of organizations inside and outside the NRC are using or are planning to use the code. Although the quality control and validation efforts are in progress, the NRC identified the need to have a broad technical review of recognized experts to determine or confirm the technical adequacy of the code for the serious and complex analyses it is expected to perform. A peer review committee was organized using recognized experts from the national laboratories, universities, MELCOR user community, and independent contractors to perform this assessment. The objective of this paper is to summarize the peer review process and to summarize the findings of the MELCOR Peer Review Committee formed to conduct the MELCOR peer review

  11. International Peer Reviews of Design Basis

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Hughes, Peter

    2013-01-01

    International peer reviews: Design and safety assessment review service: - Review of design requirements; - Review in support of licensing; - Review in support of severe accident management; - Review in support of modifications; - Review in relation to periodic safety, or life extension; - Reviews take place at any time in NPP lifecycle from concept, through design and operations

  12. Predatory Journals, Peer Review, and Education Research

    Science.gov (United States)

    Beall, Jeffrey

    2017-01-01

    This commentary examines the problem of predatory journals, low-quality open-access journals that seek to earn revenue from scholarly authors without following scholarly publishing best practices. Seeking to accept as many papers as possible, they typically do not perform a standard peer review, leading to the publication of improperly vetted…

  13. Commercial Lighting Solutions Webtool Peer Review Report, Office Solutions

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Beeson, Tracy A.; Jones, Carol C.

    2010-02-01

    The Commercial Lighting Solutions (CLS) project directly supports the U.S. Department of Energy’s Commercial Building Energy Alliance efforts to design high performance buildings. CLS creates energy efficient best practice lighting designs for widespread use, and they are made available to users via an interactive webtool that both educates and guides the end user through the application of the Lighting Solutions. This report summarizes the peer review of the CLS webtool for offices. The methodology for the peer review process included data collection (stakeholder input), analysis of the comments, and organization of the input into categories for prioritization of the comments against a set of criteria. Based on this process, recommendations were developed for the release of version 2.0 of the webtool at the Lightfair conference in Las Vegas in May 2010. The report provides a list of the top ten most significant and relevant improvements that will be made within the webtool for version 2.0 as well as appendices containing the comments and short-term priorities in additional detail. Peer review comments that are considered high priority by the reviewers and the CLS team but cannot be completed for Version 2.0 are listed as long-term recommendations.

  14. How to Review a Manuscript for "TEACHING Exceptional Children"

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ludlow, Barbara L.; Dieker, Lisa A.; Powell, Selma

    2014-01-01

    Professional journals are an integral component of information dissemination and professional development in the field of special education. Peer review of manuscripts submitted for consideration for publication in journals is the cornerstone of the professional review process, providing editors with advice about the value of the information…

  15. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pöschl, Ulrich

    2012-01-01

    The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to all demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today's highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be advanced and complemented by interactive and transparent forms of review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public. The advantages of open access, public peer review, and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional scientific peer review. Since 2001 the benefits and viability of this approach are clearly demonstrated by the highly successful interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP, www.atmos-chem-phys.net) and a growing number of sister journals launched and operated by the European Geosciences Union (EGU, www.egu.eu) and the open access publisher Copernicus (www.copernicus.org). The interactive open access journals are practicing an integrative multi-stage process of publication and peer review combined with interactive public discussion, which effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance. Key features and achievements of this approach are: top quality and impact, efficient self-regulation and low rejection rates, high attractivity and rapid growth, low costs, and financial sustainability. In fact, ACP and the EGU interactive open access sister journals are by most if not all standards more successful than comparable scientific journals with traditional or alternative forms of peer review (editorial statistics, publication statistics, citation statistics, economic costs, and sustainability). The high efficiency and predictive validity of multi-stage open peer review have been confirmed in a series of dedicated studies by evaluation experts from the social sciences, and the same or similar concepts have recently also been adopted in other disciplines, including the

  16. Improving the efficiency of manuscript selection

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    A. Martínez–Abrain

    2009-01-01

    Full Text Available Science relies strongly on the publication of articles in scientific journals and it is clear that decisions concer¬ning which papers merit publishing should be based on a process of manuscript selection that is as objective, repeatable, reliable and transparent as possible. Manuscript selection, however, has many practical downfalls. There is considerable controversy concerning issues such as whether or not the process should be blind both for authors and reviewers in order to prevent biased selection in relation to country of origin (Budden et al., 2008, sex (Young et al. 2008 or research topic (Michaels, 2008. Another critical point is the imbalance between supply and demand of manuscripts as this likely leads to biased selection (Young et al., 2008. Also important is the issue that following rejection, the editor and reviewers of the new journal selected for would-be publication by the authors start the process from scratch, as if the opus had not already passed through a thorough process of peer review. Such rules of play seem to promote the role of sheer luck in the process of manuscript selection. Authors of a rejected paper have the growing hope of "greater luck" the next time regarding reviewer assignment as they believe in the quality of their work. For the correct advancement of science I consider there should be a common global database available to editors, where each manuscript which has been subjected to an SCI journal is recorded. It should include a copy of the editor’s and reviewers’ comments, and also the authors’ replies. Hochberg et al. (2009 recently expressed their concern regarding the fact that authors usually think that manuscript submittal is a stochastic process, whereas in fact reviewers usually focus on the same set of criticisms. To solve this problem they suggest a having colleagues reviewing a manuscript before submission, and b requiring authors to state in a cover letter that reviewer comments from the

  17. Online Archives for Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications

    OpenAIRE

    Harnad, Stevan

    2003-01-01

    Peer-reviewed journals used to perform two functions for research and researchers -- (1) peer review and (2) distribution -- and research libraries used to perform two more -- (3) archiving and (4) access provision. In the online age, journals will need only to provide the peer-review service. Authors will self-archive their papers, both before and after peer review, in their institutional Eprint Archives, which will all be interoperable with one another, providing open access to all peer-rev...

  18. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... peer review group will be selected based upon their training or experience in relevant scientific and... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Peer review of contract proposals. 67.103 Section..., INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of Contracts...

  19. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... States. Being a member of a scientific peer review group does not make an individual an officer or... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section... PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PROJECTS § 52h.4...

  20. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 3 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Peer review panel. 205.509 Section 205.509 Agriculture... PROVISIONS NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Accreditation of Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The Administrator shall establish a peer review panel pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C...

  1. Online Peer Review: Learning Science as It's Practiced.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Trautmann, Nancy M.; Carlsen, William S.; Eick, Charles J.; Gardner, Francis E., Jr.; Kenyon, Lisa; Moscovici, Hedy; Moore, John C.; Thompson, Mark; West, Sandra

    2003-01-01

    Describes a cooperative project that integrates the internet into the peer-review process to enhance student understanding of the nature of science through engagement in socially authentic scientific research and the double-blinded peer review process. Reports the ratings of faculty and students of the online peer review. (Author/YDS)

  2. Raman spectroscopy peer review report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Winkelman, W.D.; Eberlein, S.J.

    1994-09-01

    The Hanford Site in eastern Washington includes 177 underground storage tanks (UST), which contain waste materials produced during the production of nuclear fuels. The materials in the tanks must be characterized to support the retrieval, processing, and final disposition of the waste. Characterization is currently performed by removing waste samples for analyses in a hot cell or laboratory. A review of the Hanford Raman Spectroscopy Program was held in Richland on March 23 and 24, 1994. A team of principal investigators and researchers made presentations that covered both technical and programmatic aspects of the Hanford Site Raman work. After these presentations and discussions, the review panel met in a closed session to formalize a list of findings. The reviewers agreed that Raman spectroscopy is an excellent method to attack the tank waste characterization and screening problems that were presented. They agreed that there was a good chance that the method would be successful as presently envisioned. The reviewers provided the following primary recommendations: evaluation a laser with wavelength in the near infrared; provide optical filters at or near the sampling end of the fiber-optic probe; develop and implement a strategy for frequent calibration of the system; do not try to further increase Raman resolution at the expense of wavelength range; clearly identify and differentiate between requirements for providing a short-term operational system and requirements for optimizing a system for long-term field use; and determine the best optical configuration, which may include reduced fiber-optic diameter and/or short focal length and low F-number spectrographs

  3. Peer review: from recognition to improved practices.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cintas, Pedro

    2016-06-01

    Scientific publishing has experienced profound changes in recent years, such as the advent of open-access journals, the increasing use of preprint archives or post-publication blogs, to name a few. One pillar still remains: peer review as a key ingredient that, in most cases, contributes to clarity and quality, often detecting errors and misinterpretations. Unfortunately, peer review is poorly recognized and good reviewers are rather a 'rare avis'. Even worse, this necessary task in science is generally overlooked in curricula and post-graduate education. Some considerations should help us all to ameliorate greatly our understanding and duties. © FEMS 2016. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

  4. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kovanis, Michail; Trinquart, Ludovic; Ravaud, Philippe; Porcher, Raphaël

    2017-01-01

    The debate on whether the peer-review system is in crisis has been heated recently. A variety of alternative systems have been proposed to improve the system and make it sustainable. However, we lack sufficient evidence and data related to these issues. Here we used a previously developed agent-based model of the scientific publication and peer-review system calibrated with empirical data to compare the efficiency of five alternative peer-review systems with the conventional system. We modelled two systems of immediate publication, with and without online reviews (crowdsourcing), a system with only one round of reviews and revisions allowed (re-review opt-out) and two review-sharing systems in which rejected manuscripts are resubmitted along with their past reviews to any other journal (portable) or to only those of the same publisher but of lower impact factor (cascade). The review-sharing systems outperformed or matched the performance of the conventional one in all peer-review efficiency, reviewer effort and scientific dissemination metrics we used. The systems especially showed a large decrease in total time of the peer-review process and total time devoted by reviewers to complete all reports in a year. The two systems with immediate publication released more scientific information than the conventional one but provided almost no other benefit. Re-review opt-out decreased the time reviewers devoted to peer review but had lower performance on screening papers that should not be published and relative increase in intrinsic quality of papers due to peer review than the conventional system. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent findings to those from our main simulations. We recommend prioritizing a system of review-sharing to create a sustainable scientific publication and peer-review system.

  5. Latin manuscript missal

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Marijan Smolik

    2003-01-01

    Full Text Available The paper describes the origins and content of the latin manuscript missal marked Bergendal MS 40, which is part of the Bergendal Collection of manuscripts and incunables in Toronto. This manuscript had once been used as a missal by the priests in the Church of St. Daniel in Zalog. The author points to the fact that the analysed missal lacks the texts which are otherwise included in complete missals. On these grounds, he assumes that the buyers of the missal for the Slavina (today Postojna parsonage did not buy the missal, which had been available, but had had only parts of it copied, the parts they presumed to be used and of use in the local church.

  6. 2012 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Zayas, Jose [Energy Efficiencey and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States); Higgins, Mark [Energy Efficiencey and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2012-06-01

    This report summarizes the proceedings of the 2012 Wind Program Peer Review, the goals of which were to review and evaluate the strategy and goals of the Wind Program; review and evaluate the progress and accomplishments of the program's projects funded in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and FY 2011; and foster interactions among the national laboratories, industry, and academic institutions conducting research and development on behalf of the program.

  7. 2014 Water Power Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2014-08-18

    The Water Power Peer Review Meeting was held February 24-28, 2014 in Arlington, VA. Principle investigators from the Energy Department National Laboratories, academic, and industry representatives presented the progress of their DOE-funded research. This report documents the formal, rigorous evaluation process and findings of nine independent reviewers who examined the technical, scientific, and business results of 96 projects of the Water Power Program, as well as the productivity and management effectiveness of the Water Power Program itself.

  8. 2014 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2014-10-01

    The Wind Program Peer Review Meeting was held March 24-28, 2014 in Arlington, VA. Principle investigators from the Energy Department, National Laboratories, academic, and industry representatives presented the progress of their DOE-funded research. This report documents the formal, rigorous evaluation process and findings of nine independent reviewers who examined the technical, scientific, and business results of Wind Program funded projects, as well as the productivity and management effectiveness of the Wind Program itself.

  9. Collaborative peer review process as an informal interprofessional learning tool: Findings from an exploratory study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kwon, Jae Yung; Bulk, Laura Yvonne; Giannone, Zarina; Liva, Sarah; Chakraborty, Bubli; Brown, Helen

    2018-01-01

    Despite numerous studies on formal interprofessional education programes, less attention has been focused on informal interprofessional learning opportunities. To provide such an opportunity, a collaborative peer review process (CPRP) was created as part of a peer-reviewed journal. Replacing the traditional peer review process wherein two or more reviewers review the manuscript separately, the CPRP brings together students from different professions to collaboratively review a manuscript. The aim of this study was to assess whether the CPRP can be used as an informal interprofessional learning tool using an exploratory qualitative approach. Eight students from Counselling Psychology, Occupational and Physical Therapy, Nursing, and Rehabilitation Sciences were invited to participate in interprofessional focus groups. Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. Two key themes emerged, revealing that the CPRP created new opportunities for interprofessional learning and gave practice in negotiating feedback. The results reveal that the CPRP has the potential to be a valuable interprofessional learning tool that can also enhance reviewing and constructive feedback skills.

  10. The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings.

    Science.gov (United States)

    McGrath, Robert J; Priestley, Jennifer Lewis; Zhou, Yiyun; Culligan, Patrick J

    2018-04-09

    Information from ratings sites are increasingly informing patient decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians. The current study sought to determine the validity of online patient ratings of physicians through comparison with physician peer review. We extracted 223,715 reviews of 41,104 physicians from 10 of the largest cities in the United States, including 1142 physicians listed as "America's Top Doctors" through physician peer review. Differences in mean online patient ratings were tested for physicians who were listed and those who were not. Overall, no differences were found between the online patient ratings based upon physician peer review status. However, statistical differences were found for four specialties (family medicine, allergists, internal medicine, and pediatrics), with online patient ratings significantly higher for those physicians listed as a peer-reviewed "Top Doctor" versus those who were not. The results of this large-scale study indicate that while online patient ratings are consistent with physician peer review for four nonsurgical, primarily in-office specializations, patient ratings were not consistent with physician peer review for specializations like anesthesiology. This result indicates that the validity of patient ratings varies by medical specialization. ©Robert J McGrath, Jennifer Lewis Priestley, Yiyun Zhou, Patrick J Culligan. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (http://www.i-jmr.org/), 09.04.2018.

  11. Long term operation of nuclear power plants – IAEA SALTO peer review service and its results

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Krivanek, Robert

    2014-01-01

    Highlights: • SALTO peer review service is designed for reviewing of ageing management and NPPs’ preparedness LTO. • It has been established as an effective tool to review the compliance with IAEA safety standards. • The important issues for safe LTO are being identified by SALTO missions. • Analysis of those issues is provided in the paper. • This peer review service is strongly recommended for NPPs prior to entering LTO period. - Abstract: This paper presents main IAEA activities for safe long term operation (LTO) which includes establishment of IAEA Safety Standards and other LTO related documents, fostering information exchange and establishing databases and provision of SALTO (Safety Aspects of Long Term Operation) peer review service. This paper provides insights into IAEA SALTO peer review service objectives, scope and methodology. The SALTO peer review service was designed to assist nuclear power plant (NPP) operators in adopting a proper approach to LTO of their plants and in implementing complete and appropriate activities to ensure that plant safety will be maintained during the LTO period. The SALTO peer review service can also support regulators in establishing or improving regulatory and licensing strategies for LTO of NPPs. Issues derived from 19 SALTO missions and 2 LTO modules of OSART (Operational Safety Review Team) missions conducted during the period of 2005 to March 2014 are also analyzed in this paper

  12. Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 1: Creation of a Standardized Methodology and Referenceable Database.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Reiner, Bruce I

    2017-10-01

    Conventional peer review practice is compromised by a number of well-documented biases, which in turn limit standard of care analysis, which is fundamental to determination of medical malpractice. In addition to these intrinsic biases, other existing deficiencies exist in current peer review including the lack of standardization, objectivity, retrospective practice, and automation. An alternative model to address these deficiencies would be one which is completely blinded to the peer reviewer, requires independent reporting from both parties, utilizes automated data mining techniques for neutral and objective report analysis, and provides data reconciliation for resolution of finding-specific report differences. If properly implemented, this peer review model could result in creation of a standardized referenceable peer review database which could further assist in customizable education, technology refinement, and implementation of real-time context and user-specific decision support.

  13. Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Maciej J Mrowinski

    Full Text Available With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors' workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. We show that Cartesian Genetic Programming, a nature-inspired evolutionary algorithm, can dramatically improve editorial strategies. The artificially evolved strategy reduced the duration of the peer review process by 30%, without increasing the pool of reviewers (in comparison to a typical human-developed strategy. Evolutionary computation has typically been used in technological processes or biological ecosystems. Our results demonstrate that genetic programs can improve real-world social systems that are usually much harder to understand and control than physical systems.

  14. An examination of gender differences in the American Fisheries Society peer-review process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Handley, Grace; Frantz, Cynthia M; Kocovsky, Patrick; DeVries, Dennis R.; Cooke, Steven J.; Claussen, Julie

    2015-01-01

    This study investigated the possibility of gender differences in outcomes throughout the peer review process of American Fisheries Society (AFS) journals. For each manuscript submitted to four AFS journals between January 2003 and December 2010, we collated information regarding the gender and nationality of authors, gender of associate editor, gender of reviewers, reviewer recommendations, associate editor's decision, and publication status of the manuscript. We used hierarchical linear modeling to test for differences in manuscript decision outcomes associated with author, reviewer, and associate editor gender. Gender differences were present at some but not every stage of the review process and were not equal among the four journals. Although there was a small gender difference in decision outcomes, we found no evidence of bias in editors’ and reviewers’ recommendations. Our results support the conclusion that the current single-blind review system does not result in bias against female authors within AFS journals.

  15. The Role of the Anonymous Voice in Post-Publication Peer Review Versus Traditional Peer Review

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

    2015-12-01

    Full Text Available Traditional peer review (TPR has several limitations and weaknesses. Post-publication peer review is one practical way to repair the ills of TPR and reinforce it. A literature that is marked by errors is unhealthy and should, if given the opportunity, be corrected or further improved. The anonymous voice is one source of critique and differs from the blind peer review in TPR in which the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors and/or vice versa, but the identity is known to the editor. If unregulated, the anonymous voice can pose a threat to established editorial norms in TPR, to one of the most important criteria of science publishing, i.e., transparency, and to worthwhile discussion. Yet, if the anonymous voice is not heard, then a vast and potentially valuable pool of untapped opinions may be lost, opinions that may provide valuable solutions to improving TPR.

  16. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2016

    Science.gov (United States)

    Montanari, Alberto; Bahr, Jean; Blöschl, Günter; Cai, Ximing; Mackay, D. Scott; Michalak, Anna; Rajaram, Harihar; Sanchez-Vila, Xavier

    2017-06-01

    On behalf of the journal, the American Geophysical Union, and the scientific community, the editors would like to sincerely thank those who reviewed manuscripts for Water Resources Research in 2016. Their time spent reading and commenting on manuscripts not only improves the manuscripts themselves but also increases the scientific rigor of future research in the field. Many of those listed below went above and beyond and reviewed three or more manuscripts for our journal, and those are indicated in italics. Together, they contributed 3674 individual reviews of manuscripts submitted to Water Resources Research for consideration, of which 562 were eventually published. Thank you again. We look forward to a 2017 of exciting advances in the field and communicating those advances to our community and to the broader public.

  17. Peer Review Audit of Trauma Deaths in a Developing Country

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Afzal Ali Jat

    2004-01-01

    Results and Conclusions: A total of 279 patients were registered in the trauma registry during the study period, including 18 trauma deaths. Peer review judged that six were preventable, seven were potentially preventable, and four were non-preventable. One patient was excluded because the record was not available for review. The proportion of preventable and potentially preventable deaths was significantly higher in our study than from developed countries. Of the multiple contributing factors identified, the most important were inadequate prehospital care, inappropriate interhospital transfer, limited hospital resources, and an absence of integrated and organized trauma care. This study summarizes the challenges faced in trauma care in a developing country.

  18. Open Peer Review: Collective Intelligence as a Framework for Theorizing Approaches to Peer Review in the Humanities

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jenna Pack Sheffield

    2013-06-01

    Full Text Available This article takes a moderate approach, balancing suggestions for when open peer review can benefit scholarship in the humanities, while offering important concerns authors and editors must consider before deciding to implement the process. I focus on online commenting functions and how they have been—and can be—used for open peer review to help improve the quality of an author’s scholarly work and change the way publishers go about their peer review processes. While open peer review is not necessarily digital, digital technologies allow for a broader range of participants and faster dissemination of knowledge, which is why this article focuses on online open peer review. Open Peer Review: Collective Intelligence as a Framework for Theorizing Approaches to Peer Review in the Humanities, by Jenna Pack Sheffield

  19. Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kovanis, Michail; Porcher, Raphaël; Ravaud, Philippe; Trinquart, Ludovic

    Scientific peer-review and publication systems incur a huge burden in terms of costs and time. Innovative alternatives have been proposed to improve the systems, but assessing their impact in experimental studies is not feasible at a systemic level. We developed an agent-based model by adopting a unified view of peer review and publication systems and calibrating it with empirical journal data in the biomedical and life sciences. We modeled researchers, research manuscripts and scientific journals as agents. Researchers were characterized by their scientific level and resources, manuscripts by their scientific value, and journals by their reputation and acceptance or rejection thresholds. These state variables were used in submodels for various processes such as production of articles, submissions to target journals, in-house and external peer review, and resubmissions. We collected data for a sample of biomedical and life sciences journals regarding acceptance rates, resubmission patterns and total number of published articles. We adjusted submodel parameters so that the agent-based model outputs fit these empirical data. We simulated 105 journals, 25,000 researchers and 410,000 manuscripts over 10 years. A mean of 33,600 articles were published per year; 19 % of submitted manuscripts remained unpublished. The mean acceptance rate was 21 % after external peer review and rejection rate 32 % after in-house review; 15 % publications resulted from the first submission, 47 % the second submission and 20 % the third submission. All decisions in the model were mainly driven by the scientific value, whereas journal targeting and persistence in resubmission defined whether a manuscript would be published or abandoned after one or many rejections. This agent-based model may help in better understanding the determinants of the scientific publication and peer-review systems. It may also help in assessing and identifying the most promising alternative systems of peer

  20. Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hausmann, Laura; Schweitzer, Barbara; Middleton, Frank A; Schulz, Jörg B

    2018-01-27

    Many journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, enable authors to list peer reviewers as "preferred" or "opposed" suggestions to the editor. At the Journal of Neurochemistry, the handling editor (HE) may follow recommendations or select non-author-suggested reviewers (non-ASRs). We investigated whether selection of author-suggested reviewers (ASRs) influenced decisions on a paper, and whether differences might be related to a reviewers', editor's or manuscript's geographical location. In this retrospective analysis, we compared original research articles submitted to the Journal of Neurochemistry from 2013 through 2016, that were either reviewed exclusively by non-ASRs, by at least one ASR, by at least one reviewer marked by the author as "opposed", or none. Manuscript outcome, reviewer rating of manuscript quality, rating of the reviewers' performance by the editor (R-score), time to review, and the country of the editor, reviewers and manuscript author were analyzed using non-parametric rank-based comparisons, chi-square (x 2 ) analysis, multivariate linear regression, one-way analysis of variance, and inter-rater reliability determination. Original research articles that had been reviewed by at least one ASR stood a higher chance of being accepted (525/1006 = 52%) than papers that had been reviewed by non-ASRs only (579/1800 = 32%). An article was 2.4 times more likely to be accepted than rejected by an ASR compared to a non-ASR (Pearson's x 2 (1) = 181.3, previewers' recommendation but had a balancing role: Rates of recommendation from reviewers for rejection were 11.2% (139/1241) with ASRs vs. 29.0% (1379/4755) with non-ASRs (this is a ratio of 0.39 where 1 means no difference between rejection rates for both groups), whereas the proportion of final decisions to reject was 24.7% (248/1006) vs. 45.7% (822/1800) (a ratio of 0.54, considerably closer to 1). Recommendations by non-ASRs were more favorable for manuscripts from USA/Canada and Europe than for

  1. Peer2ref: a peer-reviewer finding web tool that uses author disambiguation

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Andrade-Navarro Miguel A

    2012-09-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Reviewer and editor selection for peer review is getting harder for authors and publishers due to the specialization onto narrower areas of research carried by the progressive growth of the body of knowledge. Examination of the literature facilitates finding appropriate reviewers but is time consuming and complicated by author name ambiguities. Results We have developed a method called peer2ref to support authors and editors in selecting suitable reviewers for scientific manuscripts. Peer2ref works from a text input, usually the abstract of the manuscript, from which important concepts are extracted as keywords using a fuzzy binary relations approach. The keywords are searched on indexed profiles of words constructed from the bibliography attributed to authors in MEDLINE. The names of these scientists have been previously disambiguated by coauthors identified across the whole MEDLINE. The methods have been implemented in a web server that automatically suggests experts for peer-review among scientists that have authored manuscripts published during the last decade in more than 3,800 journals indexed in MEDLINE. Conclusion peer2ref web server is publicly available at http://www.ogic.ca/projects/peer2ref/.

  2. Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Houry Debra

    2012-08-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Prior efforts to train medical journal peer reviewers have not improved subsequent review quality, although such interventions were general and brief. We hypothesized that a manuscript-specific and more extended intervention pairing new reviewers with high-quality senior reviewers as mentors would improve subsequent review quality. Methods Over a four-year period we randomly assigned all new reviewers for Annals of Emergency Medicine to receive our standard written informational materials alone, or these materials plus a new mentoring intervention. For this program we paired new reviewers with a high-quality senior reviewer for each of their first three manuscript reviews, and asked mentees to discuss their review with their mentor by email or phone. We then compared the quality of subsequent reviews between the control and intervention groups, using linear mixed effects models of the slopes of review quality scores over time. Results We studied 490 manuscript reviews, with similar baseline characteristics between the 24 mentees who completed the trial and the 22 control reviewers. Mean quality scores for the first 3 reviews on our 1 to 5 point scale were similar between control and mentee groups (3.4 versus 3.5, as were slopes of change of review scores (-0.229 versus -0.549 and all other secondary measures of reviewer performance. Conclusions A structured training intervention of pairing newly recruited medical journal peer reviewers with senior reviewer mentors did not improve the quality of their subsequent reviews.

  3. Peer-review for selection of oral presentations for conferences: Are we reliable?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Deveugele, Myriam; Silverman, Jonathan

    2017-11-01

    Although peer-review for journal submission, grant-applications and conference submissions has been called 'a counter- stone of science', and even 'the gold standard for evaluating scientific merit', publications on this topic remain scares. Research that has investigated peer-review reveals several issues and criticisms concerning bias, poor quality review, unreliability and inefficiency. The most important weakness of the peer review process is the inconsistency between reviewers leading to inadequate inter-rater reliability. To report the reliability of ratings for a large international conference and to suggest possible solutions to overcome the problem. In 2016 during the International Conference on Communication in Healthcare, organized by EACH: International Association for Communication in Healthcare, a calibration exercise was proposed and feedback was reported back to the participants of the exercise. Most abstracts, as well as most peer-reviewers, receive and give scores around the median. Contrary to the general assumption that there are high and low scorers, in this group only 3 peer-reviewers could be identified with a high mean, while 7 has a low mean score. Only 2 reviewers gave only high ratings (4 and 5). Of the eight abstracts included in this exercise, only one abstract received a high mean score and one a low mean score. Nevertheless, both these abstracts received both low and high scores; all other abstracts received all possible scores. Peer-review of submissions for conferences are, in accordance with the literature, unreliable. New and creative methods will be needed to give the participants of a conference what they really deserve: a more reliable selection of the best abstracts. More raters per abstract improves the inter-rater reliability; training of reviewers could be helpful; providing feedback to reviewers can lead to less inter-rater disagreement; fostering negative peer-review (rejecting the inappropriate submissions) rather than a

  4. Implementation and Validation of PACS Integrated Peer Review for Discrepancy Recording of Radiology Reporting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Olthof, A W; van Ooijen, P M A

    2016-09-01

    The purpose of this work is to demonstrate the possibility of implementation of a PACS-integrated peer review system based on RADPEER™ classification providing a step-wise implementation plan utilizing features already present in the standard PACS implementation and without the requirement of additional software development. Furthermore, we show the usage and effects of the system during the first 30 months of usage. To allow fast and easy implementation into the daily workflow the key-word feature of the PACS was used. This feature allows to add a key-word to an imaging examination for easy searching in the PACS database (e.g. by entering keywords for different kinds of pathology). For peer review we implemented a keyword structure including a code for each of the existing RADPEER™ scoring language terms and a keyword with the phrase "second reading" followed by the name of the individual radiologist. The use of the short-keys to enter the codes in relation to the peer review was a simple to use solution. During the study 599 reports were peer reviewed. The active participation in this study of the radiologists varies and ranges from 3 to 327 reviews per radiologist. The number of peer review is highest in CT and CR. There are no significant technical obstacles to implement a PACS-integrated RADPEER™ -system based on key-words allowing easy integration of peer review into the daily routine without the requirement of additional software. Peer review implemented in a non-random setting based on relevant priors could already help in increasing the quality of radiological reporting and serve as continuing education among peers. Decisiveness, tact and trust are needed to promote use of the system and collaborative discussion of the results by radiologist.

  5. The 10-D assessment and evidence-based medicine tool for authors and peer reviewers in clinical pharmacology
.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Woodcock, Barry G; Harder, Sebastian

    2017-08-01

    Peer reviewers and authors of clinical pharmacology manuscripts need to meet the standards for Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Good Publication Practices (GPP), and editors of clinical pharmacology journals have to maintain an overview of the peer review process. The peer review process can be monitored and facilitated using the 10-D assessment, which comprises peer review criteria to determine if: 1. design of the study, 2. diagnoses employed, 3. drug molecules involved, 4. dosages applied, 5. data collected, 6. discussion of the findings, 7. deductions made, 8. documentation, 9. declarations, and 10. dHS (drug hypersensitivity syndrome) risk assessment is in accord with the objectives of the study and meet the requirements of EBM and GPP. The 10-D assessment tool, although easy to apply, requires a high level of clinical pharmacology expertise, especially in the fields of drug disposition, pharmacokinetics, and drug action. Its application will facilitate the peer review of clinical research and clinical trial reports and thus promote safety in drug development and pharmacotherapy and meet the needs of Good Publication Practices.
.

  6. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Corradini, M.L.; Haste, T.J.; Heames, T.J.; Jenks, R.P.; Kelly, J.E.; Khatib-Rahbar, M.; Viskanta, R.

    1993-01-01

    The SCDAP/RELAP5 code has been developed for best-estimate transient simulation of light-water-reactor coolant systems during severe accidents. The newest version of the code is SCDAP/RELAP5/MOD3. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decided that there was a need for a broad technical review of the code by recognized experts to determine overall technical adequacy, even though the code is still under development. For this purpose, an eight-member SCDAP/RELAP5 Peer Review Committee was organized, and the outcome of the review should help the NRC prioritize future code-development activity. Because the code is designed to be mechanistic, the Committee used a higher standard for technical adequacy than was employed in the peer review of the parametric MELCOR code. The Committee completed its review of the SCDAP/RELAP5 code, and the findings are documented in this report. Based on these findings, recommendations in five areas are provided: (1) phenomenological models, (2) code-design objectives, (3) code-targeted applications, (4) other findings, and (5) additional recommendations

  7. A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Dadkhah, Mehdi; Kahani, Mohsen; Borchardt, Glenn

    2017-08-15

    Peer review is the most important aspect of reputable journals. Without it, we would be unsure about whether the material published was as valid and reliable as is possible. However, with the advent of the Internet, scientific literature has now become subject to a relatively new phenomenon: fake peer reviews. Some dishonest researchers have been manipulating the peer review process to publish what are often inferior papers. There are even papers that explain how to do it. This paper discusses one of those methods and how editors can defeat it by using a special review ID. This method is easy to understand and can be added to current peer review systems easily.

  8. Is Peer Review Training Effective in Iranian EFL Students’ Revision?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Hadiseh Esmaeeli

    2014-08-01

    Full Text Available This study aims to investigate the effect of peer review training on the Iranian EFL students’ subsequent revision in an advanced writing class in Larestan Islamic Azad University. After 12 weeks class demonstration, teacher-reviewer conferences with 20 male and female students, the students’ first drafts, revisions, and reviewers’ comments were collected and compared the comments before and after peer review training. The findings revealed that the students incorporated significantly more comments into subsequent revisions after peer review training. Therefore, peer review training had a positive effect on the students’ subsequent revisions.

  9. Office of Inspector General audit report on the Department of Energy`s peer review practices

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    1998-04-01

    Fulfilling the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 has presented Federal science agencies with the challenge of defining ways to quantify and evaluate the outcomes of research. Measuring research program performance is particularly important for the Department of Energy because of its substantial investment (approximately $7 billion in Fiscal Year 1996) in research and development activities. The Research Roundtable, in 1995, observed that the results of research could be evaluated using the performance indicators of relevance, productivity, and quality. One method for doing so is formal, objective evaluation by independent reviewers, or peer review. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Department had established and was managing a peer review process for evaluating scientific and technical projects. It was found that peer reviews were conducted prior to competitive award of subcontracts, selection of projects from research proposals, and inclusion in scientific journals and/or conferences. In addition, the Department and the laboratories, in response to the government Performance and Results Act and performance-based contracting, had incorporated peer review into the laboratories` annual performance self-assessment process. The results of these reviews were used to determine program direction, obtain input on ongoing programs, and prioritize funding for laboratory and Departmental research activities. This report does not include any recommendations since the laboratories had established processes in accordance with Office of Management and Budget and Departmental peer review requirements.

  10. The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Michail Kovanis

    Full Text Available The growth in scientific production may threaten the capacity for the scientific community to handle the ever-increasing demand for peer review of scientific publications. There is little evidence regarding the sustainability of the peer-review system and how the scientific community copes with the burden it poses. We used mathematical modeling to estimate the overall quantitative annual demand for peer review and the supply in biomedical research. The modeling was informed by empirical data from various sources in the biomedical domain, including all articles indexed at MEDLINE. We found that for 2015, across a range of scenarios, the supply exceeded by 15% to 249% the demand for reviewers and reviews. However, 20% of the researchers performed 69% to 94% of the reviews. Among researchers actually contributing to peer review, 70% dedicated 1% or less of their research work-time to peer review while 5% dedicated 13% or more of it. An estimated 63.4 million hours were devoted to peer review in 2015, among which 18.9 million hours were provided by the top 5% contributing reviewers. Our results support that the system is sustainable in terms of volume but emphasizes a considerable imbalance in the distribution of the peer-review effort across the scientific community. Finally, various individual interactions between authors, editors and reviewers may reduce to some extent the number of reviewers who are available to editors at any point.

  11. The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kovanis, Michail; Porcher, Raphaël; Ravaud, Philippe; Trinquart, Ludovic

    2016-01-01

    The growth in scientific production may threaten the capacity for the scientific community to handle the ever-increasing demand for peer review of scientific publications. There is little evidence regarding the sustainability of the peer-review system and how the scientific community copes with the burden it poses. We used mathematical modeling to estimate the overall quantitative annual demand for peer review and the supply in biomedical research. The modeling was informed by empirical data from various sources in the biomedical domain, including all articles indexed at MEDLINE. We found that for 2015, across a range of scenarios, the supply exceeded by 15% to 249% the demand for reviewers and reviews. However, 20% of the researchers performed 69% to 94% of the reviews. Among researchers actually contributing to peer review, 70% dedicated 1% or less of their research work-time to peer review while 5% dedicated 13% or more of it. An estimated 63.4 million hours were devoted to peer review in 2015, among which 18.9 million hours were provided by the top 5% contributing reviewers. Our results support that the system is sustainable in terms of volume but emphasizes a considerable imbalance in the distribution of the peer-review effort across the scientific community. Finally, various individual interactions between authors, editors and reviewers may reduce to some extent the number of reviewers who are available to editors at any point.

  12. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Resnik, David B; Elmore, Susan A

    2016-02-01

    A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that have a significant impact on the process and its outcome. We consider some of the steps editors should take to promote quality, fairness and integrity in different stages of the peer review process and make some recommendations for editorial conduct and decision-making.

  13. Thank You to Our 2017 Peer Reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hauck, Steven A.; Baratoux, David; Stanley, Sabine; Stanley

    2018-02-01

    Science operates best by sharing accurate new knowledge in clear ways. In order to check our assumptions, our methods, and our interpretations of the observations, experiments, analyses, and calculations that we do, we ask others to look at our work. We call this peer review—other experts who were not involved in a given study read and critically evaluate the descriptions of our work. They look for completeness, accuracy, whether work is new, and how clearly we have written the descriptions. We continue to be humbled by the time, effort, and careful insights that our colleagues share with each other through the process of peer review. In 2017, JGR Planets benefited from more than 610 reviews provided by 398 of our peers for papers submitted to the journal. Thank you all for your awesome efforts toward advancing planetary science now and for the future.

  14. Execution and results of national peer reviews

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Grauf, E.

    2001-01-01

    In 1998 German operators initiated an internal programme for self-assessment. The initiative was launched due to contamination at transport containers for fuel element that had been hitting the headlines since the beginning of 1998 and the first INES 2 event that occurred in a German plant in June 1998. Within the scope of root-cause analysis it seemed to be obvious that the plant management standards within a company and even more within Germany were differing and the exchange of experience had to be improved. The realization of national peer reviews in 1999/2000 has already proven to be an effective instrument even before completion of the pilot phase. (orig.) [de

  15. On the Need for Quantitative Bias Analysis in the Peer-Review Process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fox, Matthew P; Lash, Timothy L

    2017-05-15

    Peer review is central to the process through which epidemiologists generate evidence to inform public health and medical interventions. Reviewers thereby act as critical gatekeepers to high-quality research. They are asked to carefully consider the validity of the proposed work or research findings by paying careful attention to the methodology and critiquing the importance of the insight gained. However, although many have noted problems with the peer-review system for both manuscripts and grant submissions, few solutions have been proposed to improve the process. Quantitative bias analysis encompasses all methods used to quantify the impact of systematic error on estimates of effect in epidemiologic research. Reviewers who insist that quantitative bias analysis be incorporated into the design, conduct, presentation, and interpretation of epidemiologic research could substantially strengthen the process. In the present commentary, we demonstrate how quantitative bias analysis can be used by investigators and authors, reviewers, funding agencies, and editors. By utilizing quantitative bias analysis in the peer-review process, editors can potentially avoid unnecessary rejections, identify key areas for improvement, and improve discussion sections by shifting from speculation on the impact of sources of error to quantification of the impact those sources of bias may have had. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

  16. The continued movement for open access to peer-reviewed literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Liesegang, Thomas J

    2013-09-01

    To provide a current overview of the movement for open access to the peer review literature. Perspective. Literature review of recent advances in the open access movement with a personal viewpoint of the nuances of the movement. The open access movement is complex, with many different constituents. The idealists for the open access movement are seeking open access to the literature but also to the data that constitute the research within the manuscript. The business model of the traditional subscription journal is being scrutinized in relation to the surge in the number of open access journals. Within this environment authors should beware predatory practices. More government and funding agencies are mandating open access to their funded research. This open access movement will continue to be disruptive until a business model ensures continuity of the scientific record. A flood of open access articles that might enrich, but also might pollute or confuse, the medical literature has altered the filtering mechanism provided by the traditional peer review system. At some point there may be a shake-out, with some literature being lost in cyberspace. The open access movement is maturing and must be embraced in some format. The challenge is to establish a sustainable financial business model that will permit the use of digital technology but yet not endanger the decades-old traditional publication model and peer review system. Authors seem to be slower in adopting open access than the idealists in the movement. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  17. Rate and Predictors of the Conversion of Abstracts Presented at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress Scientific Meetings to Full Peer-Reviewed Publications

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Abuzeid, Wael; Fosbøl, Emil Loldrup; Fosbøl, Philip Loldrup

    2013-01-01

    The rate of conversion of abstracts presented at scientific meetings into peer-reviewed published manuscripts is an important metric for medical societies, because it facilitates translation of scientific knowledge into practice. We determined the rate and predictors of conversion of scientific...

  18. Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: guidelines for good practice

    National Research Council Canada - National Science Library

    Hames, Irene

    2007-01-01

    ... reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. First published 2007 by Blackwell Publis...

  19. The vacuum shouts back: postpublication peer review on social media.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Faulkes, Zen

    2014-04-16

    Social media has created new pathways for postpublication peer review, which regularly leads to corrections. Such online discussions are often resisted by authors and editors, however, and efforts to formalize postpublication peer review have not yet resonated with scientific communities. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  20. [A practical guide to perform a good peer review].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rosenberg, Jacob

    2014-01-20

    Many researchers are asked to perform peer review, even at a young age. A simple and practical guide to perform a good peer review of a scientific article is therefore relevant. This paper is such a guide aimed primarily at the young researcher being a debutant in this field.

  1. 7 CFR 3406.23 - Access to peer review information.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3406.23 Section 3406.23 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH... PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3406.23 Access to peer review information. After final decisions have...

  2. 7 CFR 3405.16 - Access to peer review information.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3405.16 Section 3405.16 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH... Supplementary Information § 3405.16 Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced...

  3. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section... GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE FELLOWSHIP GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, HEP will, upon request, inform the PD of...

  4. Online Peer Review: Encouraging Student Response and Development

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lansiquot, Reneta; Rosalia, Christine

    2015-01-01

    This study explored the use of a tailored online peer review program for first-year undergraduate students at an urban college of technology. The program facilitated group peer review in meaningful and technologically elegant ways. Students in a composition class were divided into two groups. One group acted as first reviewers, and the other group…

  5. A Reciprocal Peer Review System to Support College Students' Writing

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yang, Yu-Fen

    2011-01-01

    As students' problem-solving processes in writing are rarely observed in face-to-face instruction, they have few opportunities to participate collaboratively in peer review to improve their texts. This study reports the design of a reciprocal peer review system for students to observe and learn from each other when writing. A sample of 95…

  6. Quality Assurance for Distance Education: A Faculty Peer Review Process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ross, Kathryn R.; Batzer, Lyn; Bennington, Elaine

    2002-01-01

    Discusses the need for quality assurance in distance education; describes evaluation criteria; and reports how Ivy Tech State College (Indiana) created a peer review process as a formative evaluation tool to assure the quality of its distance education courses. Explains roles of the participants and evaluation of the peer review prototype. (LRW)

  7. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Full Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document summarizes the comments provided by the peer reviewers at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Biomass Program’s Peer Review meeting, held on November 14-15, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and Platform Reviews conducted over the summer of 2007. The Platform Reviews provide evaluations of the Program’s projects in applied research, development, and demonstration.

  8. Training Effects on Computer-Mediated Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Liou, Hsien-Chin; Peng, Zhong-Yan

    2009-01-01

    The interactive functions of weblogs facilitate computer-mediated peer reviews for collaborative writing. As limited research has been conducted on examining the training effects of peer reviews on students' peer comments, their revision quality, and their perceptions when composing in weblogs, the present case study aims to fill the gap. Thirteen…

  9. Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bailey, Charles D.; Hair, Joe F.; Hermanson, Dana R.; Crittenden, Victoria L.

    2012-01-01

    Publication in refereed journals is critical to career success for most marketing faculty members, and the peer review process is the gatekeeper for a refereed journal. The study reported here examines marketing academics' perceptions of this peer review process. Based on responses from 653 marketing academics, we find favorable overall…

  10. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Feedstock Platform Summary

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document discloses the comments provided by a review panel at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Biomass Program Peer Review held on November 15-16, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and the Feedstock Platform Portfolio Peer Review held on August 21st through 23rd in Washington D.C.

  11. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Program Summary Section

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document summarizes the comments provided by the peer reviewers at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Biomass Program’s Peer Review meeting, held on November 14-15, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and Platform Reviews conducted over the summer of 2007. The Platform Reviews provide evaluations of the Program’s projects in applied research, development, and demonstration.

  12. Turnitin and Peer Review in ESL Academic Writing Classrooms

    Science.gov (United States)

    Li, Jinrong; Li, Mimi

    2018-01-01

    Despite the benefits of peer review, there are still challenges that need to be addressed to make it more effective for L2 students. With the development of technology, computer-mediated peer review has captured increasing attention from L2 writing researchers and instructors. While Turnitin is known for its use in detecting plagiarism, its newly…

  13. Proposals for the writing of peer reviews in lexicography

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Bergenholtz, Henning; Gouws, Rufus

    2015-01-01

    regarding ethical aspects. But there are essential differences. These issues are discussed in this paper and some methodological and ethical proposals for peer reviews are made. One of the proposals could create a debate because it argues for an open peer review process and not for the so-called double...

  14. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Thermochemical Conversion Platform Summary

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document discloses the comments provided by a review panel at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Biomass Program Peer Review held on November 15-16, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and the Biomass Program Peer Review for the Thermochemical Platform, held on July 9th and 10th in Golden, Colorado.

  15. Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jelte M Wicherts

    Full Text Available Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA and traditional (subscription journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the peer-review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer-review, and develop and validate a tool enabling different stakeholders to assess transparency of the peer-review process.Based on editorial guidelines and best practices, I developed a 14-item tool to rate transparency of the peer-review process on the basis of journals' websites. In Study 1, a random sample of 231 authors of papers in 92 subscription journals in different fields rated transparency of the journals that published their work. Authors' ratings of the transparency were positively associated with quality of the peer-review process but unrelated to journal's impact factors. In Study 2, 20 experts on OA publishing assessed the transparency of established (non-OA journals, OA journals categorized as being published by potential predatory publishers, and journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ. Results show high reliability across items (α = .91 and sufficient reliability across raters. Ratings differentiated the three types of journals well. In Study 3, academic librarians rated a random sample of 140 DOAJ journals and another 54 journals that had received a hoax paper written by Bohannon to test peer-review quality. Journals with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper and showed higher impact as measured by the h5 index from Google Scholar.The tool to assess transparency of the peer-review process at academic journals shows promising reliability and validity. The transparency of the peer-review process can be seen as an indicator of peer-review quality allowing the tool to be used to predict academic quality in new journals.

  16. Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wicherts, Jelte M

    2016-01-01

    Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the peer-review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer-review, and develop and validate a tool enabling different stakeholders to assess transparency of the peer-review process. Based on editorial guidelines and best practices, I developed a 14-item tool to rate transparency of the peer-review process on the basis of journals' websites. In Study 1, a random sample of 231 authors of papers in 92 subscription journals in different fields rated transparency of the journals that published their work. Authors' ratings of the transparency were positively associated with quality of the peer-review process but unrelated to journal's impact factors. In Study 2, 20 experts on OA publishing assessed the transparency of established (non-OA) journals, OA journals categorized as being published by potential predatory publishers, and journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Results show high reliability across items (α = .91) and sufficient reliability across raters. Ratings differentiated the three types of journals well. In Study 3, academic librarians rated a random sample of 140 DOAJ journals and another 54 journals that had received a hoax paper written by Bohannon to test peer-review quality. Journals with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper and showed higher impact as measured by the h5 index from Google Scholar. The tool to assess transparency of the peer-review process at academic journals shows promising reliability and validity. The transparency of the peer-review process can be seen as an indicator of peer-review quality allowing the tool to be used to predict academic quality in new journals.

  17. The value of peer reviews to nuclear plant safety

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Subalusky, W.T. Jr.

    1994-01-01

    On a global basis, the nuclear utility industry has clearly demonstrated the value of peer reviews for improving nuclear safety and overall plant performance. Peer reviews are conducted by small teams of technical experts who review various aspects of plant operation, recognize strengths and recommend improvements, thereby stimulating a positive response to the recommendations. U.S. nuclear utilities initiated the operator-to-operator peer review process first through the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). Now, voluntary peer reviews are an important activity of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO). Formed just five years ago. WANO has made significant progress in its key activities of the operator-to-operator exchanges, operating experience exchange, monitoring of plant performance indicators and sharing of good practices worldwide. A fifth activity, peer review on a strictly voluntary basis, is pertinent to this paper

  18. Improving Scientific Writing in Undergraduate Geosciences Degrees Through Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Day, E. A.; Collins, G. S.; Craig, L.

    2016-12-01

    decrease in errors. We are continuing to include this exercise in 2016-17, utilising technology to make the logistics easier for both the students and the course leaders. Here, we present our experiences with including peer review in the Imperial College degree. We also comment on how it can be incorporated into undergraduate and graduate programs at other institutions.

  19. Optimizing radiology peer review: a mathematical model for selecting future cases based on prior errors.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sheu, Yun Robert; Feder, Elie; Balsim, Igor; Levin, Victor F; Bleicher, Andrew G; Branstetter, Barton F

    2010-06-01

    Peer review is an essential process for physicians because it facilitates improved quality of patient care and continuing physician learning and improvement. However, peer review often is not well received by radiologists who note that it is time intensive, is subjective, and lacks a demonstrable impact on patient care. Current advances in peer review include the RADPEER() system, with its standardization of discrepancies and incorporation of the peer-review process into the PACS itself. The purpose of this study was to build on RADPEER and similar systems by using a mathematical model to optimally select the types of cases to be reviewed, for each radiologist undergoing review, on the basis of the past frequency of interpretive error, the likelihood of morbidity from an error, the financial cost of an error, and the time required for the reviewing radiologist to interpret the study. The investigators compiled 612,890 preliminary radiology reports authored by residents and attending radiologists at a large tertiary care medical center from 1999 to 2004. Discrepancies between preliminary and final interpretations were classified by severity and validated by repeat review of major discrepancies. A mathematical model was then used to calculate, for each author of a preliminary report, the combined morbidity and financial costs of expected errors across 3 modalities (MRI, CT, and conventional radiography) and 4 departmental divisions (neuroradiology, abdominal imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, and thoracic imaging). A customized report was generated for each on-call radiologist that determined the category (modality and body part) with the highest total cost function. A universal total cost based on probability data from all radiologists was also compiled. The use of mathematical models to guide case selection could optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of physician time spent on peer review and produce more concrete and meaningful feedback to radiologists

  20. Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Praharaj, Samir Kumar; Ameen, Shahul

    2017-01-01

    The objective of the study was to study the methodological quality and error detection of the review by the participants of a peer review workshop. All participants of the workshop were invited to peer review a randomized controlled trial. The manuscript was E-mailed to them after introducing eight deliberate errors to it. Specific instructions and a deadline were provided. All the reviews were analyzed using review quality instrument (RQI). Furthermore, the rate and the type of errors identified were recorded. Of 25 participants, 16 (64%) returned the reviews. The mean total score on RQI was 4.12 (standard deviation 0.70, 95% confidence interval 3.74-4.50); the items which most reviewers did not discuss where the importance of research question and originality of the paper. The number of errors correctly identified varied from 0 to 6 (median 3), the most common being a wrong conclusion (87.5%), randomization procedure (50%), written informed consent (50%), ethics committee approval (42.8%), and masking (31.2%). Only 5 (31.2%) gave an overall recommendation on whether the manuscript should be accepted or not. Major errors were readily identified by the reviewers; however, the need for training was felt in some areas in which the review quality was modest.

  1. Social influence and peer review: Why traditional peer review is no longer adapted, and how it should evolve

    OpenAIRE

    Fisher, Daniel; Parisis, Nikolaos

    2015-01-01

    There is growing unhappiness with the role of peer review in scientific assessment for grants and publications. While only a few critics would abandon peer review altogether, it is clear that scientific assessment has to evolve to keep serving scientists and the public.

  2. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Wicherts, J.M.

    2016-01-01

    Background Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the

  3. Social marketing of water and sanitation products: a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Evans, W D; Pattanayak, S K; Young, S; Buszin, J; Rai, S; Bihm, Jasmine Wallace

    2014-06-01

    Like commercial marketing, social marketing uses the 4 "Ps" and seeks exchange of value between the marketer and consumer. Behaviors such as handwashing, and products such as those for oral rehydration treatment (ORT), can be marketed like commercial products in developing countries. Although social marketing in these areas is growing, there has been no systematic review of the current state of practice, research and evaluation. We searched the literature for published peer-reviewed studies available through major online publication databases. We identified manuscripts in the health, social science, and business literature on social marketing that used at least one of the 4 Ps of marketing and had a behavioral objective targeting the behaviors or products related to improving water and sanitation. We developed formalized decision rules and applied them in identifying articles for review. We initially identified 117 articles and reviewed a final set of 32 that met our criteria. Social marketing is a widespread strategy. Marketing efforts have created high levels of awareness of health threats and solutions, including behavior change and socially marketed products. There is widespread use of the 4 Ps of marketing, with price interventions being the least common. Evaluations show consistent improvements in behavioral mediators but mixed results in behavior change. Interventions have successfully used social marketing following widely recommended strategies. Future evaluations need to focus on mediators that explain successful behavior change in order to identify best practices and improve future programs. More rigorous evaluations including quasi-experimental designs and randomized trials are needed. More consistent reporting of evaluation results that permits meta-analysis of effects is needed. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  4. Peer Reviewed Publications From Class Projects

    OpenAIRE

    Copenheaver, Carolyn A

    2010-01-01

    From 2001 to 2008, I coordinated the publication of 13 peer‐reviewed manuscripts stemming from group projects in a graduate‐level Advanced Forest Ecology class. The intention of the group projects was to immerse the students in actual forest ecology research and increase their professional development by personally involving them in the publication process. The student publications appeared in 11 different journals (American Midland Naturalist, Castanea, Dendrochronologia, Forest Ecology and ...

  5. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.

    Science.gov (United States)

    van Rooyen, Susan; Delamothe, Tony; Evans, Stephen J W

    2010-11-16

    To see whether telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews of original research papers might be posted on the BMJ's website would affect the quality of their reviews. Randomised controlled trial. A large international general medical journal based in the United Kingdom. 541 authors, 471 peer reviewers, and 12 editors. Consecutive eligible papers were randomised either to have the reviewer's signed report made available on the BMJ's website alongside the published paper (intervention group) or to have the report made available only to the author-the BMJ's normal procedure (control group). The intervention was the act of revealing to reviewers-after they had agreed to review but before they undertook their review-that their signed report might appear on the website. The main outcome measure was the quality of the reviews, as independently rated on a scale of 1 to 5 using a validated instrument by two editors and the corresponding author. Authors and editors were blind to the intervention group. Authors rated review quality before the fate of their paper had been decided. Additional outcomes were the time taken to complete the review and the reviewer's recommendation regarding publication. 558 manuscripts were randomised, and 471 manuscripts remained after exclusions. Of the 1039 reviewers approached to take part in the study, 568 (55%) declined. Two editors' evaluations of the quality of the peer review were obtained for all 471 manuscripts, with the corresponding author's evaluation obtained for 453. There was no significant difference in review quality between the intervention and control groups (mean difference for editors 0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.17; for authors 0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.20). Any possible difference in favour of the control group was well below the level regarded as editorially significant. Reviewers in the intervention group took significantly longer to review (mean difference 25 minutes, 95% CI 3.0 to 47.0 minutes). Telling peer reviewers

  6. Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lindner, Mark D; Nakamura, Richard K

    2015-01-01

    The predictive validity of peer review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has not yet been demonstrated empirically. It might be assumed that the most efficient and expedient test of the predictive validity of NIH peer review would be an examination of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications produced from funded projects. The present study used a large dataset to examine the rationale for such a study, to determine if it would satisfy the requirements for a test of predictive validity. The results show significant restriction of range in the applications selected for funding. Furthermore, those few applications that are funded with slightly worse peer review scores are not selected at random or representative of other applications in the same range. The funding institutes also negotiate with applicants to address issues identified during peer review. Therefore, the peer review scores assigned to the submitted applications, especially for those few funded applications with slightly worse peer review scores, do not reflect the changed and improved projects that are eventually funded. In addition, citation metrics by themselves are not valid or appropriate measures of scientific impact. The use of bibliometric indices on their own to measure scientific impact would likely increase the inefficiencies and problems with replicability already largely attributed to the current over-emphasis on bibliometric indices. Therefore, retrospective analyses of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications resulting from funded grant applications are not valid tests of the predictive validity of peer review at the NIH.

  7. Students’ acceptance of peer review in Computer Science course

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Zuzana Kubincová

    2016-04-01

    Full Text Available Peer review technique used in educational context could be beneficial for students from several points of view. Besides of developing students’ writing skills, critical thinking, practising articulation of own knowledge to the others and giving them feedback, it can encourage collaborative learning and boost the students’ interest in the course. In our web design course we successfully introduced peer review activities more than 2 years ago. In this paper we discuss the students’ acceptance of peer review applied on evaluation of other students’ projects.

  8. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chauvin, Anthony; Ravaud, Philippe; Baron, Gabriel; Barnes, Caroline; Boutron, Isabelle

    2015-07-03

    The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research publications. However, it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. We aimed to identify and sort, according to their importance, all tasks that are expected from peer reviewers when evaluating a manuscript reporting the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and to determine which of these tasks are clearly requested by editors in their recommendations to peer reviewers. We identified the tasks expected of peer reviewers from 1) a systematic review of the published literature and 2) recommendations to peer reviewers for 171 journals (i.e., 10 journals with the highest impact factor for 14 different medical areas and all journals indexed in PubMed that published more than 15 RCTs over 3 months regardless of the medical area). Participants who had peer-reviewed at least one report of an RCT had to classify the importance of each task relative to other tasks using a Q-sort technique. Finally, we evaluated editors' recommendations to authors to determine which tasks were clearly requested by editors in their recommendations to peer reviewers. The Q-sort survey was completed by 203 participants, 93 (46 %) with clinical expertise, 72 (36 %) with methodological/statistical expertise, 17 (8 %) with expertise in both areas, and 21 (10 %) with other expertise. The task rated most important by participants (evaluating the risk of bias) was clearly requested by only 5 % of editors. In contrast, the task most frequently requested by editors (provide recommendations for publication), was rated in the first tertile only by 21 % of all participants. The most important tasks for peer reviewers were not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors in their guidelines to reviewers.

  9. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2014

    Science.gov (United States)

    Becker, Thorsten W.; Bass, Jay; Blichert-Toft, Janne; Derry, Lou; Lee, Cin-Ty; Tyburczy, James; Vance, Derek; Yokoyama, Yusuke

    2015-09-01

    The editorial and scientific publishing process relies on the sustained work of volunteer reviewers, and evaluating the interdisciplinary and broad interest papers published in G-Cubed can be a particular challenge. As Editors and Associated Editors, we are therefore hugely appreciative of the efforts of our reviewers, and would like to thank and acknowledge them in this editorial. G-Cubed published 257 manuscripts out of 431 submissions in 2014, and for this, we were able to rely on the efforts of 710 dedicated reviewers. Their names are listed below; in italics are those 27 who provided three or more reviews. A big thank you from the G-Cubed team!

  10. Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.

    Science.gov (United States)

    O'Connor, E E; Cousar, M; Lentini, J A; Castillo, M; Halm, K; Zeffiro, T A

    2017-02-01

    Many scientific journals use double-blind peer review to minimize potential reviewer bias concerning publication recommendations. However, because neuroradiology is a relatively small subspecialty, this process may be limited by prior knowledge of the authors' work or associated institutions. We sought to investigate the efficacy of reviewer blinding and determine the impact that unblinding may have on manuscript acceptance. For manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Neuroradiology ( AJNR ) from January through June 2015, reviewers completed a brief anonymous questionnaire after submitting their evaluations, assessing whether they were familiar with the research or had knowledge of the authors or institutions from which the work originated. The response rate for 1079 questionnaires was 98.8%; 12.9% of reviewers knew or suspected that they knew authors, and 15.3% knew or suspected that they knew the associated institutions. Reviewers correctly identified the authors in 90.3% of cases and correctly stated the institutions in 86.8% of cases. Unblinding resulted from self-citation in 34.1% for both authorship and institutions. The acceptance rate when reviewers knew or suspected that they knew the authors was 57/137 (41.6%) and 262/929 (28.2%) when reviewers did not. The acceptance rate when reviewers knew or suspected that they knew the institutions was 60/163 (36.8%) and 259/903 (28.7%) when they did not. The Fisher exact test showed that author ( P peer review minimizes reviewer bias, perceived knowledge of the author and institution is associated with a higher rate of manuscript acceptance. © 2017 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.

  11. Using peer review to improve research and promote collaboration.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kupfer, David J; Murphree, Anneliese N; Pilkonis, Paul A; Cameron, Judy L; Giang, Rosary T; Dodds, Nathan E; Godard, Kasey A; Lewis, David A

    2014-02-01

    The declining success rate of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications highlights the need for interdisciplinary work within a large, diverse department to improve chances of federal funding success. The authors demonstrate how systematic peer review promotes two goals: enhancing the quality of research proposals and cultivating a collaborative departmental culture. Changes to the Research Review Committee (RRC) in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh were instituted to accommodate the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of grant applications, integrate revisions to NIH grant application processes, and incorporate advances in computer technology. The internal peer review process is associated with success in obtaining research support and with significant levels of collaborative scientific work reflected in both grant applications and peer-reviewed publications. A rich collaborative environment promoted through a rigorous internal peer review system has many benefits for both the quality of scholarly work and the collegiality of the research environment.

  12. IRIS Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium (Peer Review Plan)

    Science.gov (United States)

    EPA is conducting a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of hexavalent chromium that will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database.

  13. Words Matter: Peer Review as a Failing Safeguard

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Tom Quiggin

    2013-04-01

    Full Text Available Peer review is intended to support the quality and standards of academic work.  The peer review process has been questioned recently in a number of different arenas.  Source reliability and information credibility can be a problem when an academic scholar or an academic product steps into the public realm through a court case.  In these circumstances, it is not just the credibility of the academic community that is being tested: lives and liberty can be at stake.  Peer-reviewed article must provide a basic standard of trustworthiness.  At a minimum, the peer review process, though a fact checking process, should be able to assure the reader that the sources of the information are reliable and the information provided is credible.

  14. Peer review - Why does it matter for your academic career?

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Kalz, Marco

    2012-01-01

    Kalz, M. (2012, 8 March). Peer review - Why does it matter for your academic career? Presentation provided in the context of the Young Researchers Special Issue 2012 of the International Journal of Technology-Enhanced Learning (IJTEL).

  15. Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jeffrey T Leek

    Full Text Available Peer review is fundamentally a cooperative process between scientists in a community who agree to review each other's work in an unbiased fashion. Peer review is the foundation for decisions concerning publication in journals, awarding of grants, and academic promotion. Here we perform a laboratory study of open and closed peer review based on an online game. We show that when reviewer behavior was made public under open review, reviewers were rewarded for refereeing and formed significantly more cooperative interactions (13% increase in cooperation, P = 0.018. We also show that referees and authors who participated in cooperative interactions had an 11% higher reviewing accuracy rate (P = 0.016. Our results suggest that increasing cooperation in the peer review process can lead to a decreased risk of reviewing errors.

  16. Peer review for USI A-46 and the seismic IPE

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Smith, P.; Johnson, H.

    1993-01-01

    Two major seismic re-evaluation programs are underway at many US nuclear power plants. Over 60 units are being examined as part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Unresolved Safety Issue A46 (Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Plants). In addition, almost all plants are being examined as part of the seismic portion of NRC's Individual Plant Examination of External Events for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities. Both programs require an independent peer review of the evaluation performed by the utility. This paper presents observations on peer reviews, based on the authors's experience with them. Suggestions are presented on the scope of peer review, as well as some of the unique peer review issues inherent to these seismic programs

  17. Peer Review Comments on the IRIS Assessment of Benzene

    Science.gov (United States)

    Attachment to IRIS file for benzene, January 19, 2000, RESPONSE TO THE PEER REVIEW COMMENTS, II. Extrapolation of the Benzene Inhalation Unit Risk Estimate to the Oral Route of Exposure (EPA/NCEA-W-0517, July 1999)

  18. Guide for International Peer Reviews of Decommissioning Cost Studies for Nuclear Facilities

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    LaGuardia, Thomas S.; Pescatore, Claudio; )

    2014-01-01

    Peer reviews are a standard co-operative OECD working tool that offer member countries a framework to compare experiences and examine best practices in a host of areas. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has developed a proven methodology for conducting peer reviews in radioactive waste management and nuclear R and D. Using this methodology, the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee's Working Party on Decommissioning and Dismantling (WPDD) developed the present guide as a framework for decommissioning cost reviewers and reviewees to prepare for and conduct international peer reviews of decommissioning cost estimate studies for nuclear facilities. It includes checklists that will help national programmes or relevant organisations to assess and improve decommissioning cost estimate practices in the future. This guide will act as the NEA reference for conducting such international peer reviews. The remainder of this guide is divided into eight chapters. Chapter 2 describes gathering the cost estimate study and underpinning documents, reviewing the study and writing a final report. Chapter 3 provides a detailed checklist approach for the review of the cost study report. Chapter 4 provides checklists to assist in reviewing benchmarked information. Chapter 5 provides comments on the approach and recommendations for use of this guide. Chapters 6 and 7 provide the background material used in developing this guide and Chapter 8 provides a list of the abbreviations and acronyms used in this guide

  19. Doing peer review and receiving feedback: impact on scientific literacy and writing skills.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Geithner, Christina A; Pollastro, Alexandria N

    2016-03-01

    Doing peer review has been effectively implemented to help students develop critical reading and writing skills; however, its application in Human Physiology programs is limited. The purpose of the present study was to determine the impact of peer review on Human Physiology majors' perceptions of their scientific literacy and writing skills. Students enrolled in the Scientific Writing course completed multiple writing assignments, including three revisions after receiving peer and instructor feedback. Students self-assessed their knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to science and writing in pre- and postcourse surveys (n = 26 with complete data). Seven survey items related to scientific literacy and writing skills impacted by peer review were selected for analysis. Scores on these survey items were summed to form a composite self-rating score. Responses to two questions regarding the most useful learning activities were submitted to frequency analysis. Mean postcourse scores for individual survey items and composite self-rating scores were significantly higher than precourse means (P writing skills. In conclusion, peer review is an effective teaching/learning approach for improving undergraduate Human Physiology majors' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding science and scientific writing. Copyright © 2016 The American Physiological Society.

  20. Seahorse Manuscript Data Set

    Data.gov (United States)

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — Metadata for figures presented in manuscript reporting bioenergetic effects of exposure to environmentally relevant organic compound in human airway epithelial...

  1. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

    OpenAIRE

    Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara; Adeli, Khosrow

    2014-01-01

    Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author?s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review pro...

  2. On exemplary scientific conduct regarding submission of manuscripts to biomedical informatics journals

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Miller, R. A.; Groth, T.; Hasman, A.; Safran, C.; Shortliffe, E. H.; Haux, R.; McCray, A. T.

    2006-01-01

    As the Editors of leading international biomedical informatics journals, the authors report on a recent pattern of improper manuscript submissions to journals in our field. As a guide for future authors, we describe ethical and pragmatic issues related to submitting work for peer-reviewed journal

  3. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A; Al-Khatib, Aceil

    2018-02-01

    As part of a continuous process to explore the factors that might weaken or corrupt traditional peer review, in this paper, we query the ethics, fairness and validity of the request, by editors, of authors to suggest peer reviewers during the submission process. One of the reasons for the current crisis in science pertains to a loss in trust as a result of a flawed peer review which is by nature biased unless it is open peer review. As we indicate, the fact that some editors and journals rely on authors' suggestions in terms of who should peer review their paper already instills a potential way to abuse the trust of the submission and publishing system. An author-suggested peer reviewer choice might also tempt authors to seek reviewers who might be more receptive or sympathetic to the authors' message or results, and thus favor the outcome of that paper. Authors should thus not be placed in such a potentially ethically compromising situation, especially as a mandatory condition for submission. However, the fact that they do not have an opt-out choice during the submission process-especially when using an online submission system that makes such a suggestion compulsory-may constitute a violation of authors' rights.

  4. The Paris Manuscript

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Sobisch, Jan-Ulrich

    2014-01-01

    Brief information about a manuscript I photographed at the Musee Guimet of the dGongs gcig commentary sNang mdzad ye shes sgron me.......Brief information about a manuscript I photographed at the Musee Guimet of the dGongs gcig commentary sNang mdzad ye shes sgron me....

  5. Old Georgian Astronomical Manuscripts

    Science.gov (United States)

    Simonia, I.

    2004-12-01

    A general overview of Georgian astronomical manuscripts is given, and the contents of a few, dating from the 12th to the 19th centuries, are given. A partial translation and commentary of manuscript A883, entitled "Cosmos", and dating from the 18th century, is presented.

  6. Qualitative Study to improve integrity of NET : Perspectives of Peer review and Authorship in research ethics

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Kwon, Hyuk; Min, Byung Joo [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon (Korea, Republic of)

    2007-10-15

    After Dr. Hwang's Human embryonic stem cell scandal, research ethics stood out as the hot issue in both Korean scientific circles and general public. Science Publishing Group referred the limitation of peer review system and the absence of responsibility of author to one of the causes for the scandal. In order to prevent a similar fraud, Ministry of Science and Technology(MOST) established guidelines for research ethics and integrity in 2006. The guidelines included fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism(FFP) and unfair authorship. MOST committed the authority of administration and supervision to the society and the institutes of research to preserve the research integrity. The society and institute are charged with overseeing the implementation of enacted ethics guidelines. SCI(Scientific Citation Index) holds the guideline of research ethics and canon of the society which were crafted in order to guaranty the integrity and quality of the research. The publication policy pertains submission of articles, authorship and responsibilities of a reviewer. Societies pay attention to the peer review policy because the quality of articles is strongly dependent on the peer review. Nuclear Engineering and Technology (NET) is the journal of Korea Nuclear Society(KNS). NET is registered with SCIE(Science Citation Index Expanded), recently. In addition to the growth in external circulation, the improvement of quality requires the effort of the society to establish a strict peer review system and a fair authorship. The qualitative study on peer review and authorship of NET was put into force to improve the quality of NET. Based on studies and suggestions, the policy focuses on research ethics to improve the integrity of NET.

  7. Qualitative Study to improve integrity of NET : Perspectives of Peer review and Authorship in research ethics

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Kwon, Hyuk; Min, Byung Joo

    2007-01-01

    After Dr. Hwang's Human embryonic stem cell scandal, research ethics stood out as the hot issue in both Korean scientific circles and general public. Science Publishing Group referred the limitation of peer review system and the absence of responsibility of author to one of the causes for the scandal. In order to prevent a similar fraud, Ministry of Science and Technology(MOST) established guidelines for research ethics and integrity in 2006. The guidelines included fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism(FFP) and unfair authorship. MOST committed the authority of administration and supervision to the society and the institutes of research to preserve the research integrity. The society and institute are charged with overseeing the implementation of enacted ethics guidelines. SCI(Scientific Citation Index) holds the guideline of research ethics and canon of the society which were crafted in order to guaranty the integrity and quality of the research. The publication policy pertains submission of articles, authorship and responsibilities of a reviewer. Societies pay attention to the peer review policy because the quality of articles is strongly dependent on the peer review. Nuclear Engineering and Technology (NET) is the journal of Korea Nuclear Society(KNS). NET is registered with SCIE(Science Citation Index Expanded), recently. In addition to the growth in external circulation, the improvement of quality requires the effort of the society to establish a strict peer review system and a fair authorship. The qualitative study on peer review and authorship of NET was put into force to improve the quality of NET. Based on studies and suggestions, the policy focuses on research ethics to improve the integrity of NET

  8. Designing Peer Review for Pedagogical Success: What Can We Learn from Professional Science?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Trautmann, Nancy M.

    2009-01-01

    This article compares peer review in professional versus education settings, summarizing key aspects of scientific peer review and reflecting on how these relate to the process as experienced by students. Consideration of professional peer review benefits educators in two ways. First, systems used for student peer review can employ some of the…

  9. The Impact of Peer Review on Writing in a Psychology Course: Lessons Learned

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bhullar, Naureen; Rose, Karen C.; Utell, Janine M.; Healey, Kathryn N.

    2014-01-01

    The authors assessed the impact of peer review on student writing in four sections of an undergraduate Developmental Psychology course. They hypothesized that peer review would result in better writing in the peer review group compared to the group with no peer review. Writing was rated independently by two instructors who were blind to the…

  10. Virtual slides in peer reviewed, open access medical publication

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Kayser Klaus

    2011-12-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Application of virtual slides (VS, the digitalization of complete glass slides, is in its infancy to be implemented in routine diagnostic surgical pathology and to issues that are related to tissue-based diagnosis, such as education and scientific publication. Approach Electronic publication in Pathology offers new features of scientific communication in pathology that cannot be obtained by conventional paper based journals. Most of these features are based upon completely open or partly directed interaction between the reader and the system that distributes the article. One of these interactions can be applied to microscopic images allowing the reader to navigate and magnify the presented images. VS and interactive Virtual Microscopy (VM are a tool to increase the scientific value of microscopic images. Technology and Performance The open access journal Diagnostic Pathology http://www.diagnosticpathology.org has existed for about five years. It is a peer reviewed journal that publishes all types of scientific contributions, including original scientific work, case reports and review articles. In addition to digitized still images the authors of appropriate articles are requested to submit the underlying glass slides to an institution (DiagnomX.eu, and Leica.com for digitalization and documentation. The images are stored in a separate image data bank which is adequately linked to the article. The normal review process is not involved. Both processes (peer review and VS acquisition are performed contemporaneously in order to minimize a potential publication delay. VS are not provided with a DOI index (digital object identifier. The first articles that include VS were published in March 2011. Results and Perspectives Several logistic constraints had to be overcome until the first articles including VS could be published. Step by step an automated acquisition and distribution system had to be implemented to the corresponding

  11. Survey of faculty perceptions regarding a peer review system.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Eisenberg, Ronald L; Cunningham, Meredith L; Siewert, Bettina; Kruskal, Jonathan B

    2014-04-01

    Virtually all radiologists participate in peer review, but to our knowledge, this is the first detailed study of their opinions toward various aspects of the process. The study qualified for quality assurance exemption from the institutional review board. A questionnaire sent to all radiology faculty at our institution assessed their views about peer review in general, as well as case selection and scoring, consensus section review for rating and presentation of errors, and impact on radiologist performance. Of 52 questionnaires sent, 50 were completed (response rate, 96.2%). Of these, 44% agreed that our RADPEER-like system is a waste of time, and 58% believed it is done merely to meet hospital/regulatory requirements. Conversely, 46% agreed that peer review improves radiologist performance, 32% agreed that it decreases medical error, and 42% believed that peer review results are valuable to protect radiologists in cases referred to the medical board. A large majority perform all peer reviews close to the deadline, and substantial minorities frequently or almost always select more than one previous examination for a single medical record number (28%), consciously select "less time intensive" cases (22%), and intentionally avoid cases requiring more time to peer review (30%). Almost one-half of respondents agreed that peer review has value, but as currently performed is a waste of time. The method for selecting cases raises serious questions regarding selection bias. A new approach is needed that stresses education of all radiologists by learning from the mistakes of others. Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  12. Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sidalak, Daniel; Purdy, Eve; Luckett-Gatopoulos, S; Murray, Heather; Thoma, Brent; Chan, Teresa M

    2017-02-01

    Publishing in academic journals is challenging for learners. Those who pass the initial stages of internal review by an editor often find the anonymous peer review process harsh. Academic blogs offer alternate avenues for publishing medical education material. Many blogs, however, lack a peer review process, which some consumers argue compromises the quality of materials published. CanadiEM (formerly BoringEM) is an academic educational emergency medicine blog dedicated to publishing high-quality materials produced by learners (i.e., residents and medical students). The editorial team has designed and implemented a collaborative "coached peer review" process that comprises an open exchange among the learner-author, editors, and reviewers. The goal of this process is to facilitate the publication of high-quality academic materials by learner-authors while providing focused feedback to help them develop academic writing skills. The authors of this Innovation Report surveyed (February-June 2015) their blog's learner-authors and external expert "staff" reviewers who had participated in coached peer review for their reactions to the process. The survey results revealed that participants viewed the process positively compared with both traditional journal peer review and academic blog publication processes. Participants found the process friendly, easy, efficient, and transparent. Learner-authors also reported increased confidence in their published material. These outcomes met the goals of coached peer review. CanadiEM aims to inspire continued participation in, exposure to, and high-quality production of academic writing by promoting the adoption of coached peer review for online educational resources produced by learners.

  13. Thermophysical properties of uranium dioxide - Version 0 for peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Fink, J.K.; Petri, M.C.

    1997-02-01

    Data on thermophysical properties of solid and liquid UO 2 have been reviewed and critically assessed to obtain consistent thermophysical property recommendations for inclusion in the International Nuclear Safety Center Database on the World Wide Web (http://www.insc.anl.gov.). Thermodynamic properties that have been assessed are enthalpy, heat capacity, melting point, enthalpy of fusion, thermal expansion, density, surface tension, and vapor pressure. Transport properties that have been assessed are thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity, viscosity, and emissivity. Summaries of the recommendations with uncertainties and detailed assessments for each property are included in this report and in the International Nuclear Safety Center Database for peer review. The assessments includes a review of the experiments and data, an examination of previous recommendations, the basis for selecting recommendations, a determination of uncertainties, and a comparison of recommendations with data and with previous recommendations. New data and research that have led to new recommendations include thermal expansion and density measurements of solid and liquid UO 2 , derivation of physically-based equations for the thermal conductivity of solid UO 2 , measurements of the heat capacity of liquid UO 2 , and measurements and analysis of the thermal conductivity of liquid UO 2

  14. Thermophysical properties of uranium dioxide - Version 0 for peer review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Fink, J.K.; Petri, M.C.

    1997-02-01

    Data on thermophysical properties of solid and liquid UO{sub 2} have been reviewed and critically assessed to obtain consistent thermophysical property recommendations for inclusion in the International Nuclear Safety Center Database on the World Wide Web (http://www.insc.anl.gov.). Thermodynamic properties that have been assessed are enthalpy, heat capacity, melting point, enthalpy of fusion, thermal expansion, density, surface tension, and vapor pressure. Transport properties that have been assessed are thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity, viscosity, and emissivity. Summaries of the recommendations with uncertainties and detailed assessments for each property are included in this report and in the International Nuclear Safety Center Database for peer review. The assessments includes a review of the experiments and data, an examination of previous recommendations, the basis for selecting recommendations, a determination of uncertainties, and a comparison of recommendations with data and with previous recommendations. New data and research that have led to new recommendations include thermal expansion and density measurements of solid and liquid UO{sub 2}, derivation of physically-based equations for the thermal conductivity of solid UO{sub 2}, measurements of the heat capacity of liquid UO{sub 2}, and measurements and analysis of the thermal conductivity of liquid UO{sub 2}.

  15. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jeffrey L Jackson

    Full Text Available UNLABELLED: All the opinions in this article are those of the authors and should not be construed to reflect, in any way, those of the Department of Veterans Affairs. BACKGROUND: Our study purpose was to assess the predictive validity of reviewer quality ratings and editorial decisions in a general medicine journal. METHODS: Submissions to the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM between July 2004 and June 2005 were included. We abstracted JGIM peer review quality ratings, verified the publication status of all articles and calculated an impact factor for published articles (Rw by dividing the 3-year citation rate by the average for this group of papers; an Rw>1 indicates a greater than average impact. RESULTS: Of 507 submissions, 128 (25% were published in JGIM, 331 rejected (128 with review and 48 were either not resubmitted after revision was requested or were withdrawn by the author. Of 331 rejections, 243 were published elsewhere. Articles published in JGIM had a higher citation rate than those published elsewhere (Rw: 1.6 vs. 1.1, p = 0.002. Reviewer quality ratings of article quality had good internal consistency and reviewer recommendations markedly influenced publication decisions. There was no quality rating cutpoint that accurately distinguished high from low impact articles. There was a stepwise increase in Rw for articles rejected without review, rejected after review or accepted by JGIM (Rw 0.60 vs. 0.87 vs. 1.56, p<0.0005. However, there was low agreement between reviewers for quality ratings and publication recommendations. The editorial publication decision accurately discriminated high and low impact articles in 68% of submissions. We found evidence of better accuracy with a greater number of reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: The peer review process largely succeeds in selecting high impact articles and dispatching lower impact ones, but the process is far from perfect. While the inter-rater reliability between individual

  16. WANO peer review. Organization and benefits as seen by WANO

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Haferburg, Manfred

    2010-01-01

    The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) was founded in May 1989. 144 enterprises operating nuclear power plants signed the WANO Charter in Moscow as a response of industry to the Chernobyl disaster. The Association now comprises the operators of more than 430 nuclear power plants in more than 32 countries. WANO performs its activities through regional centers in Atlanta, Moscow, Paris, and Tokyo. The Coordination Center of WANO is located in London. Each regional WANO Center handles the four most important programs: - Peer Reviews, - exchanges of operating experience, - specialized and technical development, - technical service and exchange. The technical support and exchange program comprises proven processes, such as performance indicators, operator networks, technical support missions. WANO peer reviews are conducted on a voluntary basis and upon request by the licensees. By the end of 2008, WANO had run 388 peer reviews in 31 countries. Peer reviews serve to compare the practical operation of a nuclear power plant with the best international standards. This in-depth examination is carried out by an international, independent team of experts on an optimized objective basis. Peer reviews are conducted not only to examine compliance with all pertinent rules and regulations, but also to strive for excellent performance results. (orig.)

  17. Bristol Bay Assessment – Supplemental Peer Review Reports ...

    Science.gov (United States)

    These reports represent the results of independent peer reviews of several technical reports submitted to the public docket for the May 2012 draft of the Bristol Bay Assessment, An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska. Background In May 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) released the draft assessment entitled An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska, or the Bristol Bay Assessment. The purpose of the assessment is to provide a characterization of the biological and mineral resources of the Bristol Bay watershed, increase understanding of the potential impacts of large-scale mining on the region’s fish resources, and inform future governmental decisions. During the public comment period for the May 2012 draft, numerous technical reports were submitted to the public docket. The USEPA identified several of these reports as providing information about issues raised by the peer reviewers, but the reports did not show evidence of prior peer review. The USEPA made arrangements for a contractor to conduct independent peer reviews of seven such reports. The reports and the results of these supplemental peer reviews are provided here to document that the reports are of

  18. Independent peer review of nuclear safety computer codes

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Boyack, B.E.; Jenks, R.P.

    1993-01-01

    A structured, independent computer code peer-review process has been developed to assist the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the US Department of Energy in their nuclear safety missions. This paper describes a structured process of independent code peer review, benefits associated with a code-independent peer review, as well as the authors' recent peer-review experience. The NRC adheres to the principle that safety of plant design, construction, and operation are the responsibility of the licensee. Nevertheless, NRC staff must have the ability to independently assess plant designs and safety analyses submitted by license applicants. According to Ref. 1, open-quotes this requires that a sound understanding be obtained of the important physical phenomena that may occur during transients in operating power plants.close quotes The NRC concluded that computer codes are the principal products to open-quotes understand and predict plant response to deviations from normal operating conditionsclose quotes and has developed several codes for that purpose. However, codes cannot be used blindly; they must be assessed and found adequate for the purposes they are intended. A key part of the qualification process can be accomplished through code peer reviews; this approach has been adopted by the NRC

  19. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cejas, Claudia

    2017-06-01

    The objective of this study was to evaluate metrics related to manuscripts rejected by AJR with and without review during 2014 and to determine their final disposition: no record of eventual publication, eventually published, published with modified authors and title, published with the same title but modified authors, and published with modified title but the same authors. A total of 1245 unsolicited manuscripts submitted from January to December 2014 were included in this retrospective analysis. Data were extracted from the AJR's manuscript submission system. Standard statistical analysis was used to assess the fate of a sample of 200 rejected manuscripts. Of the 200 manuscripts studied, 117 (59%) were published in other scientific journals (61 with revision, 56 without revision; Χ 2 = 0.329, p = 0.566). Thirty-two of the 61 manuscripts (52%) rejected after peer review were later published in other journals without changes in their titles or authors, 16 (26%) with changes only in authors, 10 (16%) with changes only in their titles, and three (5%) with changes in authors and titles. Twenty-six of the 56 manuscripts (46%) rejected without peer review were published without changes in their titles or authors, 17 (30%) with changes in authors, 11 (20%) with changes only in their titles, and two (4%) with changes in both authors and titles (p = 0.686). Ten articles were published in open access journals. Of the remaining articles, those that had been reviewed were published in journals with a mean impact factor ± SD of 2.37 ± 1.30, and those that had not been reviewed were published in journals with a mean impact factor of 2.04 ± 1.06. Analysis of the 25th and 75th percentiles revealed that values were also higher for the group rejected with review (Wilcoxon rank sum test: W = 1679, p = 0.1127). Out of 61 articles rejected for publication with review, 52.5% were published with changes to their abstracts, whereas the remaining 47.5% were unchanged. This analysis

  20. NEW WAYS OF PEER REVIEWING IN JOURNALS: OPEN REVIEW

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Andrea Mora-Campos

    2015-07-01

    Full Text Available Technology has helped improve many aspects of the quality of publications: more visibility, greater access to sources of information and option to verify those sources, among others. This has meant that some journals have had to adjust their processes, especially peer reviewing. The blind mode is the method most commonly used by journals. In the case of our journal, we have traditionally used the double-blind style; however, we have noticed that, with advanced Internet, social networks, and media, it is easier for reviewers to obtain previews, preprints, primary research or previous articles that can help identify the author, thus making the double blind review difficult. These experiences have made us analyze whether the peer review system used by the journal is appropriate. Searching for other peer review options we found the open review. This paper briefly reviews some advantages and disadvantages of this type of review and the experience faced by this journal when implementing it.

  1. The Peer Review Process: An Expanded Role for Repositories

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Joanna Richardson

    2014-02-01

    Full Text Available Peer review has been regarded as a cornerstone of scientific research for a considerable time. Journals seeking to attract high quality scholarship rely on peer review to maintain their credentials in the publishing industry. However, over a period of time—and especially given the advent of the Internet—complaints have arisen from authors, reviewers and even editors as to the efficacy of the system. The authors outline a range of models which have evolved that either complement or replace evaluation processes which characterise traditional peer review. Research data is presented in the context of quality assessment. The authors introduce several approaches which are utilising repositories to support the process. Consideration is given as to how this might change the current institutional repository environment.

  2. Peer Reviews: a voluntary means of enhancing operating culture

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Vella, R.

    1996-01-01

    In the nuclear energy industry, and also in other fields, excellent experience has been gained from the regular accumulation of expert evidence of power station operation through external organizations or teams. In 1991, the World Association of Nuclear Operations (WANO) initiated a pilot programme for voluntary 'Peer Reviews'. The success of this first exercise in gathering expert evidence led to the introduction of the 'Peer Review' programme in 1993 as one of the standard programmes of WANO. The object was to increase the safety and reliability of nuclear power stations throughout the world. WANO Peer Reviews are voluntary and are carried out at the request of a member. They are oriented towards special WANO performance objectives and criteria, which have been established by the management of WANO. (orig.) [de

  3. Status of VICTORIA: NRC peer review and recent code applications

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Bixler, N.E.; Schaperow, J.H.

    1997-01-01

    VICTORIA is a mechanistic computer code designed to analyze fission product behavior within a nuclear reactor coolant system (RCS) during a severe accident. It provides detailed predictions of the release of radioactive and nonradioactive materials from the reactor core and transport and deposition of these materials within the RCS. A summary of the results and recommendations of an independent peer review of VICTORIA by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is presented, along with recent applications of the code. The latter include analyses of a temperature-induced steam generator tube rupture sequence and post-test analyses of the Phebus FPT-1 test. The next planned Phebus test, FTP-4, will focus on fission product releases from a rubble bed, especially those of the less-volatile elements, and on the speciation of the released elements. Pretest analyses using VICTORIA to estimate the magnitude and timing of releases are presented. The predicted release of uranium is a matter of particular importance because of concern about filter plugging during the test

  4. Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Li, Lei; Wang, Yan; Liu, Guanfeng; Wang, Meng; Wu, Xindong

    2015-01-01

    Reviewer assignment is critical to peer review systems, such as peer-reviewed research conferences or peer-reviewed funding applications, and its effectiveness is a deep concern of all academics. However, there are some problems in existing peer review systems during reviewer assignment. For example, some of the reviewers are much more stringent than others, leading to an unfair final decision, i.e., some submissions (i.e., papers or applications) with better quality are rejected. In this paper, we propose a context-aware reviewer assignment for trust enhanced peer review. More specifically, in our approach, we first consider the research area specific expertise of reviewers, and the institution relevance and co-authorship between reviewers and authors, so that reviewers with the right expertise are assigned to the corresponding submissions without potential conflict of interest. In addition, we propose a novel cross-assignment paradigm, and reviewers are cross-assigned in order to avoid assigning a group of stringent reviewers or a group of lenient reviewers to the same submission. More importantly, on top of them, we propose an academic CONtext-aware expertise relevanCe oriEnted Reviewer cross-assignmenT approach (CONCERT), which aims to effectively estimate the "true" ratings of submissions based on the ratings from all reviewers, even though no prior knowledge exists about the distribution of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers. The experiments illustrate that compared with existing approaches, our proposed CONCERT approach can less likely assign more than one stringent reviewers or lenient reviewers to a submission simultaneously and significantly reduce the influence of ratings from stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers, leading to trust enhanced peer review and selection, no matter what kind of distributions of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers are.

  5. Implementation and evaluation of a peer review process for advanced practice nurses in a university hospital setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bergum, Shelly K; Canaan, Talitha; Delemos, Christi; Gall, Elizabeth Funke; McCracken, Bonnie; Rowen, Dave; Salvemini, Steve; Wiens, Kimberly

    2017-07-01

    Over the past decade, implementation of the peer review process for the development of the advanced practice nurse (APN) has been emphasized. However, little exists in the literature regarding APN peer review. The peer review process is intended to help demonstrate competency of care, enhance quality improvement measures, and foster the professional growth of the APN. APNs serving on a professional governance council within a university teaching hospital developed a model of peer review for APNs. Nine months after the tool was implemented, an anonymous follow-up survey was conducted. A follow-up request was sent 4 weeks later to increase the number of respondents. Likert scales were used to elicit subjective data regarding the process. Of 81 APNs who participated in the survey, more than half (52%) felt that the process would directly improve their professional practice. Survey results show that the peer review process affected APN professional practice positively. Additional research might include pathways for remediation and education of staff, evaluation of alternate methods to improve application to clinical practice, and collection of outcome data. The models presented provide a foundation for future refinement to accommodate different APN practice settings. ©2017 American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

  6. Process modeling and bottleneck mining in online peer-review systems.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Premchaiswadi, Wichian; Porouhan, Parham

    2015-01-01

    This paper is divided into three main parts. In the first part of the study, we captured, collected and formatted an event log describing the handling of reviews for proceedings of an international conference in Thailand. In the second part, we used several process mining techniques in order to discover process models, social, organizational, and hierarchical structures from the proceeding's event log. In the third part, we detected the deviations and bottlenecks of the peer review process by comparing the observed events (i.e., authentic dataset) with a pre-defined model (i.e., master map). Finally, we investigated the performance information as well as the total waiting time in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the online submission and peer review system for the prospective conferences and seminars. Consequently, the main goals of the study were as follows: (1) to convert the collected event log into the appropriate format supported by process mining analysis tools, (2) to discover process models and to construct social networks based on the collected event log, and (3) to find deviations, discrepancies and bottlenecks between the collected event log and the master pre-defined model. The results showed that although each paper was initially sent to three different reviewers; it was not always possible to make a decision after the first round of reviewing; therefore, additional reviewers were invited. In total, all the accepted and rejected manuscripts were reviewed by an average of 3.9 and 3.2 expert reviewers, respectively. Moreover, obvious violations of the rules and regulations relating to careless or inappropriate peer review of a manuscript-committed by the editorial board and other staff-were identified. Nine blocks of activity in the authentic dataset were not completely compatible with the activities defined in the master model. Also, five of the activity traces were not correctly enabled, and seven activities were missed within the

  7. Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Jagsi, Reshma, E-mail: rjagsi@med.umich.edu [Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (United States); Bennett, Katherine Egan [Scientific Publications, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), Fairfax, Virginia (United States); Griffith, Kent A. [Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan (United States); DeCastro, Rochelle [Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (United States); Grace, Calley [Scientific Publications, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), Fairfax, Virginia (United States); Holliday, Emma [University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States); Zietman, Anthony L. [Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)

    2014-08-01

    Purpose: Peer reviewers' knowledge of author identity may influence review content, quality, and recommendations. Therefore, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (“Red Journal”) implemented double-blinded peer review in 2011. Given the relatively small size of the specialty and the high frequency of preliminary abstract presentations, we sought to evaluate attitudes, the efficacy of blinding, and the potential impact on the disposition of submissions. Methods and Materials: In May through August 2012, all Red Journal reviewers and 1 author per manuscript completed questionnaires regarding demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of success of blinding. We also evaluated correlates of the outcomes of peer review. Results: Questionnaires were received from 408 authors and 519 reviewers (100%). The majority of respondents favored double blinding; 6% of authors and 13% of reviewers disagreed that double blinding should continue in the Red Journal. In all, 50% of the reviewers did not suspect the identity of the author of the paper that they reviewed; 19% of reviewers believed that they could identify the author(s), and 31% suspected that they could. Similarly, 23% believed that they knew the institution(s) from which the paper originated, and 34% suspected that they did. Among those who at least suspected author identity, 42% indicated that prior presentations served as a clue, and 57% indicated that literature referenced did so. Of those who at least suspected origin and provided details (n=133), 13% were entirely incorrect. Rejection was more common in 2012 than 2011, and submissions from last authors with higher H-indices (>21) were more likely to survive initial review, without evidence of interactions between submission year and author gender or H-index. Conclusions: In a relatively small specialty in which preliminary research presentations are common and occur in a limited number of venues, reviewers are often familiar with

  8. Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Jagsi, Reshma; Bennett, Katherine Egan; Griffith, Kent A.; DeCastro, Rochelle; Grace, Calley; Holliday, Emma; Zietman, Anthony L.

    2014-01-01

    Purpose: Peer reviewers' knowledge of author identity may influence review content, quality, and recommendations. Therefore, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (“Red Journal”) implemented double-blinded peer review in 2011. Given the relatively small size of the specialty and the high frequency of preliminary abstract presentations, we sought to evaluate attitudes, the efficacy of blinding, and the potential impact on the disposition of submissions. Methods and Materials: In May through August 2012, all Red Journal reviewers and 1 author per manuscript completed questionnaires regarding demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of success of blinding. We also evaluated correlates of the outcomes of peer review. Results: Questionnaires were received from 408 authors and 519 reviewers (100%). The majority of respondents favored double blinding; 6% of authors and 13% of reviewers disagreed that double blinding should continue in the Red Journal. In all, 50% of the reviewers did not suspect the identity of the author of the paper that they reviewed; 19% of reviewers believed that they could identify the author(s), and 31% suspected that they could. Similarly, 23% believed that they knew the institution(s) from which the paper originated, and 34% suspected that they did. Among those who at least suspected author identity, 42% indicated that prior presentations served as a clue, and 57% indicated that literature referenced did so. Of those who at least suspected origin and provided details (n=133), 13% were entirely incorrect. Rejection was more common in 2012 than 2011, and submissions from last authors with higher H-indices (>21) were more likely to survive initial review, without evidence of interactions between submission year and author gender or H-index. Conclusions: In a relatively small specialty in which preliminary research presentations are common and occur in a limited number of venues, reviewers are often familiar with

  9. The peer review process: a primer forJNISreaders.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hirsch, Joshua A; Manchikanti, Laxmaiah; Albuquerque, Felipe C; Leslie-Mazwi, Thabele M; Lev, Michael H; Linfante, Italo; Mocco, J; Rai, Ansaar T; Schaefer, Pamela W; Tarr, Robert W

    2017-07-01

    Peer review of scientific articles submitted for publication has been such an integral component of innovation in science and medicine that participants (be they readers, reviewers, or editors) seldom consider its complexity. Not surprisingly, much has been written about scientific peer review. The aim of this report is to share some of the elements of that discourse with readers of the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery ( JNIS ). Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

  10. Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Strickland, N.H.

    2015-01-01

    Peer review in radiology means an assessment of the accuracy of a report issued by another radiologist. Inevitably, this involves a judgement opinion from the reviewing radiologist. Peer feedback is the means by which any form of peer review is communicated back to the original author of the report. This article defines terms, discusses the current status, identifies problems, and provides some recommendations as to the way forward, concentrating upon the software requirements for efficient peer review and peer feedback of reported imaging studies. Radiologists undertake routine peer review in their everyday clinical practice, particularly when reporting and preparing for multidisciplinary team meetings. More formal peer review of reported imaging studies has been advocated as a quality assurance measure to promote good clinical practice. It is also a way of assessing the competency of reporting radiologists referred for investigation to bodies such as the General Medical Council (GMC). The literature shows, firstly, that there is a very wide reported range of discrepancy rates in many studies, which have used a variety of non-comparable methodologies; and secondly, that applying scoring systems in formal peer review is often meaningless, unhelpful, and can even be detrimental. There is currently a lack of electronic peer feedback system software on the market to inform radiologists of any review of their work that has occurred or to provide them with clinical outcome information on cases they have previously reported. Learning opportunities are therefore missed. Radiologists should actively engage with the medical informatics industry to design optimal peer review and feedback software with features to meet their needs. Such a system should be easy to use, be fully integrated with the radiological information and picture archiving systems used clinically, and contain a free-text comment box, without a numerical scoring system. It should form a temporary record

  11. Application of project design peer review to improve quality assurance

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    McClure, F.E.

    1989-01-01

    DOE ORDER 5481.1B Safety Analysis and Review Systems and DOE ORDER 6430.1A General Design Criteria require that the design of facilities shall incorporate the necessary Quality Assurance review requirements to assure that the established program quality assurance objectives are met in the design criteria and the construction documents. The use of Project Design Peer Review to satisfy these requirements is presented. The University of California manages the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratory. The 1988 University Seismic Safety Policy requires the use of independent Project Design Peer Review in its capital improvement and seismic reconstruction program

  12. DBKM Issues, Approaches and Challenges for new build: Harmonization, standardization, certification, peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Omoto, A.

    2013-01-01

    Among issues when discussing DBKM: ⇒ What to preserve throughout plant lifetime? ⇒ Who manages (Design Authority)? ⇒ How best it is managed? ⇒ What are the threats of degradation? ⇒ What are the practical adverse effects on safety by inappropriate DBKM? ⇒ What about the future of licensing, harmonization, standardization, certification, peer review? … to be discussed in the context of new builds including those in new entrants

  13. Radioactive waste isolation in salt: peer review of the Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation's plans for repository performance assessment

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Harrison, W.

    1984-05-01

    In the peer review of the preliminary performance assessment plan, suggestions to improve the presentation are given, technical issues are addressed, a page-by-page commentary is included, and recommendations are summarized. In the peer review of the verification and validation plan, the following are addressed: suggestions to improve presentation; key activities that have been overlooked; improving the technical content of the plan; and degree to which code documents support the plan. Comments on other supporting code documents, page-by-page commentary, and summary of recommendations are included

  14. Writing biomedical manuscripts part I: fundamentals and general rules.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ohwovoriole, A E

    2011-01-01

    It is a professional obligation for health researchers to investigate and communicate their findings to the medical community. The writing of a publishable scientific manuscript can be a daunting task for the beginner and to even some established researchers. Many manuscripts fail to get off the ground and/or are rejected. The writing task can be made easier and the quality improved by using and following simple rules and leads that apply to general scientific writing .The manuscript should follow a standard structure:(e.g. (Abstract) plus Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion/Conclusion, the IMRAD model. The authors must also follow well established fundamentals of good communication in science and be systematic in approach. The manuscript must move from what is currently known to what was unknown that was investigated using a hypothesis, research question or problem statement. Each section has its own style of structure and language of presentation. The beginning of writing a good manuscript is to do a good study design and to pay attention to details at every stage. Many manuscripts are rejected because of errors that can be avoided if the authors follow simple guidelines and rules. One good way to avoid potential disappointment in manuscript writing is to follow the established general rules along with those of the journal in which the paper is to be published. An important injunction is to make the writing precise, clear, parsimonious, and comprehensible to the intended audience. The purpose of this article is to arm and encourage potential biomedical authors with tools and rules that will enable them to write contemporary manuscripts, which can stand the rigorous peer review process. The expectations of standard journals, and common pitfalls the major elements of a manuscript are covered.

  15. 77 FR 58802 - Notice of Intent To Seek OMB Approval To Collect Information: Forms Pertaining to the Peer Review...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-24

    ... incurred traveling to and attending a peer review meeting. The Expense Report includes lodging, meals, and... includes lodging, meals, and transportation expenses. It includes sensitive information. (7) USDA's... collection frequency is the minimum consistent with program objectives. The following estimates of time...

  16. Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Li, Danielle; Agha, Leila

    2015-04-24

    This paper examines the success of peer-review panels in predicting the future quality of proposed research. We construct new data to track publication, citation, and patenting outcomes associated with more than 130,000 research project (R01) grants funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health from 1980 to 2008. We find that better peer-review scores are consistently associated with better research outcomes and that this relationship persists even when we include detailed controls for an investigator's publication history, grant history, institutional affiliations, career stage, and degree types. A one-standard deviation worse peer-review score among awarded grants is associated with 15% fewer citations, 7% fewer publications, 19% fewer high-impact publications, and 14% fewer follow-on patents. Copyright © 2015, American Association for the Advancement of Science.

  17. Validity of peer grading using Calibrated Peer Review in a guided-inquiry, conceptual physics course

    Science.gov (United States)

    Price, Edward; Goldberg, Fred; Robinson, Steve; McKean, Michael

    2016-12-01

    Constructing and evaluating explanations are important science practices, but in large classes it can be difficult to effectively engage students in these practices and provide feedback. Peer review and grading are scalable instructional approaches that address these concerns, but which raise questions about the validity of the peer grading process. Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) is a web-based system that scaffolds peer evaluation through a "calibration" process where students evaluate sample responses and receive feedback on their evaluations before evaluating their peers. Guided by an activity theory framework, we developed, implemented, and evaluated CPR-based tasks in guided-inquiry, conceptual physics courses for future teachers and general education students. The tasks were developed through iterative testing and revision. Effective tasks had specific and directed prompts and evaluation instructions. Using these tasks, over 350 students at three universities constructed explanations or analyzed physical phenomena, and evaluated their peers' work. By independently assessing students' responses, we evaluated the CPR calibration process and compared students' peer reviews with expert evaluations. On the tasks analyzed, peer scores were equivalent to our independent evaluations. On a written explanation item included on the final exam, students in the courses using CPR outperformed students in similar courses using traditional writing assignments without a peer evaluation element. Our research demonstrates that CPR can be an effective way to explicitly include the science practices of constructing and evaluating explanations into large classes without placing a significant burden on the instructor.

  18. Perceptions of Peer Review Using Cloud-Based Software

    Science.gov (United States)

    Andrichuk, Gjoa

    2016-01-01

    This study looks at the change in perception regarding the effect of peer feedback on writing skills using cloud-based software. Pre- and post-surveys were given. The students peer reviewed drafts of five sections of scientific reports using Google Docs. While students reported that they did not perceive their writing ability improved by being…

  19. Exploring the use of peer review in large university courses

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Naemi Luckner

    2015-08-01

    Full Text Available Double blind peer review is a standard practice in the scientific community. It acts as a means of validating work as well as of getting feedback to improve it. As such, it seems prudent to also use it as a learning tool in large lectures to provide students with personalized feedback on their work. The general process can be directly adopted for the lecture context, but details need to be modified and adapted to create a better learning experience. The structure of a large lecture has been adjusted to provide the context for a double blind peer review process. Not only has the evaluation of activities during the semester changed to fit in with the double blind peer review, but also the organization of said activities was adapted to accompany the evaluation change. The first semester yielded promising results, but also pointed towards some issues with the current state of the system. We devised a list of design implications for future revisions of the double blind peer review system, based on feedback and experiences during the semester as well as on a survey among students at the end of the semester. These implications will be implemented to improve and refine the new system for upcoming semesters.

  20. Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game

    Science.gov (United States)

    Goldstone, Robert L.; Helbing, Dirk

    2016-01-01

    To investigate the effect of competitive incentives under peer review, we designed a novel experimental setup called the Art Exhibition Game. We present experimental evidence of how competition introduces both positive and negative effects when creative artifacts are evaluated and selected by peer review. Competition proved to be a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it fosters innovation and product diversity, but on the other hand, it also leads to more unfair reviews and to a lower level of agreement between reviewers. Moreover, an external validation of the quality of peer reviews during the laboratory experiment, based on 23,627 online evaluations on Amazon Mechanical Turk, shows that competition does not significantly increase the level of creativity. Furthermore, the higher rejection rate under competitive conditions does not improve the average quality of published contributions, because more high-quality work is also rejected. Overall, our results could explain why many ground-breaking studies in science end up in lower-tier journals. Differences and similarities between the Art Exhibition Game and scholarly peer review are discussed and the implications for the design of new incentive systems for scientists are explained. PMID:27402744

  1. 75 FR 4062 - Peer Review Best Practices Workshop

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-26

    ... Review Best Practices Workshop AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable... project proposals. The workshop will explore classic peer review processes such as those at NSF, NIH, and... workshop and to make oral statements during a specified period for public comment. The public comment...

  2. Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review Perspective

    Science.gov (United States)

    Nicol, David; Thomson, Avril; Breslin, Caroline

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is a reciprocal process whereby students produce feedback reviews on the work of peers and receive feedback reviews from peers on their own work. Prior research has primarily examined the learning benefits that result from the receipt of feedback reviews, with few studies specifically exploring the merits of producing feedback reviews…

  3. Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Erik eSandewall

    2012-02-01

    Full Text Available Open peer review has been proposed for a number of reasons, in particular, for increasing the transparency of the article selection process for a journal, and for obtaining a broader basis for feedback to the authors and for the acceptance decision. The review discussion may also in itself have a value for the research community. These goals rely on the existence of a lively review discussion, but several experiments with open-process peer review in recent years have encountered the problem of faltering review discussions. The present article addresses the question of how lively review discussion may be fostered by relating the experience of the journal Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI which was an early experiment with open peer review. Factors influencing the discussion activity are identified. It is observed that it is more difficult to obtain lively discussion when the number of contributed articles increases, which implies difficulties for scaling up the open peer review model. Suggestions are made for how this difficulty may be overcome.

  4. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... be used in the selection of peer reviewers are: (a) Generalized knowledge of juvenile justice or related fields; and (b) Specialized knowledge in areas or disciplines addressed by the applications to be reviewed under a particular program. (c) Must not have a conflict of interest (see OJP M7100.1C, par. 94...

  5. Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Balietti, Stefano; Goldstone, Robert L; Helbing, Dirk

    2016-07-26

    To investigate the effect of competitive incentives under peer review, we designed a novel experimental setup called the Art Exhibition Game. We present experimental evidence of how competition introduces both positive and negative effects when creative artifacts are evaluated and selected by peer review. Competition proved to be a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it fosters innovation and product diversity, but on the other hand, it also leads to more unfair reviews and to a lower level of agreement between reviewers. Moreover, an external validation of the quality of peer reviews during the laboratory experiment, based on 23,627 online evaluations on Amazon Mechanical Turk, shows that competition does not significantly increase the level of creativity. Furthermore, the higher rejection rate under competitive conditions does not improve the average quality of published contributions, because more high-quality work is also rejected. Overall, our results could explain why many ground-breaking studies in science end up in lower-tier journals. Differences and similarities between the Art Exhibition Game and scholarly peer review are discussed and the implications for the design of new incentive systems for scientists are explained.

  6. Position paper - peer review and design verification of selected activities

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Stine, M.D.

    1994-09-01

    Position Paper to develop and document a position on the performance of independent peer reviews on selected design and analysis components of the Title I (preliminary) and Title II (detailed) design phases of the Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility project

  7. Research Program Peer Review: Purposes, Principles, Practices, Protocols

    Science.gov (United States)

    2004-06-01

    review. Toxicol Pathol. 1997 May- Jun;25(3):335-7. . Fraser -RC Mckinley-RK Mulholland-H, "Consultation Competence in General-Practice - Testing the...way editors think: report from the congress on peer review in biomedical publication. Fam Med. 2002 Feb;34(2):138-9. . Neave , G. 1992 On trade-offs

  8. Accelerated Peer-Review Journal Usage Technique for Undergraduates

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wallace, J. D.

    2008-01-01

    The internet has given undergraduate students ever-increasing access to academic journals via search engines and online databases. However, students typically do not have the ability to use these journals effectively. This often poses a dilemma for instructors. The accelerated peer-review journal usage (APJU) technique provides a way for…

  9. The African Peer Review Mechanism: The South African Experience ...

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    This article compares the results of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) report on South Africa with the evaluation done on the same issues by three academics from different health professions. Four areas which closely affect health and health care (democracy and good political governance; economic governance ...

  10. Biomass Program 2007 Peer Review - Integrated Biorefinery Platform Summary

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document discloses the comments provided by a review panel at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Biomass Program Peer Review held on November 15-16, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and the Integrated Biorefinery Platform Review held on August 13-15, 2007 in Golden, Colorado.

  11. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Aluminum

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

  12. Editorial: Special issue of Afrika Statistika on peer- reviewed ...

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Editorial: Special issue of Afrika Statistika on peer- reviewed selected papers from the Conference on Advanced Applied Statistics (CSAA 2014). Dahud Kehinde Shangodoyin, Fouad Lazhar Rahmani, Gane Samb Lo. Abstract. No Abstract. Full Text: EMAIL FREE FULL TEXT EMAIL FREE FULL TEXT · DOWNLOAD FULL ...

  13. Evaluating the impact of accreditation and external peer review

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Kilsdonk, Melvin; Siesling, Sabine; Otter, Renee; van Harten, Willem H.

    2015-01-01

    Purpose – Accreditation and external peer review play important roles in assessing and improving healthcare quality worldwide. Evidence on the impact on the quality of care remains indecisive because of programme features and methodological research challenges. The purpose of this paper is to create

  14. NIH Peer Review: Scored Review Criteria and Overall Impact

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lindner, Mark D.; Vancea, Adrian; Chen, Mei-Ching; Chacko, George

    2016-01-01

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. Funding decisions are made largely based on the outcome of a peer review process that is intended to provide a fair, equitable, timely, and unbiased review of the quality, scientific merit, and potential impact of the research. There have…

  15. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Acrolein

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

  16. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Isopropanol (Isobutyl Alcohol)

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

  17. NEA international peer reviews of post-accident protection policy

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Lazo, T.

    2011-01-01

    For many years, the NEA has offered international peer reviews of national, high-level radioactive waste management policies and approaches. Until recently, this service had not been requested in the area of radiological protection. However, the 3. International Nuclear Emergency Exercise (INEX-3, 2005-2006) addressed post-accident consequence management for the first time in a broad, international sense, and helped generate significant national reflections in this area. In particular, in 2005 the French government began an extensive programme of post-emergency consequence management planning, resulting in a draft national policy to address such situations. The Finnish government used the INEX-3 exercise as a vehicle to discuss post-emergency consequence management with a broad group of governmental and private stakeholders, and also began to develop national policy in this area. In order to further refine national efforts, the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) invited the NEA to perform in April 2011 its first international peer review in the radiological protection area focusing on its post-emergency consequence management policy under development. Finnish experts participated in this peer review team, and as a result, subsequently invited the NEA to perform an international peer review of its developing policy in this area in September 2011. These draft national policies and their international peer reviews are briefly presented in this paper. Feedback from both the French ASN and the Finnish STUK suggests that the detailed, external input provided by the international peer review teams have been extremely valuable in refining the content of the guides so that they are more clear, concise, understandable and implementable. It should be recalled that both national policy documents reviewed are far more detailed and extensive than described here. The intent of this article was not to provide a review of the national policies themselves, but rather to give an

  18. Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gallo, Stephen A; Carpenter, Afton S; Glisson, Scott R

    2013-01-01

    Teleconferencing as a setting for scientific peer review is an attractive option for funding agencies, given the substantial environmental and cost savings. Despite this, there is a paucity of published data validating teleconference-based peer review compared to the face-to-face process. Our aim was to conduct a retrospective analysis of scientific peer review data to investigate whether review setting has an effect on review process and outcome measures. We analyzed reviewer scoring data from a research program that had recently modified the review setting from face-to-face to a teleconference format with minimal changes to the overall review procedures. This analysis included approximately 1600 applications over a 4-year period: two years of face-to-face panel meetings compared to two years of teleconference meetings. The average overall scientific merit scores, score distribution, standard deviations and reviewer inter-rater reliability statistics were measured, as well as reviewer demographics and length of time discussing applications. The data indicate that few differences are evident between face-to-face and teleconference settings with regard to average overall scientific merit score, scoring distribution, standard deviation, reviewer demographics or inter-rater reliability. However, some difference was found in the discussion time. These findings suggest that most review outcome measures are unaffected by review setting, which would support the trend of using teleconference reviews rather than face-to-face meetings. However, further studies are needed to assess any correlations among discussion time, application funding and the productivity of funded research projects.

  19. SU-F-T-231: Improving the Efficiency of a Radiotherapy Peer-Review System for Quality Assurance

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Hsu, S; Basavatia, A; Garg, M; Kalnicki, S; Tome, W [Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY (United States)

    2016-06-15

    Purpose: To improve the efficiency of a radiotherapy peer-review system using a commercially available software application for plan quality evaluation and documentation. Methods: A commercial application, FullAccess (Radialogica LLC, Version 1.4.4), was implemented in a Citrix platform for peer-review process and patient documentation. This application can display images, isodose lines, and dose-volume histograms and create plan reports for peer-review process. Dose metrics in the report can also be benchmarked for plan quality evaluation. Site-specific templates were generated based on departmental treatment planning policies and procedures for each disease site, which generally follow RTOG protocols as well as published prospective clinical trial data, including both conventional fractionation and hypo-fractionation schema. Once a plan is ready for review, the planner exports the plan to FullAccess, applies the site-specific template, and presents the report for plan review. The plan is still reviewed in the treatment planning system, as that is the legal record. Upon physician’s approval of a plan, the plan is packaged for peer review with the plan report and dose metrics are saved to the database. Results: The reports show dose metrics of PTVs and critical organs for the plans and also indicate whether or not the metrics are within tolerance. Graphical results with green, yellow, and red lights are displayed of whether planning objectives have been met. In addition, benchmarking statistics are collected to see where the current plan falls compared to all historical plans on each metric. All physicians in peer review can easily verify constraints by these reports. Conclusion: We have demonstrated the improvement in a radiotherapy peer-review system, which allows physicians to easily verify planning constraints for different disease sites and fractionation schema, allows for standardization in the clinic to ensure that departmental policies are maintained, and

  20. SU-F-T-231: Improving the Efficiency of a Radiotherapy Peer-Review System for Quality Assurance

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Hsu, S; Basavatia, A; Garg, M; Kalnicki, S; Tome, W

    2016-01-01

    Purpose: To improve the efficiency of a radiotherapy peer-review system using a commercially available software application for plan quality evaluation and documentation. Methods: A commercial application, FullAccess (Radialogica LLC, Version 1.4.4), was implemented in a Citrix platform for peer-review process and patient documentation. This application can display images, isodose lines, and dose-volume histograms and create plan reports for peer-review process. Dose metrics in the report can also be benchmarked for plan quality evaluation. Site-specific templates were generated based on departmental treatment planning policies and procedures for each disease site, which generally follow RTOG protocols as well as published prospective clinical trial data, including both conventional fractionation and hypo-fractionation schema. Once a plan is ready for review, the planner exports the plan to FullAccess, applies the site-specific template, and presents the report for plan review. The plan is still reviewed in the treatment planning system, as that is the legal record. Upon physician’s approval of a plan, the plan is packaged for peer review with the plan report and dose metrics are saved to the database. Results: The reports show dose metrics of PTVs and critical organs for the plans and also indicate whether or not the metrics are within tolerance. Graphical results with green, yellow, and red lights are displayed of whether planning objectives have been met. In addition, benchmarking statistics are collected to see where the current plan falls compared to all historical plans on each metric. All physicians in peer review can easily verify constraints by these reports. Conclusion: We have demonstrated the improvement in a radiotherapy peer-review system, which allows physicians to easily verify planning constraints for different disease sites and fractionation schema, allows for standardization in the clinic to ensure that departmental policies are maintained, and

  1. [Peer review procedures in pathology - more than ten years of experience in the free state of Saxony].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Eberlein-Gonska, Maria; Baretton, Gustavo; Habeck, Jörg-Olaf

    2012-01-01

    The positive experiences regarding peer review practice go back to the 1990s and can be traced in the position paper of the German Medical Association concerning quality assurance in the field of pathology. This evolved into the initiative of pathologists in Saxony to implement the peer review practice within the remit of their State Medical Association. Since the 14(th) of May 1999 various institutes as well as medical group practices in pathology and cytology have joined forces to undertake voluntary inter-institutional quality control measures. The aim was to improve the process and especially the outcome quality by reviewing each other's quality (analysing samples) on the basis of defined criteria. A positive review outcome report, which will have to be unanimously agreed upon by all participants, will lead to a positive recommendation for a certificate issued by the Medical Association of Saxony. Between 1999 and 2011 a total of 56 peer review proceedings took place. The potentials for improvement concern the problem of "kitchen pathology" still being used in the context of macroscopic description, the quality of microscopic description including the use of correct nomenclature, the quality of tumour classification and immune histological investigations. Statements concerning the advantage of the peer review method in particular refer to the integration of resident pathologists. Due to the long period of implementation of the peer review system und the small number of proceedings, it is not possible to come to a clear conclusion about the improvement or deterioration of quality. During a period of more than 10 years three peer review proceedings were not successful. In this situation, it is appropriate to ask the question of how restrictive peer reviews should be. The three most important aspects for the pathologists in Saxony are: self-determination, learning from each other, and a commitment to quality improvement. So this method set an example of how a

  2. Where is the trust in the peer review dynamic?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ucko, Daniel

    The motto of the Royal Society is ``nullius in verba'', which translates roughly as ``take nobody's word for it'', and this motto is furthermore emblematic of the conduct of science. We want facts and not opinions, verified results and not conjecture. From the time that we first started communicating scientific results, it has been recognized that scientific claims must be verified by someone who is not the maker of those claims, and who furthermore has no stake in the matter, in other words, a claim needs to be evaluated objectively. Peer review as a method of evaluation can be thought of as akin to an experiment, where the review process tests the hypothesis of a submitted paper. Peer review is however also a social process with human actors: authors, referees, and editors. As a process, peer review depends on trust, but in what way does that manifest? There are many agents in peer review: in addition to the human actors, there is also the institution that is the journal, as well as the publisher (e.g. APS) that stands behind the journal. People can also have trust in the very concept of peer review. If we accept as a proposition that publications are witnesses to science in the same way that people who attend scientific demonstrations are witnesses of an experiment, then how much do we trust this witness? A few further questions arise: If referees (and sometimes authors) are anonymous, what does this do to the mechanisms of trust? Is trust only possible between human agents, or can you trust a process or a journal in a similar way to trusting a certain car brand? Is an absence of trust the same as distrust? Is trust rational, or cognitive, or is it a practice? In this paper I will attempt to locate the trust and ask how trust is earned, and, conversely, how it can be lost, using peer review as example. I have a joint affiliation with Stony Brook University and APS and would like both listed, in that order, in the abstract.

  3. Safeguarding the Integrity of Science Communication by Restraining 'Rational Cheating' in Peer Review

    OpenAIRE

    Barroga, Edward F.

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is the pillar of the integrity of science communication. It is often beset with flaws as well as accusations of unreliability and lack of predictive validity. 'Rational cheating' by reviewers is a threat to the validity of peer review. It may diminish the value of good papers by unfavourable appraisals of the reviewers whose own works have lower scientific merits. This article analyzes the mechanics and defects of peer review and focuses on rational cheating in peer review, its im...

  4. Modeling and analyzing of nuclear power peer review on enterprise operational efficiency

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Li Songbai; Xu Yuhu

    2007-01-01

    Based on the practice and analysis of peer review in nuclear power plants, the models on the Pareto improvement of peer review, and governance entropy decrease of peer review are set up and discussed. It shows that the peer review of nuclear power is actually a process of Pareto improvement, and of governance entropy decrease. It's a process of improvement of the enterprise operational efficiency. (authors)

  5. Peer review in design: Understanding the impact of collaboration on the review process and student perception

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mandala, Mahender Arjun

    A cornerstone of design and design education is frequent situated feedback. With increasing class sizes, and shrinking financial and human resources, providing rich feedback to students becomes increasingly difficult. In the field of writing, web-based peer review--the process of utilizing equal status learners within a class to provide feedback to each other on their work using networked computing systems--has been shown to be a reliable and valid source of feedback in addition to improving student learning. Designers communicate in myriad ways, using the many languages of design and combining visual and descriptive information. This complex discourse of design intent makes peer reviews by design students ambiguous and often not helpful to the receivers of this feedback. Furthermore, engaging students in the review process itself is often difficult. Teams can complement individual diversity and may assist novice designers collectively resolve complex task. However, teams often incur production losses and may be impacted by individual biases. In the current work, we look at utilizing a collaborative team of reviewers, working collectively and synchronously, in generating web based peer reviews in a sophomore engineering design class. Students participated in a cross-over design, conducting peer reviews as individuals and collaborative teams in parallel sequences. Raters coded the feedback generated on the basis of their appropriateness and accuracy. Self-report surveys and passive observation of teams conducting reviews captured student opinion on the process, its value, and the contrasting experience they had conducting team and individual reviews. We found team reviews generated better quality feedback in comparison to individual reviews. Furthermore, students preferred conducting reviews in teams, finding the process 'fun' and engaging. We observed several learning benefits of using collaboration in reviewing including improved understanding of the assessment

  6. Pre-university Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    van Rens, Lisette; Pilot, Albert; Hermarij, Philip; Beishuizen, Jos; Hofman, Herman; Wal, Marjolein

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is a significant component in scientific research. Introducing peer review into inquiry processes may be regarded as an aim to develop student understanding regarding quality in inquiries. This study examines student understanding in inquiry peer reviews among pre-university chemistry

  7. 7 CFR 3411.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3411.5, the Administrator shall adopt procedures... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups...

  8. 7 CFR 3401.12 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding § 3401.12 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3401.7, the Administrator will adopt procedures for the... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups...

  9. 7 CFR 3415.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3415.5, the Administrator shall adopt procedures... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups...

  10. 42 CFR 52h.3 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PROJECTS § 52h.3 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups...

  11. 7 CFR 3400.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3400.5, the Administrator will adopt procedures for the... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups...

  12. Pre-University Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    van Rens, Lisette; Hermarij, Philip; Pilot, Albert; Beishuizen, Jos; Hofman, Herman; Wal, Marjolein

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is a significant component in scientific research. Introducing peer review into inquiry processes may be regarded as an aim to develop student understanding regarding quality in inquiries. This study examines student understanding in inquiry peer reviews among pre-university chemistry students, aged 16-17, when they enact a design of a…

  13. How Does Student Peer Review Influence Perceptions, Engagement and Academic Outcomes? A Case Study

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mulder, Raoul; Baik, Chi; Naylor, Ryan; Pearce, Jon

    2014-01-01

    Involving students in peer review has many pedagogical benefits, but few studies have explicitly investigated relationships between the content of peer reviews, student perceptions and assessment outcomes. We conducted a case study of peer review within a third-year undergraduate subject at a research-intensive Australian university, in which we…

  14. Adapting Peer Review to an Online Course: An Exploratory Case Study

    Science.gov (United States)

    Knight, Linda V.; Steinbach, Theresa A.

    2011-01-01

    With demonstrated benefits to higher level learning, peer review in the classroom has been well researched and popular since at least the 1990s. However, little or no prior studies exist into the peer review process for online courses. Further, we found no prior research specifically addressing the operational aspects of online peer review. This…

  15. Issues of Cultural Appropriateness and Pedagogical Efficacy: Exploring Peer Review in a Second Language Writing Class

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hu, Guangwei; Lam, Sandra Tsui Eu

    2010-01-01

    This paper reports on a study designed to investigate (a) whether peer review is an effective pedagogical activity with adult Chinese students in the teaching of second language (L2) academic writing and (b) how factors such as perceptions of the influence of peer reviewers' L2 proficiency, previous experience with peer review, feedback…

  16. The Importance of Peer Review: Thoughts on Knudson, Morrow, and Thomas (2014)

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fischman, Mark G.

    2014-01-01

    Knudson, Morrow, and Thomas (2014) recently summarized a number of important issues related to the quality of peer review and current peer-review practice in kinesiology. This writer endorses their six recommendations for improving peer review in kinesiology journals. The purpose of this commentary is to further highlight the importance of…

  17. PEER REVIEW FOR THE CONSUMER VEHICLE CHOICE ...

    Science.gov (United States)

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has recently sponsored the development of a Consumer Vehicle Choice Model (CVCM) by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The specification by OTAQ to ORNL for consumer choice model development was to develop a Nested Multinomial Logit (NMNL) or other appropriate model capable of estimating the consumer surplus impacts and the sales mix effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards. The CVCM will use output from the EPA’s Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of Greenhouse gases from Automobiles (OMEGA), including changes in retail price equivalents, changes in fuel economy, and changes in emissions, to estimate these impacts. In addition, the CVCM will accept approximately 60 vehicle types, with the flexibility to function with fewer or more vehicle types, and will use a 15 year planning horizon, matching the OMEGA parameters. It will be calibrated to baseline sales projection data provided by the EPA and will include a buy/no-buy option to simulate the possibility that consumers will choose to keep their old vehicle or to buy a used vehicle. To support EPA's future assessment of potential light duty greenhouse gas standards

  18. From abstract to peer-reviewed publication: country matters

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Fosbol, E.; Fosbøl, Philip Loldrup; Eapen, Z. J.

    2013-01-01

    within 2 years of the conference. Less is known about the relative difference between countries in regards to likelihood of publication. Methods: Using a validated automated computer algorithm, we searched the ISI Web of Science to identify peer-reviewed publications of abstracts presented at the AHA...... observed a significant variation among countries in terms of odds of subsequent publication (Figure). Conclusions: Our results show that conversion of science from an abstract into a peer-reviewed publication varies significantly by country. Local national initiatives should be deployed in order to break......Purpose: Studies have shown that conversion of scientific knowledge from discovery to practice is suboptimal. About 1/3 of abstracts presented at the American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Scientific Sessions are published...

  19. Calibrated peer review assignments for the earth sciences

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rudd, J.A.; Wang, V.Z.; Cervato, C.; Ridky, R.W.

    2009-01-01

    Calibrated Peer Review ??? (CPR), a web-based instructional tool developed as part of the National Science Foundation reform initiatives in undergraduate science education, allows instructors to incorporate multiple writing assignments in large courses without overwhelming the instructor. This study reports successful implementation of CPR in a large, introductory geology course and student learning of geoscience content. For each CPR assignment in this study, students studied web-based and paper resources, wrote an essay, and reviewed seven essays (three from the instructor, three from peers, and their own) on the topic. Although many students expressed negative attitudes and concerns, particularly about the peer review process of this innovative instructional approach, they also recognized the learning potential of completing CPR assignments. Comparing instruction on earthquakes and plate boundaries using a CPR assignment vs. an instructional video lecture and homework essay with extensive instructor feedback, students mastered more content via CPR instruction.

  20. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Gerasimov, Alexey N; Voronov, Alexander A; Kitas, George D

    2015-04-01

    This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts.

  1. Response to External Peer Review comments regarding the C ...

    Science.gov (United States)

    This report documents the external peer review of the C-PORT Tool. C-PORT is intended to provide users with the capability to estimate changes in the concentration of air pollutants in the community resulting from changes in emissions from traffic and port activities. C-PORT is an EPA web-based, easy-to-use modeling system, that allows users to visualize and evaluate different planning scenarios under consideration, helping them identify the best alternatives for making long-term decisions that protect community health and sustainability. In addition, C-PORT is designed to identify local hotspots, focus on specific populations and locations, and inform citizen science and data collection activities. The model is not intended to support or replace any regulatory models or programs. Peer Review report to be posted on Community Modeling and Analysis System (CMAS) along with C-PORT model

  2. Rewarding Peer Reviewers: Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication

    Science.gov (United States)

    2015-01-01

    This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts. PMID:25829801

  3. Fire protection assessment in a WANO peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Vella, R.

    1998-01-01

    The peer review programme is becoming the key programme of WANO. The reviews are conducted to assess the performance of plant personnel, the conditions of systems and equipment, the quality of programmes and procedures, and the effectiveness of plant management. The review team consists of highly qualified staff from other WANO members throughout the world who have extensive practical experience in the area the review. At the request of Paris Centre Members, the fire protection area has been added to the scope of WANO peer reviews. Relevant performance objectives and criteria have been developed to cover this area, these are written guidances upon which review of plant performance can be based. They are supported by criteria, more narrow in scope, to help further define what attributes of the fire protection management area contribute to the achievement of the associated performance objective. (author)

  4. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    BLOOMQUIST, DOUGLAS D.

    2002-01-01

    In 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, PL 103-62) was enacted. GPRA, which applies to all federal programs, has three components: strategic plans, annual performance plans, and metrics to show how well annual plans are being followed. As part of meeting the GRPA requirement in FY2002, a 15-member external review committee chaired by Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece (the Trivelpiece Committee) was convened by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) on May 7-9, 2002 to review Sandia National Laboratories' Pulsed Power Programs as a component of the Performance Appraisal Process negotiated with the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy (NNSA/DOE). The scope of the review included activities in high energy density physics (HEDP), inertial confinement fusion (ICF), radiation/weapon physics, the petawatt laser initiative (PW) and fast ignition, equation-of-state studies, radiation effects science and lethality, x-ray radiography, ZR development, basic research and pulsed power technology research and development, as well as electromagnetics and work for others. In his charge to the Committee, Dr. Jeffrey P. Quintenz, Director of Pulsed Power Sciences (Org. 1600) asked that the evaluation and feedback be based on three criteria: (1) quality of technical activities in science, technology, and engineering, (2) programmatic performance, management, and planning, and (3) relevance to national needs and agency missions. In addition, the director posed specific programmatic questions. The accompanying report, produced as a SAND document, is the report of the Committee's finding

  5. Peer review of strategic analysis of material accounting

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Opelka, J.H.; Bennett, C.A.; Goldman, A.J.; Higinbotham, W.A.; Jaech, J.L.; Lucas, W.F.; Lumb, R.F.

    1979-01-01

    A Peer Review Group knowledgeable about game theory and safeguards was organized to assess the utility of strategic analysis for analyzing inventory differences in particular and safeguards events in general. The group concluded that game theory may provide a useful basis for arriving at safeguards decisions, and could be a complementary--not alternative--tool to statistical analysis. The group recommended further development of game theory in areas of potential application

  6. International peer reviews and radioactive waste management in France

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Gordelier, S.; Nordborg, C.; Pescatore, C.

    2006-01-01

    The French government recently requested the NEA to organize two peer reviews in the radioactive wastes management area. The first concerned the review of the ''dossier Argile 2005'', the second concerned the ''CEA 2005 report''. This document presents the major recommendations and conclusions of the team on deep geological disposal of the ''dossier Argile 2005'', the partitioning and transmutation of the ''CEA 2005 report''. (A.L.B.)

  7. Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gusic, Maryellen; Hageman, Heather; Zenni, Elisa

    2013-10-01

    The system used by academic health centres to evaluate teaching must be valued by the large number of faculty staff that teach in clinical settings. Peer review can be used to evaluate and enhance clinical teaching. The objective of this study was to determine the perceptions of clinical faculty about the effects of participating in peer review. Faculty members were observed teaching in a clinical setting by trained peer observers. Feedback was provided using a checklist of behaviours and descriptive comments. Afterwards, semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess the faculty member's perception about the process. Notes from the interviews were analysed using a grounded theory approach. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of all the institutions involved. Three themes emerged from the interviews with faculty members: (1) they found the process to be valuable - they received information that affirmed "good" teaching behaviours, and were prompted to be more focused on their teaching; (2) they were motivated to enhance their teaching by being more deliberate, interactive and learner-centred; and (3) they were inspired to explore other opportunities to improve their teaching skills. Peer review is a process that promotes the open discussion and exchange of ideas. This conversation advances clinical teaching skills and allows high-quality teaching behaviours to be strengthened. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  8. Ethical considerations for peer review in forensic neuropsychology.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Johnson-Greene, Doug; Bechtold, Kathleen T

    2002-02-01

    The role of an expert is to assist the trier of fact in weighing evidence and reaching conclusions. Critical evaluation of opposing experts is an integral part of this process. In more recent times, cross-examination has given way to critical evaluation of opposing experts outside of the courtroom, a tactic we refer to as peer review in this paper. Though neuropsychologists frequently review the work of their colleagues, we are concerned here primarily with commentary that is at best misleading, and occasionally malicious, unethical, and unprofessional. Despite a growing trend to use experts as peer reviewers in the medicolegal arena, expectations concerning ethical and professional conduct of neuropsychologists have been absent. Enforcement of appropriate conduct is further complicated by the ambiguity of existing ethical standards and state statutes, and their limited applicability to all neuropsychologists who provide forensic services. This article provides an overview of ethical and professional issues pertaining to forensic peer review and concludes with recommendations for appropriate professional conduct.

  9. Impact of peer review audit on occupational health report quality.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lalloo, D; Demou, E; Macdonald, E B

    2015-08-01

    In a previous report, we described the implementation of a formal process for peer review of occupational health (OH) reports and a method of assessment of the outcomes of this process. The initial audit identified that 27% of OH reports required modifications. To assess formally, following implementation of this process, if changes in practice had occurred, i.e. whether fewer deficiencies were being identified in reports. We repeated a prospective internal audit of all peer reviewed OH reports between September and November 2011. We used an abbreviated assessment form, based on questions 4-8 and 10-12 of the modified SAIL (Sheffield Assessment Instrument for Letters), with four possible outcomes: no action, no changes made to report following discussion with author, changes made without discussion with author and changes made following discussion with author. One hundred seventy-three reports by 10 clinicians were audited. The audit identified a 13% reduction in OH reports requiring modifications (from 27 to 14%) compared with the previous cycle. Where modifications were required, 8% of these were related to minor typographical, spelling and grammar errors and 6% were for more complex reasons. Implementation of this process also produced a reduction in clinical complaints about OH reports from customers, from three in the preceding year to none 2 years later. Peer review improved the standard of OH reports and was associated with a reduction in customer complaints about reports. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine.

  10. Wano peer review in Santa Maria de Garona NPP

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    De Blas, J. M.

    1998-01-01

    WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators) implemented a program known as PEER REVIEW at the Santa Maria de Garona NPP in 1996. It was as follows, an international team consisting of professionals with experience in nuclear power plants observed different activities in the plant, hold interviews and meetings, and finally they checked all the information during three weeks, in order to compare the plant with the WANO's Excellence Criteria at work. The result was that the plant was in a good state and most of the implemented activities and practices of work were done properly, further the usual demands and rules. However it was noticed that some of the activities could be improved, If we compare them with the optimum practices. The plant started a work plan defined as an objective in the COMPANY PROJECT it self, in order to implement the corrective actions which could resolve the proposed improvements by WANO. Following the PEER REVIEW program, approximately one year and a half later, a WANO team came back to the plan for a week in June 1998, they came back to implement what is known as a FOLLOW UP, that is today, a control resting on the monitoring of facts of the fulfillment level for the improvements which had been recommended. After finishing this monitoring work, the result of the FOLLOW UP was that the plant has attained a very remarkable implantation of the recommendations showed in the PEER REVIEW. (Author)

  11. A Study of Technical Engineering Peer Reviews at NASA

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chao, Lawrence P.; Tumer, Irem Y.; Bell, David G.

    2003-01-01

    This report describes the state of practices of design reviews at NASA and research into what can be done to improve peer review practices. There are many types of reviews at NASA: required and not, formalized and informal, programmatic and technical. Standing project formal reviews such as the Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the technical, engineering peer reviews that support teams' work on such projects are informal, some times ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. The goal of this work is to identify best practices and lessons learned from NASA's experience, supported by academic research and methodologies to ultimately improve the process. This research has determined that the organization, composition, scope, and approach of the reviews impact their success. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) can identify key areas of concern before or in the reviews. Product definition tools like the Project Priority Matrix, engineering-focused Customer Value Chain Analysis (CVCA), and project or system-based Quality Function Deployment (QFD) help prioritize resources in reviews. The use of information technology and structured design methodologies can strengthen the engineering peer review process to help NASA work towards error-proofing the design process.

  12. source files for manuscript in tex format

    Data.gov (United States)

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — Source tex files used to create the manuscript including original figure files and raw data used in tables and inline text. This dataset is associated with the...

  13. Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Farrell, P R; Magida Farrell, L; Farrell, M K

    2017-01-01

    The formal evaluation of scientific literature by invited referees (peer reviewers) is a relatively recent phenomenon and now is considered a cornerstone of modern science. However, its roots can be traced back to antiquity. As the speed and complexity of scientific information and publishing increases in the digital age, peer review must continue to evolve. To understand the future direction of peer review, we must understand its past. Here, we briefly explore the history of scientific peer review. This may help us predict and design appropriate peer review for the new era. This work was originally presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland in the Spring of 2016.

  14. The Effect of Peer Review on the Quality of Data Graphs in Annals of Emergency Medicine.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schriger, David L; Raffetto, Brian; Drolen, Claire; Cooper, Richelle J

    2017-04-01

    We determine how peer review affects the quality of published data graphs and how the appointment of a graphics editor affects the quality of graphs in an academic medical journal. We conducted an observational time-series analysis to quantify the qualities of data graphs in original manuscripts and published research articles in Annals of Emergency Medicine from 2006 to 2012. We retrospectively analyzed 3 distinct periods: before the use of a graphics editor, graph review after a manuscript's acceptance, and graph review just before the first request for revision. Raters blinded to study year scored the quality of original and published graphs using an 85-item instrument. Editorial comments about graphs were classified into 4 major and 16 minor categories. We studied 60 published articles and their corresponding original submissions during each period (2006, 2009, and 2012). The number of graphs increased 31%, their median data density increased 50%, and quality (completeness [+42%], visual clarity [+64%], and special features [+66%]) increased from submission to publication in all 3 periods. Although geometric mean (0.69, 0.86, and 1.2 pieces of information/cm 2 ) and median data density (0.44, 0.70, and 1.2 pieces of information/cm 2 ) were higher in the graphics editor phases, mean data density, completeness, visual clarity, and other markers of quality did not improve or decreased with dedicated graphics editing. The majority of published graphs were bar or pie graphs (49%, 53%, and 60% in 2006, 2009, and 2012, respectively) with low data density in all 3 years. Peer review unquestionably improved graph quality. However, data densities of most graphs barely exceeded that of printed text, and many graphs failed to present the majority of available data and did not convey those data clearly; there remains much room for improvement. The timing of graphics editor involvement appears to affect the effect of the graph review process. Copyright © 2016 American

  15. External Peer Review Team Report Underground Testing Area Subproject for Frenchman Flat, Revision 1

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Marutzky, Sam

    2010-01-01

    An external peer review was conducted to review the groundwater models used in the corrective action investigation stage of the Underground Test Area (UGTA) subproject to forecast zones of potential contamination in 1,000 years for the Frenchman Flat area. The goal of the external peer review was to provide technical evaluation of the studies and to assist in assessing the readiness of the UGTA subproject to progress to monitoring activities for further model evaluation. The external peer review team consisted of six independent technical experts with expertise in geology, hydrogeology,'groundwater modeling, and radiochemistry. The peer review team was tasked with addressing the following questions: 1. Are the modeling approaches, assumptions, and model results for Frenchman Flat consistent with the use of modeling studies as a decision tool for resolution of environmental and regulatory requirements? 2. Do the modeling results adequately account for uncertainty in models of flow and transport in the Frenchman Flat hydrological setting? a. Are the models of sufficient scale/resolution to adequately predict contaminant transport in the Frenchman Flat setting? b. Have all key processes been included in the model? c. Are the methods used to forecast contaminant boundaries from the transport modeling studies reasonable and appropriate? d. Are the assessments of uncertainty technically sound and consistent with state-of-the-art approaches currently used in the hydrological sciences? 3. Are the datasets and modeling results adequate for a transition to Corrective Action Unit monitoring studies the next stage in the UGTA strategy for Frenchman Flat? The peer review team is of the opinion that, with some limitations, the modeling approaches, assumptions, and model results are consistent with the use of modeling studies for resolution of environmental and regulatory requirements. The peer review team further finds that the modeling studies have accounted for uncertainty in

  16. External Peer Review Team Report Underground Testing Area Subproject for Frenchman Flat, Revision 1

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Sam Marutzky

    2010-09-01

    An external peer review was conducted to review the groundwater models used in the corrective action investigation stage of the Underground Test Area (UGTA) subproject to forecast zones of potential contamination in 1,000 years for the Frenchman Flat area. The goal of the external peer review was to provide technical evaluation of the studies and to assist in assessing the readiness of the UGTA subproject to progress to monitoring activities for further model evaluation. The external peer review team consisted of six independent technical experts with expertise in geology, hydrogeology,'''groundwater modeling, and radiochemistry. The peer review team was tasked with addressing the following questions: 1. Are the modeling approaches, assumptions, and model results for Frenchman Flat consistent with the use of modeling studies as a decision tool for resolution of environmental and regulatory requirements? 2. Do the modeling results adequately account for uncertainty in models of flow and transport in the Frenchman Flat hydrological setting? a. Are the models of sufficient scale/resolution to adequately predict contaminant transport in the Frenchman Flat setting? b. Have all key processes been included in the model? c. Are the methods used to forecast contaminant boundaries from the transport modeling studies reasonable and appropriate? d. Are the assessments of uncertainty technically sound and consistent with state-of-the-art approaches currently used in the hydrological sciences? 3. Are the datasets and modeling results adequate for a transition to Corrective Action Unit monitoring studies—the next stage in the UGTA strategy for Frenchman Flat? The peer review team is of the opinion that, with some limitations, the modeling approaches, assumptions, and model results are consistent with the use of modeling studies for resolution of environmental and regulatory requirements. The peer review team further finds that the modeling studies have accounted

  17. Utilization of a Technical Peer Review to Support the Mission of the Nevada Test Site Community Advisory Board

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Dixon, Earle C.; Peterson, Kathleen

    2003-01-01

    The U. S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office (NNSA/NV) Environmental Management (EM) Underground Test Area (UGTA) project addresses the characterization and needs for long-term monitoring of the subsurface contamination resulting from 828 underground nuclear weapon tests at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). EM promotes, and is required, to include stakeholders in its program. However, UGTA is a very complex program not easily understood by members of the public. The NTS Community Advisory Board (CAB), a federally chartered Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB), has studied the UGTA project since 1996, and has found it a challenge to completely comprehend and provide NNSA/NV meaningful citizen input. The CAB realized the benefit of a technical peer review and in 2000 recommended to NNSA/NV that a peer review of the UGTA strategy would provide valuable feedback to the program to address underground contamination at the NTS. N NSA agreed to the CAB's recommendation, and moved forward with a scope of work to have the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) perform the peer review of the UGTA strategy. The ASME began the peer review in June 2001, and their final report was published in November 2001. In January 2002, the CAB devoted their monthly meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada to reporting the results of the peer review of the UGTA strategy to the public. Two public workshops were later held in the community of Amargosa, Nevada during the month of January to help educate and build interest in the CAB February 2002 monthly meeting which was also held in Amargosa. The CAB recommendation to NNSA to utilize a technical peer review has provided valuable information to NNSA, the State of Nevada, and the CAB. At other DOE sites SSABs are challenged by a number of complex, technical programs requiring considerable time and resources for the board to comprehend. It is worth considering the utilization of an independent

  18. "Freud" and Bullitt: an unknown manuscript.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Solms, Mark

    2006-01-01

    An English translation of a previously unknown manuscript by Freud is presented. The manuscript, originally prepared in 1931 for William Bullitt's psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson, provides a general theoretical introduction to psychoanalysis. It also includes an original interpretation of Christianity that postulates a deep-going continuity between Christ identification and latent homosexuality. An editorial introduction to the translation clarifies the nature and limits of Freud's involvement with Bullitt's controversial psychobiography.

  19. Improving Geoscience Learning and Increasing Student Engagement Using Online Interactive Writing Assignments with Calibrated Peer Review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Harbor, Jon

    2014-05-01

    Peer review is a hallmark of the publication process for scientific research, yet it is rarely used as a pedagogical approach in university geoscience courses. Learning outcomes for university geoscience courses include content knowledge and critical thinking and analysis skills, and often include written communication of scientific issues or concepts. Because lecture and memorization is not the most effective learning approach for many students, instructors are increasingly exploring teaching approaches that involve active engagement. In this context, writing assignments that engage students in using content, constructing arguments, and critiquing other students' work are highly desirable. However, many of us struggle with extensive writing requirements in our courses because the workload associated with having the instructor provide detailed comments on writing is daunting, especially in large-enrollment courses, and organizing effective peer review by students is very challenging. Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) is a web-based program that involves students in writing and in reviewing each other's writing. It is designed to allow for more involved writing and feedback experiences with much less instructor time. Here we report on the results of a qualitative-methods analysis of narrative survey responses from students using CPR in an introductory geoscience class. In addition to an impact on the students' writing and their understanding of what goes in to effective writing, the results indicate that CPR acted as reinforcement for content learning, and an impetus for gaining a deeper understanding of content material. It allowed students to see how other students explained and analyzed content, and to check their understanding of a topic in relation to other students in the class. Not surprisingly, the instructor reported that students performed far better on exam questions that tested knowledge covered by CPR assignments.

  20. From abstract to peer-reviewed publication: country matters

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Østergaard, Lauge; Fosbøl, Philip L.; Harrington, Robert A.

    2014-01-01

    Medical conferences are key in the sharing of new scientific findings. However, results reported as conference-abstracts are generally not considered final before publication in a peer-reviewed journal. It is known that approximately 1/3 of the scientific results presented as abstracts at large...... medical conferences are published within 2 years of presentation [1] and [2]. Cardiovascular research has increased substantially in the last decade, and low- and middle-income countries have now a greater share of citations than before [3]. Less is known about the relative difference between countries...

  1. Peer review of HEDR uncertainty and sensitivity analyses plan

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Hoffman, F.O.

    1993-06-01

    This report consists of a detailed documentation of the writings and deliberations of the peer review panel that met on May 24--25, 1993 in Richland, Washington to evaluate your draft report ``Uncertainty/Sensitivity Analysis Plan`` (PNWD-2124 HEDR). The fact that uncertainties are being considered in temporally and spatially varying parameters through the use of alternative time histories and spatial patterns deserves special commendation. It is important to identify early those model components and parameters that will have the most influence on the magnitude and uncertainty of the dose estimates. These are the items that should be investigated most intensively prior to committing to a final set of results.

  2. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Armstrong, April W; Idriss, Shereene Z; Kimball, Alexandra B; Bernhard, Jeffrey D

    2008-04-01

    Submissions to the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (JAAD) undergo a rigorous peer-review process. However, little is known regarding the fate of manuscripts declined by the JAAD. We sought to: (1) determine the proportion of manuscripts declined by the JAAD that are subsequently published elsewhere; (2) identify the journals in which they were published; and (3) study whether the authors of declined manuscripts adopted in their final publications the changes suggested by the JAAD reviewers. We reviewed the outcomes of the 489 submissions declined by the JAAD during two 4-month periods: from March 1, 2004, to June 30, 2004, and from March 1, 2005, to June 30, 2005. Of the 981 manuscripts submitted to JAAD during the two 4-month periods studied, 489 manuscripts (50%) were declined. Among the declined manuscripts, 201 (41%) had been subsequently published in other medical journals as of March 1, 2007. Among the 55 journals that published manuscripts declined by JAAD, 23 (42%) were nondermatology journals. The median impact factor for these 55 journals was 1.638, compared with the JAAD's impact factor of 2.402. Among the declined manuscripts, Case Reports comprised the largest proportion (n = 149, 31%), followed by Original Research Reports (n = 90, 18%). Overall, 46 (51%) rejected Original Research Reports were subsequently published, compared with 145 (36%) rejected submissions in other categories that were later published (P < .01). Among the 101 subsequently published manuscripts for which full texts were available, 82% of the authors incorporated at least one change suggested by the JAAD reviewers. The manuscripts that adopted JAAD-reviewer suggestions were published in journals with higher impact factors than those that did not incorporate any JAAD-reviewer suggestions (P = .0305). It is possible that the average lag time of 28 months in this study is not sufficient for some rejected manuscripts to reach subsequent publication. Approximately half

  3. Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Stephen A Gallo

    Full Text Available Teleconferencing as a setting for scientific peer review is an attractive option for funding agencies, given the substantial environmental and cost savings. Despite this, there is a paucity of published data validating teleconference-based peer review compared to the face-to-face process. Our aim was to conduct a retrospective analysis of scientific peer review data to investigate whether review setting has an effect on review process and outcome measures. We analyzed reviewer scoring data from a research program that had recently modified the review setting from face-to-face to a teleconference format with minimal changes to the overall review procedures. This analysis included approximately 1600 applications over a 4-year period: two years of face-to-face panel meetings compared to two years of teleconference meetings. The average overall scientific merit scores, score distribution, standard deviations and reviewer inter-rater reliability statistics were measured, as well as reviewer demographics and length of time discussing applications. The data indicate that few differences are evident between face-to-face and teleconference settings with regard to average overall scientific merit score, scoring distribution, standard deviation, reviewer demographics or inter-rater reliability. However, some difference was found in the discussion time. These findings suggest that most review outcome measures are unaffected by review setting, which would support the trend of using teleconference reviews rather than face-to-face meetings. However, further studies are needed to assess any correlations among discussion time, application funding and the productivity of funded research projects.

  4. Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Button, Katherine S; Bal, Liz; Clark, Anna; Shipley, Tim

    2016-12-01

    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.

  5. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tomkins, Andrew; Zhang, Min; Heavlin, William D

    2017-11-28

    Peer review may be "single-blind," in which reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of paper authors, or "double-blind," in which this information is hidden. Noting that computer science research often appears first or exclusively in peer-reviewed conferences rather than journals, we study these two reviewing models in the context of the 10th Association for Computing Machinery International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, a highly selective venue (15.6% acceptance rate) in which expert committee members review full-length submissions for acceptance. We present a controlled experiment in which four committee members review each paper. Two of these four reviewers are drawn from a pool of committee members with access to author information; the other two are drawn from a disjoint pool without such access. This information asymmetry persists through the process of bidding for papers, reviewing papers, and entering scores. Reviewers in the single-blind condition typically bid for 22% fewer papers and preferentially bid for papers from top universities and companies. Once papers are allocated to reviewers, single-blind reviewers are significantly more likely than their double-blind counterparts to recommend for acceptance papers from famous authors, top universities, and top companies. The estimated odds multipliers are tangible, at 1.63, 1.58, and 2.10, respectively. Copyright © 2017 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

  6. Nevada Risk Assessment/Management Program scientific peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Bentz, E.J. Jr.; Bentz, C.B.; O'Hora, T.D.; Chen, S.Y.

    1997-01-01

    The 1,350 square-mile Nevada Test Site and additional sites in Nevada served as the continental sites for US nuclear weapons testing from 1951 to 1992. The Nevada Risk Assessment/Management Program (NRAMP) is a currently on-going effort of the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and the firm of E. J. Bentz and Associates, Inc., in cooperation with the US Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management Program. Argonne National Laboratory is one of several public and private organizations supporting personnel appointed by the NRAMP to the NRAMP Scientific Peer Review Panel. The NRAMP is part of a national effort by the DOE to develop new sources of information and approaches to risk assessment, risk management, risk communication, and public outreach relevant to the ecological and human health effects of radioactive and hazardous materials management and site remediation activities. This paper describes the development, conduct, and current results of the scientific peer review process which supports the goals of the NRAMP

  7. Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Liaw, Lucy; Freedman, Jane E; Becker, Lance B; Mehta, Nehal N; Liscum, Laura

    2017-08-04

    The biomedical research enterprise depends on the fair and objective peer review of research grants, leading to the distribution of resources through efficient and robust competitive methods. In the United States, federal funding agencies and foundations collectively distribute billions of dollars annually to support biomedical research. For the American Heart Association, a Peer Review Subcommittee is charged with establishing the highest standards for peer review. This scientific statement reviews the current literature on peer review practices, describes the current American Heart Association peer review process and those of other agencies, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of American Heart Association peer review practices, and recommends best practices for the future. © 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.

  8. How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lee, Alexander D.; Green, Bart N.; Johnson, Claire D.; Nyquist, Julie

    2010-01-01

    Purpose: To describe and discuss the processes used to write scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals and to provide a recommended strategy and book appraisal worksheet to use when conducting book reviews. Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature was conducted in June 2009 using a combination of controlled vocabulary and truncated text words to capture articles relevant to writing scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Results: The initial search identified 839 citations. Following the removal of duplicates and the application of selection criteria, a total of 78 articles were included in this review including narrative commentaries (n = 26), editorials or journal announcements (n = 25), original research (n = 18), and journal correspondence pieces (n = 9). Discussion: Recommendations for planning and writing an objective and quality book review are presented based on the evidence gleaned from the articles reviewed and from the authors' experiences. A worksheet for conducting a book review is provided. Conclusions: The scholarly book review serves many purposes and has the potential to be an influential literary form. The process of publishing a successful scholarly book review requires the reviewer to appreciate the book review publication process and to be aware of the skills and strategies involved in writing a successful review. PMID:20480015

  9. Practical epistemology: the role of peer review in organizing scientific research

    OpenAIRE

    Alexei V. Shestopal; Vladimir I. Konnov

    2014-01-01

    The article considers peer review as the main procedure for demarcating scientific knowledge from other kinds thereof, which do not meet the criteria set for research results. The authors examine the history of peer review, which has first been used in early scientific journals and then has become one of the key approaches to distributing funds for research in science foundations, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation. The article also considers the role of peer review in the legal pro...

  10. Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Barroga, Edward F

    2014-11-01

    Peer review is the pillar of the integrity of science communication. It is often beset with flaws as well as accusations of unreliability and lack of predictive validity. 'Rational cheating' by reviewers is a threat to the validity of peer review. It may diminish the value of good papers by unfavourable appraisals of the reviewers whose own works have lower scientific merits. This article analyzes the mechanics and defects of peer review and focuses on rational cheating in peer review, its implications, and options to restrain it.

  11. Paired peer review of university classroom teaching in a school of nursing and midwifery.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bennett, Paul N; Parker, Steve; Smigiel, Heather

    2012-08-01

    Peer review of university classroom teaching can increase the quality of teaching but is not universally practiced in Australian universities. To report an evaluation of paired peer-review process using both paper and web based teaching evaluation tools. Twenty university teachers in one metropolitan Australian School of Nursing and Midwifery were randomly paired and then randomly assigned to a paper based or web-based peer review tool. Each teacher reviewed each other's classroom teaching as part of a peer review program. The participants then completed an 18 question survey evaluating the peer review tool and paired evaluation process. Responses were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. Regardless of the tool used, participants found this process of peer review positive (75%), collegial (78%), supportive (61%) and non-threatening (71%). Participants reported that the peer review will improve their own classroom delivery (61%), teaching evaluation (61%) and planning (53%). The web-based tool was found to be easier to use and allowed more space than the paper-based tool. Implementation of a web-based paired peer review system can be a positive method of peer review of university classroom teaching. Pairing of teachers to review each other's classroom teaching is a promising strategy and has the potential to improve teaching in teaching universities. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  12. A peer review of the Hanford Site Permanent Isolation Surface Barrier Development Program

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Wing, N.R.

    1992-09-01

    A panel of technical experts was organized to peer review the Hanford Site Permanent Isolation Surface Barrier Development Program (BDP) and to provide a specific review of a preconceptual prototype barrier design initiated during fiscal year (FY) 1990. The technical peer review of the BDP and the prototype is being conducted in three phases, two of which have been completed. This document presents the peer review panel's findings on the first two phases of the peer review process. Biointrusion and water intrusion control are discussed, along with design life, vegetation, and climate impact

  13. Publication Criteria and Recommended Areas of Improvement within School Psychology Journals as Reported by Editors, Journal Board Members, and Manuscript Authors

    Science.gov (United States)

    Albers, Craig A.; Floyd, Randy G.; Fuhrmann, Melanie J.; Martinez, Rebecca S.

    2011-01-01

    Two online surveys were completed by editors, associate editors, editorial board members, and members or fellows of the Division 16 of the American Psychological Association. These surveys targeted (a) the criteria for a manuscript to be published in school psychology journals, and (b) the components of the peer-review process that should be…

  14. Peer review and psychiatric physician fitness for duty evaluations: analyzing the past and forecasting the future.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Meyer, Donald J; Price, Marilyn

    2012-01-01

    In the United States, oversight of health care practitioners is delegated to a matrix of health care entities including but not limited to the state medical board which licenses physicians in the relevant jurisdiction. Typically, these organizations have their own codes of professional conduct. When a physician joins one of these health care organizations, legally the physician has entered into a contract with the organization and agreed to be bound by its regulations and procedures. The organization's peer review of a member physician for reasons of investigating questions of health care quality may require a psychiatric fitness for duty evaluation. That assessment is a forensic psychiatric examination to assist the peer review body much as an expert witness would assist the trier of fact in a criminal or civil law adjudication. Experts can better perform these functions if they are familiar with the legal differences that define these agencies' service under administrative as compared to civil or criminal law and procedures. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  15. Radioactive Waste Isolation in Salt: Peer review of documents dealing with geophysical investigations

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    McGinnis, L.D.; Bowen, R.H.

    1987-03-01

    The Salt Repository Project, a US Department of Energy program to develop a mined repository in salt for high-level radioactive waste, is governed by a complex and sometimes inconsistent array of laws, administrative regulations, guidelines, and position papers. In conducting multidisciplinary peer reviews of contractor documents in support of this project, Argonne National Laboratory has needed to inform its expert reviewers of these governmental mandates, with particular emphasis on the relationship between issues and the technical work undertaken. This report acquaints peer review panelists with the regulatory framework as it affects their reviews of site characterization plans and related documents, including surface-based and underground test plans. Panelists will be asked to consider repository performance objectives and issues as they judge the adequacy of proposed geophysical testing. All site-specific discussions relate to the Deaf Smith County site in Texas, which was approved for site characterization by the President in May 1986. Natural processes active at the Deaf Smith County site and the status of geophysical testing near the site are reviewed briefly. 25 refs., 4 figs., 5 tabs

  16. Execution and results of the National Peer Reviews 2000

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Grauf, E.

    2000-01-01

    In 1998, the operators of German nuclear power plants initiated a 'National Peer Review' pilot project as a program for self-assessment. The project serves to collect data about the status of plant operation of German facilities, and to analyze whether a tool of this kind lends itself to optimizing plant operations management. The national program supplements the international efforts by WANO and IAEA, also with a view to a more effective exchange of operating experience among German plants. Even before the end of the pilot phase, and with three process reviews still to be completed, the results of the reviews conducted up until 2000 have proved this to be an effective tool, as is discussed in this article. The findings are fully accepted by the staff and serve for the preparation of a planned future general self-assessment of German nuclear power plants, where they will be employed as a permanent tool. (orig.) [de

  17. Poor title--poor manuscript?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gjersvik, Petter; Gulbrandsen, Pål; Aasheim, Erlend T; Nylenna, Magne

    2013-12-10

    The title of a scientific article is important for several reasons. Does the title of a manuscript submitted for publication in a medical journal reflect the quality of the manuscript itself? We prepared criteria for poor, fair and good titles and tested them in pilot studies. All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association during the period 1 September 2009-31 August 2011 as original articles (n = 211) or review articles (n = 110) were recorded. The quality of the titles was scored by two former editors. Primary outcome measures were rejection rates and odds ratio for rejection of manuscripts with a poor title compared to those with a good title. For original articles, the rejection rate for manuscripts with a poor, fair or good title amounted to 88%, 73% and 61% (p = 0.002) respectively, and for review articles 83%, 56% and 38% (p title compared to those with a good title was 4.6 (95% CI: 1.7-12.3) for original articles and 8.2 (95% CI: 2.6-26.4) for review articles. In a logistic regression model, the quality of the title explained 14% and 27% of the variance in outcome for original articles and review articles respectively. In this study, a poor manuscript title was significantly associated with manuscript rejection. This indicates that the quality of the title often reflects the quality of the manuscript itself.

  18. The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review

    OpenAIRE

    Morey, Richard D.; Chambers, Christopher D.; Etchells, Peter J.; Harris, Christine R.; Hoekstra, Rink; Lakens, Daniël; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Morey, Candice Coker; Newman, Daniel P.; Schönbrodt, Felix D.; Vanpaemel, Wolf; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan; Zwaan, Rolf A.

    2016-01-01

    Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials, and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability of data for theory-building and meta-analysis, and increased possibility of review and collaboration even after a paper has been published. Although modern information technology makes sharing easier than ever before, uptake of open practices ...

  19. International Nuclear Officials Discuss IAEA Peer Reviews of Nuclear Safety Regulations

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2011-01-01

    Full text: Senior nuclear regulators today concluded a Workshop on the Lessons Learned from the IAEA Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) Missions. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hosted the workshop, in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Washington, DC, from 26 to 28 October 2011. About 60 senior regulators from 22 IAEA Member States took part in this workshop. The IRRS programme is an international peer review service offered by the IAEA to its Member States to provide an objective evaluation of their nuclear safety regulatory framework. The review is based on the internationally recognized IAEA Safety Standards. ''The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission was pleased to host the IAEA's IRRS meeting this week. The discussions over the past three days have provided an important opportunity for regulators from many countries to come together to strengthen the international peer review process,'' said U.S. NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko. ''Especially after the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the global community recognizes that IRRS missions fill a vital role in strengthening nuclear safety and security programs around the world, and we are proud to be a part of this important effort.'' The IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety includes actions focused towards strengthening the existing IAEA peer reviews, incorporating lessons learned and improving their effectiveness. The workshop provided a platform for the exchange of information, experience and lessons learned from the IRRS missions, as well as expectations for the IRRS programme for the near future. Further improvements in the planning and implementation of the IRRS missions in the longer term were discussed. A strong commitment of all relevant national authorities to the IRRS programme was identified as a key element of an effective regulatory framework. The conclusions of the workshop will be issued in November 2011 and the main results will be reported to the IAEA

  20. UMTRA water sampling technical (peer) review: Responses to observations, comments, and recommendations submitted by Don Messinger (Roy F. Weston, Inc.)

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1993-08-01

    An independent technical review (peer review) was conducted during the period of September 15--17, 1992. The review was conducted by C. Warren Ankerberg (Geraghty and Miller, Inc., Tampa, Florida) and Don Messinger (Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania). The review was held at Jacobs Engineering in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and at the Shiprock, New Mexico, site. The peer review included a review of written documentation [water sampling standard operating procedures (SOP)], an inspection of technical reports and other deliverables, a review of staff qualifications and training, and a field visit to evaluate the compliance of field procedures with SOPS. Upon completion of the peer review, each reviewer independently prepared a report of findings from the review. The reports listed findings and recommended actions. This document responds to the observations, comments, and recommendations submitted by Don Messinger following his review. The format of this document is to present the findings and recommendations verbatim from Mr. Messinger's report, followed by responses from the UMTRA Project staff. Included in the responses from the UMTRA Project staff are recommended changes in SOPs and strategies for implementing the charges

  1. IPERS guidelines for the international peer review service. Second edition. Procedures for conducting independent peer reviews of probabilistic safety assessments

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1995-10-01

    This publication describes the purposes and the objectives of an International Peer Review Service (IPERS) review. The main objective is first to assess whether important technological and methodological issues in the PSA are treated in an adequate manner and, second, whether specific conclusions and applications of the PSA are supported by the underlying technical analysis in an appropriate way. An important aspect for an IPERS review is the communication and exchange of views between the international experts carrying out the review and the members of the PSA team. This TECDOC is intended to give guidance on how an IPERS review is organized and conducted, it describes the steps needed to prepare the review and it highlights the PSA aspects which should be covered in detail. 30 refs, 1 fig., 2 tabs

  2. Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sims, Gerald K.

    1989-01-01

    A peer review process similar to that used by scientific journals which can be applied to class work is presented. Stressed is the advantage of using peer review when writing skills are a priority but instructor time is limited. Guidelines and examples of comments are provided. (CW)

  3. Doing Peer Review and Receiving Feedback: Impact on Scientific Literacy and Writing Skills

    Science.gov (United States)

    Geithner, Christina A.; Pollastro, Alexandria N.

    2016-01-01

    Doing peer review has been effectively implemented to help students develop critical reading and writing skills; however, its application in Human Physiology programs is limited. The purpose of the present study was to determine the impact of peer review on Human Physiology majors' perceptions of their scientific literacy and writing skills.…

  4. Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction: Implications for the peer-review process

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    van der Heyden, M. A. G.; van de Ven, T. Derks; Opthof, T.

    2009-01-01

    Scientific misconduct and fraud occur in science. The (anonymous) peer review process serves as goalkeeper of scientific quality rather than scientific integrity. In this brief paper we describe some limitations of the peer-review process. We describe the catastrophic facts of the 'Woo-Suk Hwang

  5. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400... STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research...

  6. Preparing English Learners for Effective Peer Review in the Writers' Workshop

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kim, Soo Hyon

    2015-01-01

    English Language Learners (ELLs) often face challenges when participating in peer review activities in writers' workshops. This article identifies some of the potential difficulties that ELL writers may experience, and provides teachers with strategies to address these problems. The author describes a simple three-step peer review training model…

  7. A Peer Review Training Workshop: Coaching Students to Give and Evaluate Peer Feedback

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lam, Ricky

    2010-01-01

    Trained peer review, as illustrated in a plethora of peer review or peer response scholarship, has a positive effect on students' writing in general and on improved revision quality in particular (Berg, 1999; Hu, 2005; Min, 2006; Paulus, 1999; Stanley, 1992). From these studies, it is evident that trained peer feedback does have a significant role…

  8. 32 CFR 199.15 - Quality and utilization review peer review organization program.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... relating to the administration and management of CHAMPUS in that the Peer Review Organization program is... model. The CHAMPUS Quality and Utilization Review Peer Review Organization program, based on specific.... Application of these objectives in the context of hospital services covered by the DRG-based payment system...

  9. Two decades of external peer review of cancer care in general hospitals; the Dutch experience

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Kilsdonk, Melvin; Siesling, Sabine; Otter, R.; van Harten, Willem H.

    2015-01-01

    External peer review was introduced in general hospitals in the Netherlands in 1994 to assess and improve the multidisciplinary team approach in cancer care. This paper aims to explore the value, perceived impact, and (future) role of external peer review in cancer care. Semistructured interviews

  10. Guidelines for peer review. Veterans Administration Ad Hoc Interdisciplinary Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Drug Usage.

    Science.gov (United States)

    1977-03-07

    Eigteen guideline-audits of antimicrobial usage have been prepared for use by hospital staffs for peer review. They may also be used as a national standard to assess the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents in hospitals. It is hoped that the guidelines will stimulate wide discussion and national peer review and will ultimately result in improved care of patients with infectious disease.

  11. Applying Peer Reviews in Software Engineering Education: An Experiment and Lessons Learned

    Science.gov (United States)

    Garousi, V.

    2010-01-01

    Based on the demonstrated value of peer reviews in the engineering industry, numerous industry experts have listed it at the top of the list of desirable development practices. Experience has shown that problems (defects) are eliminated earlier if a development process incorporates peer reviews and that these reviews are as effective as or even…

  12. An evidence based protocol for peer review of radiographer musculoskeletal plain film reporting

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Stephenson, Paul; Hannah, April; Jones, Helen; Edwards, Rosemary; Harrington, Kate; Baker, Sally-Anne; Fitzgerald, Nicole; Belfield, Jane

    2012-01-01

    Aims: Medical image interpretation by non-medically trained staff continues to court controversy. This article aims to show that any potential risks associated with radiographer reporting can be monitored and mitigated if a robust peer review system is introduced. A search of the evidence base illustrates a paucity of guidance on how reporting radiographers should be audited or how a peer review process should be implemented. A practical framework for designing a reporting radiographer peer review process is provided. Methods: Following a literature review, key issues faced when designing a peer review protocol were identified. The following questions are answered: How frequent should peer review take place? How many reports should be reviewed? How are reports selected for review? Who should peer review the radiographer reports? How should radiographer's reporting performance be measured? What standard of reporting is acceptable? Results: Details are provided of the process that has been used for over three years at a busy inner-city teaching hospital for auditing musculoskeletal plain film radiographer reporting. The peer review method presented is not intended to produce robust statistical data; it is a practical method of locally assessing the reporting competency. As such, our protocol should be viewed as part of a larger programme for continuing professional development. Conclusion: It is hoped that this practical protocol will encourage radiology departments to engage in a programme of peer review for reporting radiographers.

  13. 76 FR 4113 - Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Meeting on an In Vitro

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-24

    ... Toxicological Methods (NICEATM); Announcement of an Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Meeting on an In... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Meeting on an In Vitro Estrogen Receptor Transcriptional Activation Test Method for Endocrine Disruptor Chemical...

  14. 33 CFR 385.22 - Independent scientific review and external peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters 3 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Independent scientific review and external peer review. 385.22 Section 385.22 Navigation and Navigable Waters CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT... peer reviewed. (3) In accordance with § 385.31(b), draft assessment reports prepared for the adaptive...

  15. The Effectiveness of Peer Review of Teaching When Performed between Early-Career Academics

    Science.gov (United States)

    Woodman, Richard J.; Parappilly, Maria B.

    2015-01-01

    The success of peer review of teaching (PRT) in shaping teaching practice during an academic's formative years may depend on the peers' teaching experience and the frequency of evaluation. Two Australian early-career University lecturers with no previous experience of peer review performed a single PRT on one another following a one week academic…

  16. Using Peer Reviews to Examine Micropolitics and Disciplinary Development of Engineering Education: A Case Study

    Science.gov (United States)

    Beddoes, Kacey

    2014-01-01

    This article presents a case study of the peer review process for a feminist article submitted to an engineering education journal. It demonstrates how an examination of peer review can be a useful approach to further understanding the development of feminist thought in education fields. Rather than opposition to feminist thought per se, my…

  17. Peer Feedback in Anonymous Peer Review in an EFL Writing Class in Spain

    Science.gov (United States)

    Coté, Robert A.

    2014-01-01

    The present study reports the results of a process of peer feedback through anonymous peer review in an EFL writing class. Numerous studies have reported on the benefits of peer review (PR) in the ESL/EFL writing classroom. However, the literature also identifies social issues that can negatively affect the outcome of face-to-face PR. In this…

  18. Academic Excellence: A Commentary and Reflections on the Inherent Value of Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Roberts, Thomas J.; Shambrook, Jennifer

    2012-01-01

    Academic peer review is widely viewed as fair, equitable, and essential to academic quality. Successfully completing the process through publication or award is widely deemed as one of the most rigorous and prestigious forms of scholarly accomplishment. Despite this sentiment the academic peer review process is not without fault. It is criticized…

  19. Effectiveness of Guided Peer Review of Student Essays in a Large Undergraduate Biology Course

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kelly, Lauren

    2015-01-01

    Instructors and researchers often consider peer review an integral part of the writing process, providing myriad benefits for both writers and reviewers. Few empirical studies, however, directly address the relationship between specific methodological changes and peer review effectiveness, especially outside the composition classroom. To…

  20. Controversies surrounding authorship of manuscripts by industry employees: academic and industry perspectives.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Smilowitz, Nathaniel R; Ferguson, James J; Weisz, Giora

    2018-03-20

    The medical device and pharmaceutical industries play an essential role in the development of cardiovascular devices and drugs, and industry employees are frequently listed as co-authors of clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals. Potential conflicts of interest in biomedical research have attracted significant attention in recent years, but issues and challenges surrounding authors who are industry employees have not received nearly as much scrutiny. We present a comprehensive discussion of the concerns and challenges regarding the role of industry in the authorship of scientific manuscripts. Academic co-authors, industry employees, the editors of medical journals, and, most importantly, readers, need to consider the perception and implications that accompany industry employee authorship. Potential concerns include the effect of industry authors (and industry support) on study design, data analysis, interpretations, conclusions, and, ultimately, scientific content. Meaningful contributions from industry employees must be acknowledged and reported in scientific and clinical publications. Efforts to provide full transparency on industry support and the role of industry contributors are necessary to maintain confidence in the reports of studies with industry involvement.

  1. Some new medical manuscripts from Moscow.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Langermann, Y T

    Among the approximately two thousand manuscripts of the Guenzburg collection at Moscow which have recently been filmed on behalf of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, about three dozen contain medical treatises. Of these, six display works of singular importance whose existence and contents have not yet been brought to the attention of scholars. The purpose of this article is to describe these new materials in some detail. We shall provide a full account of all six codices, but we shall give the most attention, including ample quotations, to the new materials.

  2. The peer-review system: time for re-assessment?

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Larsen, Poul Scheel; Riisgard, H. U.; Quinn, G

    2000-01-01

    Referees are the backbone of quality control. They need more recognition for their work. In an open exchange of opinions among a number of leading editors and experienced reviewers one suggestion has wide support: It should no longer be 'free' to submit a manuscript to a scientific journal. While...

  3. Peer review for high-level nuclear waste repositories: Generic technical position

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Altman, W.D.; Donnelly, J.P.; Kennedy, J.E.

    1988-02-01

    This document provides guidance on the use of the peer review process in the high-level nuclear waste repository program. The applicant must demonstrate in the license application that the applicable health, safety, and environmental regulations in 10 CFR Part 60 have been met. Confidence in the data used to support the license application is obtained through a quality assurance (AQ) program. Peer reviews may be used as part of the QA actions necessary to provide adequate confidence in the work being reviewed. Because of several unique conditions inherent to the geologic repository program, expert judgment will need to be utilized in assessing the adequacy of work. Peer reviews are a mechanism by which these judgments may be made. This document provides guidance on areas where a peer review is appropriate, the acceptability of peers, and the conduct and documentation of a peer review

  4. Technology-Enhanced Peer Review: Benefits and Implications of Providing Multiple Reviews

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Papadopoulos, Pantelis M.; Lagkas, Thomas D.; Demetriadis, Stavros N.

    2017-01-01

    This study analyses the impact of self and peer feedback in technology-enhanced peer review settings. The impact of receiving peer comments (“receiver” perspective) is compared to that of reaching own insights by reviewing others’ work (“giver” perspective). In this study, 38 sophomore students w...... systems that aim to flexibly support more efficient peer review schemes.......This study analyses the impact of self and peer feedback in technology-enhanced peer review settings. The impact of receiving peer comments (“receiver” perspective) is compared to that of reaching own insights by reviewing others’ work (“giver” perspective). In this study, 38 sophomore students...... were randomly assigned in two conditions and engaged in peer review activity facilitated by a web-based learning environment asking them to provide multiple reviews. In the Peer Reviewed (PR) condition students both reviewed peer work and received peer comments for their own work. By contrast...

  5. Peer Review of Teaching: Best Practices for a Non-Programmatic Approach

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jaena Alabi

    2014-12-01

    Full Text Available Many academic librarians who provide library instruction have never received formal training in educational theory and methods. In an effort to bridge this gap and improve the teaching skills of instruction librarians, some academic libraries have established peer review of teaching programs. Despite the recognized benefits of peer review, it may not be feasible for every library to establish such a program. In an effort to aid those who are interested in peer review, but who may not be able to participate in a formal program, the authors identify the principles of peer review that can be applied on a non-programmatic basis. Six areas of best practice are described: establishing an environment of trust, respect, and confidentiality; selecting a suitable partner for the process; communicating with a peer reviewer; focusing on specific aspects of teaching where feedback is desired; making time for the process; and preparing oneself to accept criticism.

  6. Technology-Enhanced Peer Review: Benefits and Implications of Providing Multiple Reviews

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Papadopoulos, Pantelis M.; Lagkas, Thomas D.; Demetriadis, Stavros N.

    2017-01-01

    were randomly assigned in two conditions and engaged in peer review activity facilitated by a web-based learning environment asking them to provide multiple reviews. In the Peer Reviewed (PR) condition students both reviewed peer work and received peer comments for their own work. By contrast......, in the Self Reviewed (SR) condition students provided peer reviews, but did not receive any. Instead, they were asked to perform self reviewing, before proceeding to any revisions of their work. Result showed that the two groups were comparable in all aspects, suggesting that the lack of getting peer reviews......This study analyses the impact of self and peer feedback in technology-enhanced peer review settings. The impact of receiving peer comments (“receiver” perspective) is compared to that of reaching own insights by reviewing others’ work (“giver” perspective). In this study, 38 sophomore students...

  7. Characteristics of potential repository wastes. Peer review report for revision 1 of DOE/RW-0184

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Cowart, C. G.; Notz, K. J.

    1992-10-01

    This report presents the results of a fully documented peer review of DOE/RW-0184, Rev. 1, ''Characteristics of Potential Repository Wastes''. The peer review was chaired and administered by oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) and was conducted in accordance with OCRWM QA procedure QAAP 3.3 Peer Review for the purpose of quailing the document for use in OCRWM quality-affecting work. The peer reviewers selected represent a wide range of experience and knowledge particularly suitable for evaluating the subject matter. A total of 596 formal comments were documented by the seven peer review panels, and all were successfully resolved. The peers reached the conclusion that DOE/RW-0184, Rev. 1, is quality determined and suitable for use in quality-affecting work.

  8. [Quality Assurance in Sociomedical Evaluation by Peer Review: A Pilot Project of the German Statutory Pension Insurance].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Strahl, A; Gerlich, C; Wolf, H-D; Gehrke, J; Müller-Garnn, A; Vogel, H

    2016-03-01

    The sociomedical evaluation by the German Pension Insurance serves the purpose of determining entitlement to disability pensions. A quality assurance concept for the sociomedical evaluation was developed, which is based on a peer Review process. Peer review is an established process of external quality assurance in health care. The review is based on a hierarchically constructed manual that was evaluated in this pilot project. The database consists of 260 medical reports for disability pension of 12 pension insurance agencies. 771 reviews from 19 peers were included in the evaluation of the inter-rater reliability. Kendall's coefficient of concordance W for more than 2 raters is used as primary measure of inter-rater reliability. Reliability appeared to be heterogeneous. Kendalls W varies for the particular criteria from 0.09 to 0.88 and reached for primary criterion reproducibility a value of 0.37. The reliability of the manual seemed acceptable in the context of existing research data and is in line with existing peer review research outcomes. Nevertheless, the concordance is limited and requires optimisation. Starting points for improvement can be seen in a systematic training and regular user meetings of the peers involved. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

  9. Rate and predictors of the conversion of abstracts presented at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress scientific meetings to full peer-reviewed publications.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Abuzeid, Wael; Fosbøl, Emil L; Fosbøl, Philip L; Fosbøl, Marie; Zarinehbaf, Sanaz; Ross, Heather; Ko, Dennis T; Bennell, Maria C; Wijeysundera, Harindra C

    2013-11-01

    The rate of conversion of abstracts presented at scientific meetings into peer-reviewed published manuscripts is an important metric for medical societies, because it facilitates translation of scientific knowledge into practice. We determined the rate and predictors of conversion of scientific abstracts presented at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress (CCC) from 2006 to 2010 into peer-reviewed article publications within 2 years of their initial presentation. Using a previously validated computer algorithm, we searched the International Statistical Institute Web of Science to identify peer-reviewed full manuscript publications of these abstracts. A multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent factors associated with successful publication. From 2006 to 2010, 3565 abstracts were presented at the CCC. Overall 24.1% of presented abstracts were published within 2 years of the conference. Mean impact factor for publications was 5.2 (range, 0.4-53.2). The type of presentation (for poster vs oral; odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.83; P < 0.001) and category of presentation (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with successful publication. Late breaking abstracts and those related to cancer and clinical sciences were more likely to be published, compared with prevention, vascular biology, and pediatrics. In conclusion, the publication rate at the CCC is only marginally lower than that reported for large international North American and European cardiology conferences (30.6%). Efforts should focus on several identified barriers to improve conversion of abstracts to full report publication. Copyright © 2013 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  10. The peer review gap: A longitudinal case study of gendered publishing and occupational patterns in a female-rich discipline, Western North America (1974-2016.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Shannon Tushingham

    Full Text Available Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that women continue to be underrepresented in publication output in the sciences. This is true even in female-rich fields such as archaeology. Since most gender-related publication studies rely on data from peer-reviewed journals, it would be instructive, though challenging, to also track publication output in non-refereed and professional or industry venues, which tend to be more accessible to those working in extra-academic settings. This comparison is important in fields such as archaeology in which the vast majority (approximately 90% of practitioners in the USA work for private sector cultural resource management firms and federal and state agencies. To understand the dynamics of who publishes where, we compiled a new dataset tracking over 40 years of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed publications that publish articles on the archaeology of California (an American Indian cultural area including southwest Oregon, most of the state of California, and Baja Mexico and the Great Basin culture area (spanning eight western USA states. Historic gender differences in the publishing output of authors identified as men versus those identified as women were revealed by articles published between 1974 and 2016 in two refereed journals, the Journal of California Anthropology/ Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology and California Archaeology, and in one un-refereed venue, the Society for California Archaeology Proceedings. Although multiple independent measures indicate that women are contributing and active members of the discipline, publishing records yield more variable results. Specifically, while women have historic and increasingly robust levels of participation in the non-peer-reviewed Proceedings, they remain vastly underrepresented in the two peer-reviewed journals, which are widely regarded as more prestigious and influential. We argue that this "peer review gap" is influenced by

  11. Atomic Questions Group peer review mission to Bulgaria

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Vapirev, E.; Georgiev, J.; Sabinov, S.

    2004-01-01

    The objective of the Atomic Questions Group (AQG) peer review mission (17-19 Nov 2003) was to monitor the status of the recommendations contained in the 2001 Report on Nuclear Safety in the Context of Enlargement focusing specifically those recommendations identified in the 2002 Peer Review Status Report as requiring further attention or monitoring. Most AQG/WPNS 2001 recommendations were found as adequately addressed with the exception of the following to which Bulgaria was expected to devote further attention: 2nd General Recommendation NPP type I regarding Safety Analysis Reports (SARs); 1st Specific Recommendation NPP type I regarding the new nuclear legislation; 1st General Recommendation Other Nuclear Installations type II regarding the storage of radioactive waste. In addition WPNS recommended further monitoring of the following commitments: 1st General Recommendation NPP type I regarding the plant specific safety improvement programmes - to ensure that the programmes are completed in accordance with the plans; 2nd General Recommendation NPP type I regarding Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) - to ensure that the SARs are completed in accordance with the plans; 2nd General Recommendation NPP type I regarding Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) - to ensure the completion of work on EOPs in accordance with the plans and so that these provide for the development of appropriate guidance on the management of beyond design basis accidents; 2nd Specific Recommendation NPP type I regarding the resources of the regulator - to ensure that adequate human and financial resources will be provided according to the developed plan; 5th Specific Recommendation NPP type I regarding the implementation of specific upgrading improvements at Kozloduy units 3 and 4- to specifically follow these items during the monitoring associated with 1st General recommendation NPP type I, Upgrading programme; 6th Specific Recommendation NPP type I regarding high-energy pipe breaks at Kozloduy

  12. Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rigby, John

    2013-01-01

    A small number of studies have sought to establish that research papers with more funding acknowledgements achieve higher impact and have claimed that such a link exists because research supported by more funding bodies undergoes more peer review. In this paper, a test of this link is made using recently available data from the Web of Science, a source of bibliographic data that now includes funding acknowledgements. The analysis uses 3,596 papers from a single year, 2009, and a single journal, the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Analysis of this data using OLS regression and two ranks tests reveals the link between count of funding acknowledgements and high impact papers to be statistically significant, but weak. It is concluded that count of funding acknowledgements should not be considered a reliable indicator of research impact at this level. Relatedly, indicators based on assumptions that may hold true at one level of analysis may not be appropriate at other levels.

  13. Correct machine learning on protein sequences: a peer-reviewing perspective.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Walsh, Ian; Pollastri, Gianluca; Tosatto, Silvio C E

    2016-09-01

    Machine learning methods are becoming increasingly popular to predict protein features from sequences. Machine learning in bioinformatics can be powerful but carries also the risk of introducing unexpected biases, which may lead to an overestimation of the performance. This article espouses a set of guidelines to allow both peer reviewers and authors to avoid common machine learning pitfalls. Understanding biology is necessary to produce useful data sets, which have to be large and diverse. Separating the training and test process is imperative to avoid over-selling method performance, which is also dependent on several hidden parameters. A novel predictor has always to be compared with several existing methods, including simple baseline strategies. Using the presented guidelines will help nonspecialists to appreciate the critical issues in machine learning. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

  14. The AIRInforma experiment: peer-reviewed public dissemination of science in Italy

    Science.gov (United States)

    Forneris, Federico; Cassetta, Luca; Gravina, Teresita

    2015-04-01

    Public dissemination of science to the public is often negatively affected by biased, incorrect information distributed over the world wide web through social networks and weblogs. In Italy, the lack of correct scientific information has generated several important issues, raising concerns by the international scientific community in several occasions over the past five years. Our association AIRIcerca (International Association of Italian Researchers, http://www.airicerca.org) has recently started a novel scientific dissemination initiative to the general public in Italy. The project is based on 1) direct involvement of researchers (with accademic or industrial affiliation) in article preparation and publication and 2) introduction of a peer-reviewing system similar to that applied in conventional scientific publishing. Our initiative, named AIRInforma (http://informa.airicerca.org) has already published more than 10 original articles and 3 meeting reports, in Italian language, about various fields of scientific research, ranging from social sciences to evolutionary biology , mathematics and medicine . The editorial board is composed of approximately 20 Italian scientists working all over the world and voluntarily contributing to the AIRInforma initiative. Submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial board and, if suitable, they are assigned to four non-anonymous reviewers selected by the editorial board for accurate evaluation. Two reviewers are selected based on their specific expertise on the topic presented in the manuscript (expert reviewers), and two are specifically selected as working on distant fields (naive reviewers). The purpose of naive reviewers is to provide feedback on the efficacy and clarity of the information for the general public. So far, AIRInforma has established a novel channel of scientific communication in Italy, receiving excellent feedback and reaching more than 8000 new unique visitors every month on our website and

  15. The dynamics of writing and peer review at primary school

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jacques Crinon

    2012-11-01

    Full Text Available The object of this research is a learning method that uses email correspondence to promote the development of narrative writing skills in year 4 and year 5 students. Focusing on the written production of episodes of adventure novels and peer review, this learning method was applied to four classes in the Paris region over a 1-year period. The classes were paired in such a way that some students were required to read and analyze texts produced by correspondents (advice givers while others carried out revisions using peer advice and suggestions (advice receivers. To describe the dynamics of writing, revision and learning, a qualitative analysis of the texts and suggestions given or received by the student partners is carried out. A statistical analysis comparing the texts produced by students in both groups is used to corroborate the findings of the initial analysis. Students showed an increasing awareness and consideration of the key characteristics of the practiced genre, resulting in an improvement of the quality of the texts in the course of the revision process and throughout the year. The texts produced by the advice givers improved more than the texts produced by the advice receivers. The findings are attributed to greater self-reflection and successive reformulations fostered by the elaboration of advice and suggestions.

  16. A short guide to peer-reviewed, MEDLINE-indexed complementary and alternative medicine journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Morgan, Sherry; Littman, Lynn; Palmer, Christina; Singh, Gurneet; LaRiccia, Patrick J

    2012-01-01

    Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) comprises a multitude of disciplines, for example, acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, biofeedback, herbal medicine, and homeopathic medicine. While research on CAM interventions has increased and the CAM literature has proliferated since the mid-1990s, a number of our colleagues have expressed difficulties in deciding where to publish CAM articles. In response, we created a short guide to peer-reviewed MEDLINE-indexed journals that publish CAM articles. We examined numerous English-language sources to identify titles that met our criteria, whether specific to or overlapping CAM. A few of the resources in which we found the journal titles that we included are Alternative Medicine Foundation, American Holistic Nurses Association, CINAHL/Nursing Database, Journal Citation Reports database, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Research Council for Complementary Medicine. We organized the 69 selected titles for easy use by creating 2 user-friendly tables, one listing titles in alphabetical order and one listing them in topical categories. A few examples of the topical categories are Acupuncture, CAM (general), Chinese Medicine, Herbal/Plant/Phytotherapy, Neuroscience/Psychology, Nursing/Clinical Care. Our study is the first to list general CAM journals, specialty CAM journals, and overlapping mainstream journals that are peer reviewed, in English, and indexed in MEDLINE. Our goal was to assist both authors seeking publication and mainstream journal editors who receive an overabundance of publishable articles but must recommend that authors seek publication elsewhere due to space and priority issues. Publishing in journals indexed by and included in MEDLINE (or PubMed) ensures that citations to articles will be found easily. Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

  17. Implementing Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) in a Large-lecture Science Course

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ward, A. S.; Bettis, E. A., III; Russell, J. E.; Van Horne, S.; Sipola, M.; Rocheford, M. K.; Colombo, M. R.

    2014-12-01

    Assessing writing assignments and providing students the opportunity to meaningfully revise the assignments are challenging for instructors of large enrollment science classes. We included two individual writing assignments and peer assessments as part of course assessment for a large Introduction to Environmental Science course. In order to facilitate the assessment, Calibrated Peer Review (CPR), a web-based application developed by UCLA that enables frequent writing assignments in any discipline and with any class size, was adopted. The CPR assignment process involved four steps: submitting a writing assignment, calibrating each student's review skills, reviewing peers' writing, and assessing one's own writing assignment (self-assessment). A rubric was provided to guide students through each writing assignment and the same rubric was used in calibration, review, and self-assessment scoring. Once the instructors uploaded the writing prompts, rubrics, sample writings and answer keys into the CPR system, the CPR software fully directed all student activity (writing assignment submission, calibrations, reviews, and self-assessment). Students were able to view their results within the CPR program, including their self-calibration scores, reviewing scores, peers' ratings and feedback, total earned scores, and self-assessment scores. Surveys independently administered at the conclusion of the CPR assignments indicated that sixty to seventy-five percent of the students perceived that CPR was helpful in their learning, improved their writing and evaluation skills, and that the process of reviewing other students' essays and their own essays was more helpful than the comments received from peers. These survey results are in agreement with the well-established educational research literature that shows the benefits of peer review and peer assessment to student learning. Our experience with CPR in a large enrollment science course indicates that thoughtful planning of the

  18. Perceptions of conflict of interest disclosures among peer reviewers.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Suzanne Lippert

    Full Text Available BACKGROUND: Disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (COI is intended to help reviewers assess the impact of potential bias on the validity of research results; however, there have been no empiric assessments of how reviewers understand and use disclosures in article evaluation. We investigate reviewers' perceptions of potential bias introduced by particular author disclosures, and whether reviewer characteristics are associated with a greater likelihood of perceiving bias. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of the 911 active reviewers from the Annals of Emergency Medicine, 410 were randomly selected and invited to complete our web-based, 3-part survey. We completed descriptive analysis of all survey responses and compared those responses across reviewer characteristics using 2 × 2 analyses and the Fisher exact test. We had a response rate of 54%. The majority of reviewers surveyed reported a high level of skepticism regarding financial relationships between authors and industry without a clear or consistent translation of that skepticism into the self-reported actions that characterize manuscript assessment. Only 13% of respondents believed physician consultants authoring articles based on company data are likely to have unlimited data access. 54% believed that bias most likely exists with any honorarium, regardless of monetary amount. Between 46% and 64%, depending on the type of financial relationship disclosed, reported that their recommendation for publication remains unchanged. Respondents reporting personal financial ties to industry were less likely to perceive bias in industry relationships and less likely to believe that bias exists with any monetary amount of honoraria. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that the monetary amount of all financial relationships be reported with manuscript submissions, lead authors certify that they have unrestricted access to data, and reviewers disclose any financial ties to industry whether or not they are

  19. Addressing Clinical Faculty Need: Creating a Process and Evaluation for Peer Review of Practice

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jean Y. Moon

    2014-01-01

    Full Text Available Objectives: To describe the evolving process and evaluate the perceived value of peer review for clinical faculty. Methods: Using a 5-point Likert scale, clinical faculty rated the value of an electronic peer review process by completing an electronic 30 item survey across six areas of clinical faculty practice-related activity. Based on feedback, modifications were made and faculty were re-surveyed the following year. Results: Initially, 78% of faculty found peer review to be beneficial, mostly in the area of practice development and portions of practice dissemination. After modifications, 45% found peer review to be beneficial. Conclusions: Clinical faculty are challenged to leverage their practice into teaching and scholarly activities; however, clinical faculty often need feedback to accomplish this. Although the peer review process was designed to address perceived needs of clinical faculty, the process is dynamic and needs further refinement. Overall, clinical faculty find value in a peer review process. This evaluation of peer review illustrates the challenges to provide feedback across six key areas of clinical faculty activity.   Type: Original Research

  20. Information Quality in Regulatory Decision Making: Peer Review versus Good Laboratory Practice.

    Science.gov (United States)

    McCarty, Lynn S; Borgert, Christopher J; Mihaich, Ellen M

    2012-07-01

    There is an ongoing discussion on the provenance of toxicity testing data regarding how best to ensure its validity and credibility. A central argument is whether journal peer-review procedures are superior to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards employed for compliance with regulatory mandates. We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards. We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations. Some contend that peer review is a coherent, consistent evaluative procedure providing quality control for experimental data generation, analysis, and reporting sufficient to reliably establish relative merit, whereas GLP is seen as merely a tracking process designed to thwart investigator corruption. This view is not supported by published analyses pointing to subjectivity and variability in peer-review processes. Although GLP is not designed to establish relative merit, it is an internationally accepted quality assurance, quality control method for documenting experimental conduct and data. Neither process is completely sufficient for establishing relative scientific soundness. However, changes occurring both in peer-review processes and in regulatory guidance resulting in clearer, more transparent communication of scientific information point to an emerging convergence in ensuring information quality. The solution to determining relative merit lies in developing a well-documented, generally accepted weight-of-evidence scheme to evaluate both peer-reviewed and GLP information used in regulatory decision making where both merit and specific relevance inform the process.

  1. Two decades of external peer review of cancer care in general hospitals; the Dutch experience.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kilsdonk, Melvin J; Siesling, Sabine; Otter, Rene; van Harten, Wim H

    2016-03-01

    External peer review was introduced in general hospitals in the Netherlands in 1994 to assess and improve the multidisciplinary team approach in cancer care. This paper aims to explore the value, perceived impact, and (future) role of external peer review in cancer care. Semistructured interviews were held with clinicians, oncology nurses, and managers from fifteen general hospitals that participated in three rounds of peer review over a period of 16 years. Interviewees reflected on the goals and expectations, experiences, perceived impact, and future role of external peer review. Transcriptions of the interviews were coded to discover recurrent themes. Improving clinical care and organization were the main motives for participation. Positive impact was perceived on multiple aspects of care such as shared responsibilities, internal prioritization of cancer care, improved communication, and a clear structure and position of cancer care within general hospitals. Establishing a direct relationship between the external peer review and organizational or clinical impact proved to be difficult. Criticism was raised on the content of the program being too theoretical and organization-focussed after three rounds. According to most stakeholders, external peer review can improve multidisciplinary team work in cancer care; however, the acceptance is threatened by a perceived disbalance between effort and visible clinical impact. Leaner and more clinically focused programs are needed to keep repeated peer reviews challenging and worthwhile. © 2015 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  2. Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Steinhauser, Georg; Adlassnig, Wolfram; Risch, Jesaka Ahau; Anderlini, Serena; Arguriou, Petros; Armendariz, Aaron Zolen; Bains, William; Baker, Clark; Barnes, Martin; Barnett, Jonathan; Baumgartner, Michael; Baumgartner, Thomas; Bendall, Charles A; Bender, Yvonne S; Bichler, Max; Biermann, Teresa; Bini, Ronaldo; Blanco, Eduardo; Bleau, John; Brink, Anthony; Brown, Darin; Burghuber, Christopher; Calne, Roy; Carter, Brian; Castaño, Cesar; Celec, Peter; Celis, Maria Eugenia; Clarke, Nicky; Cockrell, David; Collins, David; Coogan, Brian; Craig, Jennifer; Crilly, Cal; Crowe, David; Csoka, Antonei B; Darwich, Chaza; Del Kebos, Topiciprin; Derinaldi, Michele; Dlamini, Bongani; Drewa, Tomasz; Dwyer, Michael; Eder, Fabienne; de Palma, Raúl Ehrichs; Esmay, Dean; Rött, Catherine Evans; Exley, Christopher; Falkov, Robin; Farber, Celia Ingrid; Fearn, William; Felsmann, Sophie; Flensmark, Jarl; Fletcher, Andrew K; Foster, Michaela; Fountoulakis, Kostas N; Fouratt, Jim; Blanca, Jesus Garcia; Sotelo, Manuel Garrido; Gittler, Florian; Gittler, Georg; Gomez, Juan; Gomez, Juan F; Polar, Maria Grazia Gonzales; Gonzalez, Jossina; Gösselsberger, Christoph; Habermacher, Lynn; Hajek, Michael; Hakala, Faith; Haliburton, Mary-Sue; Hankins, John Robert; Hart, Jason; Hasslberger, Sepp; Hennessey, Donalyn; Herrmann, Andrea; Hersee, Mike; Howard, Connie; Humphries, Suzanne; Isharc, Laeeth; Ivanovski, Petar; Jenuth, Stephen; Jerndal, Jens; Johnson, Christine; Keleta, Yonas; Kenny, Anna; Kidd, Billie; Kohle, Fritz; Kolahi, Jafar; Koller-Peroutka, Marianne; Kostova, Lyubov; Kumar, Arunachalam; Kurosawa, Alejandro; Lance, Tony; Lechermann, Michael; Lendl, Bernhard; Leuchters, Michael; Lewis, Evan; Lieb, Edward; Lloyd, Gloria; Losek, Angelika; Lu, Yao; Maestracci, Saadia; Mangan, Dennis; Mares, Alberto W; Barnett, Juan Mazar; McClain, Valerie; McNair, John Sydney; Michael, Terry; Miller, Lloyd; Monzani, Partizia; Moran, Belen; Morris, Mike; Mößmer, Georg; Mountain, Johny; Phuthe, Onnie Mary Moyo; Muñoz, Marcos; Nakken, Sheri; Wambui, Anne Nduta; Neunteufl, Bettina; Nikolić, Dimitrije; Oberoi, Devesh V; Obmode, Gregory; Ogar, Laura; Ohara, Jo; Rybine, Naion Olej; Owen, Bryan; Owen, Kim Wilson; Parikh, Rakesh; Pearce, Nicholas J G; Pemmer, Bernhard; Piper, Chris; Prince, Ian; Reid, Terence; Rindermann, Heiner; Risch, Stefan; Robbins, Josh; Roberts, Seth; Romero, Ajeandro; Rothe, Michael Thaddäus; Ruiz, Sergio; Sacher, Juliane; Sackl, Wolfgang; Salletmaier, Markus; Sanand, Jairaj; Sauerzopf, Clemens; Schwarzgruber, Thomas; Scott, David; Seegers, Laura; Seppi, David; Shields, Kyle; Siller-Matula, Jolanta; Singh, Beldeu; Sithole, Sibusio; Six, Florian; Skoyles, John R; Slofstra, Jildou; Sole, Daphne Anne; Sommer, Werner F; Sonko, Mels; Starr-Casanova, Chrislie J; Steakley, Marjorie Elizabeth; Steinhauser, Wolfgang; Steinhoff, Konstantin; Sterba, Johannes H; Steppan, Martin; Stindl, Reinhard; Stokely, Joe; Stokely, Karri; St-Pierre, Gilles; Stratford, James; Streli, Christina; Stryg, Carl; Sullivan, Mike; Summhammer, Johann; Tadesse, Amhayes; Tavares, David; Thompson, Laura; Tomlinson, Alison; Tozer, Jack; Trevisanato, Siro I; Trimmel, Michaela; Turner, Nicole; Vahur, Paul; van der Byl, Jennie; van der Maas, Tine; Varela, Leo; Vega, Carlos A; Vermaak, Shiloh; Villasenor, Alex; Vogel, Matt; von Wintzigerode, Georg; Wagner, Christoph; Weinberger, Manuel; Weinberger, Peter; Wilson, Nick; Wolfe, Jennifer Finocchio; Woodley, Michael A; Young, Ian; Zuraw, Glenn; Zwiren, Nicole

    2012-10-01

    Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being "filtered out" or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses.

  3. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tennant, Jonathan P; Dugan, Jonathan M; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien C; Waldner, François; Mietchen, Daniel; Elkhatib, Yehia; B Collister, Lauren; Pikas, Christina K; Crick, Tom; Masuzzo, Paola; Caravaggi, Anthony; Berg, Devin R; Niemeyer, Kyle E; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Mannheimer, Sara; Rigling, Lillian; Katz, Daniel S; Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian; Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel; Fatima, Nazeefa; Poblet, Marta; Isaakidis, Marios; Irawan, Dasapta Erwin; Renaut, Sébastien; Madan, Christopher R; Matthias, Lisa; Nørgaard Kjær, Jesper; O'Donnell, Daniel Paul; Neylon, Cameron; Kearns, Sarah; Selvaraju, Manojkumar; Colomb, Julien

    2017-01-01

    Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

  4. Manuscript Dejene Mamo JBAS

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Administrator

    Voluntary compliance with tax laws of taxpayers is believed to be shaped by two major streams of factors: economic and social-psychological. Many countries of the world including Ethiopia try to emphasize the economic deterrence approach in which the belief is that taxpayers pay taxes only because they fear audit and ...

  5. Online physician ratings fail to predict actual performance on measures of quality, value, and peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Daskivich, Timothy J; Houman, Justin; Fuller, Garth; Black, Jeanne T; Kim, Hyung L; Spiegel, Brennan

    2018-04-01

    Patients use online consumer ratings to identify high-performing physicians, but it is unclear if ratings are valid measures of clinical performance. We sought to determine whether online ratings of specialist physicians from 5 platforms predict quality of care, value of care, and peer-assessed physician performance. We conducted an observational study of 78 physicians representing 8 medical and surgical specialties. We assessed the association of consumer ratings with specialty-specific performance scores (metrics including adherence to Choosing Wisely measures, 30-day readmissions, length of stay, and adjusted cost of care), primary care physician peer-review scores, and administrator peer-review scores. Across ratings platforms, multivariable models showed no significant association between mean consumer ratings and specialty-specific performance scores (β-coefficient range, -0.04, 0.04), primary care physician scores (β-coefficient range, -0.01, 0.3), and administrator scores (β-coefficient range, -0.2, 0.1). There was no association between ratings and score subdomains addressing quality or value-based care. Among physicians in the lowest quartile of specialty-specific performance scores, only 5%-32% had consumer ratings in the lowest quartile across platforms. Ratings were consistent across platforms; a physician's score on one platform significantly predicted his/her score on another in 5 of 10 comparisons. Online ratings of specialist physicians do not predict objective measures of quality of care or peer assessment of clinical performance. Scores are consistent across platforms, suggesting that they jointly measure a latent construct that is unrelated to performance. Online consumer ratings should not be used in isolation to select physicians, given their poor association with clinical performance.

  6. Randomised controlled trials of veterinary homeopathy: characterising the peer-reviewed research literature for systematic review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mathie, Robert T; Hacke, Daniela; Clausen, Jürgen

    2012-10-01

    Systematic review of the research evidence in veterinary homeopathy has never previously been carried out. This paper presents the search methods, together with categorised lists of retrieved records, that enable us to identify the literature that is acceptable for future systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in veterinary homeopathy. All randomised and controlled trials of homeopathic intervention (prophylaxis and/or treatment of disease, in any species except man) were appraised according to pre-specified criteria. The following databases were systematically searched from their inception up to and including March 2011: AMED; Carstens-Stiftung Homeopathic Veterinary Clinical Research (HomVetCR) database; CINAHL; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Embase; Hom-Inform; LILACS; PubMed; Science Citation Index; Scopus. One hundred and fifty records were retrieved; 38 satisfied the acceptance criteria (substantive report of a clinical treatment or prophylaxis trial in veterinary homeopathic medicine randomised and controlled and published in a peer-reviewed journal), and were thus eligible for future planned systematic review. Approximately half of the rejected records were theses. Seven species and 27 different species-specific medical conditions were represented in the 38 papers. Similar numbers of papers reported trials of treatment and prophylaxis (n=21 and n=17 respectively) and were controlled against placebo or other than placebo (n=18, n=20 respectively). Most research focused on non-individualised homeopathy (n=35 papers) compared with individualised homeopathy (n=3). The results provide a complete and clarified view of the RCT literature in veterinary homeopathy. We will systematically review the 38 substantive peer-reviewed journal articles under the main headings: treatment trials; prophylaxis trials. Copyright © 2012 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  7. Bibliometric analysis of poison center-related research published in peer-review journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Forrester, M B

    2016-07-01

    Poison centers advance knowledge in the field of toxicology through publication in peer-review journals. This investigation describes the pattern of poison center-related publications. Cases were poison center-related research published in peer-review journals during 1995-2014. These were identified through searching the PubMed database, reviewing the tables of contents of selected toxicology journals, and reviewing abstracts of various national and international meetings. The following variables for each publication were identified: year of publication, journal, type of publication (meeting abstract vs. other, i.e. full article or letter to the editor), and the country(ies) of the poison center(s) included in the research. Of the 3147 total publications, 62.1% were meeting abstracts. There were 263 publications in 1995-1999, 536 in 2000-2004, 999 in 2005-2009, and 1349 in 2010-2014. The publications were in 234 different journals. The journals in which the highest number of research was published were Clinical Toxicology (69.7%), Journal of Medical Toxicology (2.2%), and Veterinary and Human Toxicology (2.1%). The research was reported from 62 different countries. The countries with the highest number of publications were the United States (67.9%), United Kingdom (6.5%), Germany (3.9%), France (2.5%), and Italy (2.4%). The number of publications increased greatly over the 20 years. Although the publications were in a large number of journals, a high proportion of the publications were in one journal. While the research came from a large number of countries, the preponderance came from the United States. © The Author(s) 2015.

  8. What has Science’s open-access sting taught us about the quality of peer review?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mićo Tatalović

    2013-11-01

    exclude journals with poor peer review from being accepted in scientists grant, job and promotion applications. Science’s investigation included most - or all, as Bohannon claims - of open access publishers that publish in English and in sciences (such as biology, medicine, chemistry, targeting 304 journals many of which were listed in Directory of Open Access Journals, and some, tellingly, in Beall’s List of predatory publishers. This left out thousands of journals that publish in local languages, including many in our region of South-East Europe. Croatia alone, has 343 academic journals listed on the central portal of Croatian scientific journals - Hrčak [5]. Most of these are open access and funded by the government, yet scientists often criticise many of them for being a waste of public money and dumps for bad science that cannot be published in better international journals [6]. Quality of peer review, especially in domestic language is also brought into question [6]. Similarly, in Serbia, SCIndeks lists 411 academic journals [7]. Yet, Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science, which runs the index together with National Library of Serbia, found recently that up to 11% of all articles published there contained some sort of plagiarism [8]. The centre itself admitted later that “after about one-year time we have to admit that the expected response by journal editors is still missing” and itself it only excluded two of the biggest culprits out of SCIndeks [9]. Similarly, my own journalistic investigation into what how, if at all, plagiarised papers are then retracted from journals in Serbia [10] and Croatia [11] shows a lack of standard practices and wide variation in retraction practices - often not following internationally accepted guidance, such as those set by COPE. If journals fail to detect plagiarism, which is a routine procedure these days, one wonders what the state of peer review and detection of other forms of misconduct may be. Indeed, a more

  9. Implementing Head and Neck Contouring Peer Review without Pathway Delay: The On-demand Approach.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fong, C; Sanghera, P; Good, J; Nightingale, P; Hartley, A

    2017-12-01

    Peer review of contour volume is a priority in the radiotherapy treatment quality assurance process for head and neck cancer. It is essential that incorporation of peer review activity does not introduce additional delays. An on-demand peer review process was piloted to assess the feasibility and efficiency of this approach, as compared with a historic scheduled weekly approach. Between November 2016 and April 2017 four head and neck clinicians in one centre took part in an on-demand peer review process. Cases were of radical or adjuvant intent of any histology and submitted on a voluntary basis. The outcome of contour peer review would be one of unchanged (UC), unchanged with variation or discretion noted (UV), minor change (M) or significant change (S). The time difference between the completion of the on-demand peer review was compared with the time difference to a hypothetical next Monday or Tuesday weekly peer review meeting. The time taken to review each case was also documented in the latter period of the pilot project. In total, 62 cases underwent peer review. Peer review on-demand provided dosimetrists with an average of an extra two working days available per case to meet treatment start dates. The proportion of cases with outcomes UC, UV, M and S were 45%, 16%, 26% and 13%, respectively. The mean peer review time spent per case was 17 min (12 cases). The main reason for S was discrepancy in imaging interpretation (4/8 cases). A lower proportion of oropharyngeal cases were submitted and had S outcomes. A higher proportion of complex cases, e.g. sinonasal/nasopharynx location or previous downstaging chemotherapy had S outcomes. The distribution of S outcomes appears to be similar regardless of clinician experience. The level of peer review activity among individuals differed by workload and job timetable. On-demand peer review of the head and neck contour volume is feasible, reduces delay to the start of dosimetry planning and bypasses the logistical

  10. Common issues found in operating safety peer review of nuclear power plants

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Wu Meijing; Zhang Fengping

    2004-01-01

    The 3rd stage of the safety culture promotion in a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) is characterized by establishing learning organization and continuous self-improvement. Peer Review was used as an effective tool by a lot of NPPs to improve the overall management and performance. This Paper provided the WANO Peer Review Methodology, the common issues found, the recommendation or suggestions to correct the area for improvement. It may be beneficial to other NPP which planning to have Peer Review or Self Evaluation. (authors)

  11. Digital Image Enhancement of Indic Historical Manuscripts

    Science.gov (United States)

    Shi, Zhixin; Setlur, Srirangaraj; Govindaraju, Venu

    Historical documents in Indic scripts can be found on a wide range of media such as paper, palm leaves, and parchment. Palm leaves are believed to be one of the earliest forms of writing media and their use as writing material has been recorded in various parts of the world including India. Ancient palm leaf manuscripts relating to religion, science, medicine, astronomy are still available for reference today due to many ongoing efforts for preservation of ancient documents by libraries and universities around the world. These manuscripts typically last a few centuries but with time the leaves degrade and the writing becomes illegible. Image processing techniques can help enhance the images of these manuscripts so as to enable readability of the written text. In this chapter, we propose methods for enhancing digital images of palm leaf and other historical manuscripts. We approximate the background of a gray-scale image using piece-wise linear and nonlinear models. Normalization algorithms are used on the color channels of the palm leaf image to obtain an enhanced gray-scale image. Experimental results show significant improvement in readability. An adaptive local connectivity map is used to try to segment lines of text from the enhanced images with the objective of facilitating techniques such as keyword spotting or partial OCR and thereby making it possible to index these documents for retrieval from a digital library.

  12. Compassion: a critical review of peer-reviewed nursing literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    McCaffrey, Graham; McConnell, Shelagh

    2015-10-01

    To provide a critical review of nursing literature about compassion, identifying major themes, questions arising and directions for future investigation of the topic. Compassion has emerged as a topic of broad social concern in recent years and is particularly pertinent to nurses. Critical review was selected as the most appropriate way of analysing literature from both qualitative research studies and conceptual articles. An electronic database search was conducted, discovering articles published between 1952 and 2013. The search was then limited to publications since 2000 to capture recent development of the concept. The search was limited to peer-reviewed literature, excluding a large body of editorial material, resulting in 20 relevant articles. Two books were also added that contributed important perspective to the analysis. Critical analysis of the resulting material was undertaken to identify themes, tensions and implications in the literature. Major themes were compassion as practice and compassion as a moral virtue, holding implications for how nurses can demonstrate compassion in relation to contemporary healthcare values. A third major theme was the influence of institutional environments in facilitating or limiting the expression of compassion. Compassion is a human experience of deep significance to nursing and needs understanding in the context of healthcare environments dominated by discourses of efficiency and rationalisation. There is an emergent literature about how compassion may be understood, taught and sustained among nurses but it is a topic that requires continued attention. More precise understanding of compassion will support nurses in advocating for compassionate care, participating in interdisciplinary dialogue, and contributing to the design of healthcare environments that are conducive to compassionate care. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  13. The Margins of Medieval Manuscripts

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Nataša Kavčič

    2011-12-01

    Full Text Available Shortly after the mid-thirteenth century, various images began to fill the margins in both religious and secular texts. Many factors influenced the emergence of this type of manuscript decoration, but it has generally been attributed to the revived interest in nature and the Gothic inclination for humorous and anecdotic detail. After highlighting other possible reasons for the occurrence of marginal illumination, this paper introduces two manuscripts from the Archiepiscopal Archives in Ljubljana. The manuscripts show numerous facial drawings affixed to some of the letters. This article addresses how to interpret such drawings and stresses that they do not necessarily function as symbolic images or images with any specific didactic value. Quite the opposite, these drawings seem not to have any meaning and are oft en merely indications of an illuminator’s sense of humor. Because of their exaggerated facial expressions, these drawings could be perceived as the true predecessors of modern caricature.

  14. The importance of peer review: thoughts on Knudson, Morrow, and Thomas (2014).

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fischman, Mark G

    2014-12-01

    Knudson, Morrow, and Thomas ( 2014 ) recently summarized a number of important issues related to the quality of peer review and current peer-review practice in kinesiology. This writer endorses their six recommendations for improving peer review in kinesiology journals. The purpose of this commentary is to further highlight the importance of reviewer and associate editor recommendations to the editor, and the importance of editor decisions, in determining what becomes part of a discipline's body of knowledge. These recommendations and decisions ultimately affect what students learn, and what professionals practice, in their disciplines. This kind of power over the control of knowledge and the application of that knowledge is cause for all involved in science to do everything possible to improve our stewardship over peer review.

  15. DOE EERE Standard Operating Procedure Peer Review Best Practice and Procedures

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None

    2009-01-18

    Objective review and advice from peers - peer review - provides managers, staff, and researchers with a powerful and effective tool for enhancing the management, relevance, effectiveness, and productivity of all of the EERE research, development

  16. Learning effects of thematic peer-review: A qualitative analysis of reflective journals on spiritual care

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Leeuwen, van L.J.; Tiesinga, L.J.; Jochemsen, H.

    2009-01-01

    This study describes the learning effects of thematic peer-review discussion groups (Hendriksen, 2000. Begeleid intervisie model, Collegiale advisering en probleemoplossing, Nelissen, Baarn.) on developing nursing students’ competence in providing spiritual care. It also discusses the factors that

  17. Learning effects of thematic peer-review : A qualitative analysis of reflective journals on spiritual care

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    van Leeuwen, Rene; Tiesinga, Lucas J.; Jochemsen, Henk; Post, Doeke

    This study describes the learning effects of thematic peer-review discussion groups (Hendriksen, 2000. Begeleid intervisie model, Collegiate advisering en probleemoplossing, Nelissen, Baarn.) on developing nursing students' competence in providing spiritual care. It also discusses the factors that

  18. The use of standards for peer review of online nursing courses: a pilot study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Little, Barbara Battin

    2009-07-01

    This article describes a pilot study on the use of online course standards for peer review of Web-based nursing courses. A peer review team consisting of a nurse educator and an instructional designer piloted the use of two sets of online course standards in two RN-to-baccalaureate nursing courses. The College of Public Health Online Course Standards and the Quality Matters (QM) Peer Course Review Rubric were used to review the courses. The standards facilitated the peer review process and supplied important criteria for measuring the quality of the courses. Analysis of the rubric scores revealed trends in criteria not met in either course, indicating the need for educational program improvement and faculty training. The QM tool had more consistent results among peer reviewers and was perceived as easier to use. In addition, QM standards provided a useful mechanism for benchmarking against higher education courses throughout the United States.

  19. Peer Review in Controversial Topics—A Case Study of 9/11

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    John D. Wyndham

    2017-06-01

    Full Text Available Beginning with an historical reminiscence, this paper examines the peer review process as experienced by authors currently seeking publication of their research in a highly controversial area. A case study of research into the events of 9/11 (11 September 2001 illustrates some of the problems in peer review arising from undue influences based on financial and political considerations. The paper suggests that ethical failures, rather than flaws in the process itself, are mainly responsible for perceived problems. The way forward lies in improved ethics and a more open process. In addition, editorial review boards and peer review strategies would help to improve the ethics of peer review in general.

  20. Randomised clinical trial on the effect of the Dutch obstetric peer review system

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Elferink-Stinkens, P.M; Brand, R.; Amelink-Verburg, M.P; Merkus, J.M.W.M; Ouden, A.L den; Hemel, O.J.S van

    2002-01-01

    The project 'Obstetric Peer Review Interventions' (Verloskundige Onderlinge Kwaliteitsspiegeling Interventies, VOKSINT) was set-up in The Netherlands in 1994. It provided annual comparison data (quality ranking, league tables) for secondary care obstetric departments adjusted for population

  1. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger"

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Vinther, Siri; Nielsen, Ole Haagen; Rosenberg, Jacob

    2012-01-01

    Research into the peer review process has previously been conducted in English-language journals. This study deals with a Danish general medical journal with a relatively small pool of both reviewers and readers. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of reviews produced by identifiable ...... and anonymous reviewers, and further to characterize authors' and reviewers' attitudes towards different peer review systems....

  2. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger"

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Vinther, Siri; Nielsen, Ole Haagen; Rosenberg, Jacob

    2012-01-01

    Research into the peer review process has previously been conducted in English-language journals. This study deals with a Danish general medical journal with a relatively small pool of both reviewers and readers. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of reviews produced by identifiable...... and anonymous reviewers, and further to characterize authors' and reviewers' attitudes towards different peer review systems....

  3. Peer Review and Academic Productivism from the View of Reviewers of Academic Journals in Management

    OpenAIRE

    Shigaki, Helena Belintani; Patrus, Roberto

    2017-01-01

    In a productivist culture, marked by the appreciation of the publication of scientific papers, the subject of peer review becomes relevant. The aim of this study was to reflect on how productivism is seen by the reviewers of scientific papers in the area of Administration, in the light of three specific objectives: to identify the motivations and external influences that teachers act as reviewers, to understand their assessment about the peer review system in Brazil, and to identify the possi...

  4. State technical review of the HLNW program and the peer review process

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Jacob, G.R.

    1986-01-01

    Millions of dollars are being spent on state governments' review of the Department of Energy (DOE) high level waste (HLW) repository program. A significant portion of the review efforts focus on technical issues surrounding the development and installment of HLW disposal technologies. Some view the states' technical review efforts as part of a peer review process. However, this interpretation reveals a misunderstanding of the concept of peer review and the purposes of state technical review

  5. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Clark, R K F

    2012-08-01

    Peer review is an important stage in academic publishing, as a form of quality control to maintain the integrity of both the articles and the journals they appear in. However, the confidential nature of the relationship between reviewer and author does not necessarily benefit the system; with some reviewers using their anonymity to give unnecessary, injudicious comment. This paper explores the motives behind the reviewer's comments and how peer review could be improved by openness and honesty.

  6. Underutilisation of routinely collected data in the HIV programme in Zambia: a review of quantitatively analysed peer-reviewed articles.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Munthali, Tendai; Musonda, Patrick; Mee, Paul; Gumede, Sehlulekile; Schaap, Ab; Mwinga, Alwyn; Phiri, Caroline; Kapata, Nathan; Michelo, Charles; Todd, Jim

    2017-06-13

    The extent to which routinely collected HIV data from Zambia has been used in peer-reviewed published articles remains unexplored. This paper is an analysis of peer-reviewed articles that utilised routinely collected HIV data from Zambia within six programme areas from 2004 to 2014. Articles on HIV, published in English, listed in the Directory of open access journals, African Journals Online, Google scholar, and PubMed were reviewed. Only articles from peer-reviewed journals, that utilised routinely collected data and included quantitative data analysis methods were included. Multi-country studies involving Zambia and another country, where the specific results for Zambia were not reported, as well as clinical trials and intervention studies that did not take place under routine care conditions were excluded, although community trials which referred patients to the routine clinics were included. Independent extraction was conducted using a predesigned data collection form. Pooled analysis was not possible due to diversity in topics reviewed. A total of 69 articles were extracted for review. Of these, 7 were excluded. From the 62 articles reviewed, 39 focused on HIV treatment and retention in care, 15 addressed prevention of mother-to-child transmission, 4 assessed social behavioural change, and 4 reported on voluntary counselling and testing. In our search, no articles were found on condom programming or voluntary male medical circumcision. The most common outcome measures reported were CD4+ count, clinical failure or mortality. The population analysed was children in 13 articles, women in 16 articles, and both adult men and women in 33 articles. During the 10 year period of review, only 62 articles were published analysing routinely collected HIV data in Zambia. Serious consideration needs to be made to maximise the utility of routinely collected data, and to benefit from the funds and efforts to collect these data. This could be achieved with government support

  7. 28 CFR 551.81 - Manuscript preparation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Manuscript preparation. 551.81 Section 551.81 Judicial Administration BUREAU OF PRISONS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT MISCELLANEOUS Inmate Manuscripts § 551.81 Manuscript preparation. An inmate may prepare a manuscript for private...

  8. External Peer Review Team Report for Corrective Action Unit 97: Yucca Flat/Climax Mine, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada, Revision 0

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Marutzky, Sam J. [Navarro-Intera, LLC (N-I), Las Vegas, NV (United States); Andrews, Robert [Navarro-Intera, LLC (N-I), Las Vegas, NV (United States)

    2015-01-01

    The peer review team commends the Navarro-Intera, LLC (N-I), team for its efforts in using limited data to model the fate of radionuclides in groundwater at Yucca Flat. Recognizing the key uncertainties and related recommendations discussed in Section 6.0 of this report, the peer review team has concluded that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is ready for a transition to model evaluation studies in the corrective action decision document (CADD)/corrective action plan (CAP) stage. The DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) clarified the charge to the peer review team in a letter dated October 9, 2014, from Bill R. Wilborn, NNSA/NFO Underground Test Area (UGTA) Activity Lead, to Sam J. Marutzky, N-I UGTA Project Manager: “The model and supporting information should be sufficiently complete that the key uncertainties can be adequately identified such that they can be addressed by appropriate model evaluation studies. The model evaluation studies may include data collection and model refinements conducted during the CADD/CAP stage. One major input to identifying ‘key uncertainties’ is the detailed peer review provided by independent qualified peers.” The key uncertainties that the peer review team recognized and potential concerns associated with each are outlined in Section 6.0, along with recommendations corresponding to each uncertainty. The uncertainties, concerns, and recommendations are summarized in Table ES-1. The number associated with each concern refers to the section in this report where the concern is discussed in detail.

  9. A practical guide to manuscript writing with particular relevance to the field of pediatric hospital medicine.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Teufel, Ronald J; Andrews, Anne L; Williams, Derek J

    2014-11-01

    Publishing manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals, such as Hospital Pediatrics, is critical for both the academic development of practitioners in pediatric hospital medicine and the scientific advancement of our field. Understanding the purpose of scientific writing and developing a structured approach to the writing process is essential. Doing so will improve the clarity of your work and likely the ease at which your research is published and disseminated throughout the scientific community. The purposes of this article are to detail the structure of a scientific manuscript, to highlight specific writing strategies, and to provide writing tips that may help or hinder publication. Our ultimate goal is to advance the field of pediatric hospital medicine and its growing membership by promoting the dissemination of high-quality research. Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

  10. The Open Science Peer Review Oath [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4ou

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jelena Aleksic

    2014-11-01

    Full Text Available One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions. Future incarnations of the various national Research Excellence Frameworks (REFs will evolve away from simple citations towards measurable societal value and impact. The proposed manifesto aspires to facilitate this goal by making transparency, reproducibility and citizen-scientist engagement (with the knowledge-creation and dissemination processes the default parameters for performing sound research.

  11. A workstation-integrated peer review quality assurance program: pilot study

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    O’Keeffe, Margaret M; Davis, Todd M; Siminoski, Kerry

    2013-01-01

    The surrogate indicator of radiological excellence that has become accepted is consistency of assessments between radiologists, and the technique that has become the standard for evaluating concordance is peer review. This study describes the results of a workstation-integrated peer review program in a busy outpatient radiology practice. Workstation-based peer review was performed using the software program Intelerad Peer Review. Cases for review were randomly chosen from those being actively reported. If an appropriate prior study was available, and if the reviewing radiologist and the original interpreting radiologist had not exceeded review targets, the case was scored using the modified RADPEER system. There were 2,241 cases randomly assigned for peer review. Of selected cases, 1,705 (76%) were interpreted. Reviewing radiologists agreed with prior reports in 99.1% of assessments. Positive feedback (score 0) was given in three cases (0.2%) and concordance (scores of 0 to 2) was assigned in 99.4%, similar to reported rates of 97.0% to 99.8%. Clinically significant discrepancies (scores of 3 or 4) were identified in 10 cases (0.6%). Eighty-eight percent of reviewed radiologists found the reviews worthwhile, 79% found scores appropriate, and 65% felt feedback was appropriate. Two-thirds of radiologists found case rounds discussing significant discrepancies to be valuable. The workstation-based computerized peer review process used in this pilot project was seamlessly incorporated into the normal workday and met most criteria for an ideal peer review system. Clinically significant discrepancies were identified in 0.6% of cases, similar to published outcomes using the RADPEER system. Reviewed radiologists felt the process was worthwhile

  12. A workstation-integrated peer review quality assurance program: pilot study

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-01-01

    Background The surrogate indicator of radiological excellence that has become accepted is consistency of assessments between radiologists, and the technique that has become the standard for evaluating concordance is peer review. This study describes the results of a workstation-integrated peer review program in a busy outpatient radiology practice. Methods Workstation-based peer review was performed using the software program Intelerad Peer Review. Cases for review were randomly chosen from those being actively reported. If an appropriate prior study was available, and if the reviewing radiologist and the original interpreting radiologist had not exceeded review targets, the case was scored using the modified RADPEER system. Results There were 2,241 cases randomly assigned for peer review. Of selected cases, 1,705 (76%) were interpreted. Reviewing radiologists agreed with prior reports in 99.1% of assessments. Positive feedback (score 0) was given in three cases (0.2%) and concordance (scores of 0 to 2) was assigned in 99.4%, similar to reported rates of 97.0% to 99.8%. Clinically significant discrepancies (scores of 3 or 4) were identified in 10 cases (0.6%). Eighty-eight percent of reviewed radiologists found the reviews worthwhile, 79% found scores appropriate, and 65% felt feedback was appropriate. Two-thirds of radiologists found case rounds discussing significant discrepancies to be valuable. Conclusions The workstation-based computerized peer review process used in this pilot project was seamlessly incorporated into the normal workday and met most criteria for an ideal peer review system. Clinically significant discrepancies were identified in 0.6% of cases, similar to published outcomes using the RADPEER system. Reviewed radiologists felt the process was worthwhile. PMID:23822583

  13. Practical epistemology: the role of peer review in organizing scientific research

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Alexei V. Shestopal

    2014-01-01

    Full Text Available The article considers peer review as the main procedure for demarcating scientific knowledge from other kinds thereof, which do not meet the criteria set for research results. The authors examine the history of peer review, which has first been used in early scientific journals and then has become one of the key approaches to distributing funds for research in science foundations, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation. The article also considers the role of peer review in the legal process, wherein observance of this procedure can be seen as the main criteria, which separates scientific evidence from mere testimony. The description of the main elements of the peer review procedure is based on the "Statement of principles for scientific merit review" the summary of the results of the Global Summit on Merit Review, which brought together heads of science funding organizations from more than 50 countries. The Statement listed the following principles: expert assessment, transparency, impartiality, appropriateness, confidentiality, integrity and ethical considerations. Although these principles are seen as a way to guarantee efficient peer review one has to consider the peculiarities of a particular research area, first of all the differences between social and natural sciences. Accordingly the article gives an overview of key traits of peer review in the social sciences and humanities. The authors also consider the main procedural elements - preparation of individual reviews, consideration by panels, anonymity of reviewers. Finally the article addresses the problems of peer review such as non-transparent process, elitism in selecting reviewers, conservativeness of decisions, and possible ways of handling these problems.

  14. International experts conclude IAEA peer review of Iran's safety regulation of Bushehr NPP

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2010-01-01

    Full text: An international team of nuclear safety experts today completed an IAEA mission to review the effectiveness of Iran's safety regulation of its first nuclear power plant and to identify possible improvements before the plant begins operation. Upon invitation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assembled a team of senior regulators from seven Member States for an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission. The scope of the mission was limited to the safety regulation of Bushehr nuclear power plant (BNPP-1). The IRRS review took place from 20 February to 2 March at the INRA offices in Tehran and included a technical visit to the BNPP-1 site. The mission was an objective peer review based on IAEA safety standards, and was neither an inspection, nor an audit. Ms. Olena Mykolaichuk, IRRS Team Leader and Head of the State Nuclear Regulatory Committee of Ukraine, commended her INRA counterparts: 'The regulatory work performed on the Bushehr construction and in preparation for commissioning has demonstrated significant progress of INRA as a nuclear regulatory authority,' she said. Philippe Jamet, Director of the IAEA's Nuclear Installation Safety Division, added: 'Through this IRRS mission, both Iran and the international experts contribute to the enhancement of nuclear safety and worldwide experience sharing.' In the course of its review the IRRS team identified the following strengths: - INRA has a dedicated, conscientious staff, demonstrating clear commitments to further improvements. - INRA clearly recognizes the value of peer reviews and international cooperation regarding nuclear safety. - Despite a shortage of staff, INRA demonstrated strong leadership while performing both review and assessment and inspection tasks during the BNPP-1 construction and pre-commissioning. - INRA has developed an excellent computerized documentation control system. Recommendations and suggestions to improve INRA's regulatory

  15. National Ignition Facility, High-Energy-Density and Inertial Confinement Fusion, Peer-Review Panel (PRP) Final Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Keane, C. J. [Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)

    2014-01-28

    The National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is operated as a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) user facility in accordance with Department of Energy (DOE) best practices, including peer-reviewed experiments, regular external reviews of performance, and the use of a management structure that facilitates user and stakeholder feedback. NIF facility time is managed using processes similar to those in other DOE science facilities and is tailored to meet the mix of missions and customers that NIF supports. The NIF Governance Plan describes the process for allocating facility time on NIF and for creating the shot schedule. It also includes the flow of responsibility from entity to entity. The plan works to ensure that NIF meets its mission goals using the principles of scientific peer review, including transparency and cooperation among the sponsor, the NIF staff, and the various user communities. The NIF Governance Plan, dated September 28, 2012, was accepted and signed by LLNL Director Parney Albright, NIF Director Ed Moses, and Don Cook and Thomas D’Agostino of NNSA. Figure 1 shows the organizational structure for NIF Governance.

  16. Using Peer Review to Support Development of Community Resources for Research Data Management

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Heather Soyka

    2017-09-01

    Full Text Available Objective: To ensure that resources designed to teach skills and best practices for scientific research data sharing and management are useful, the maintainers of those materials need to evaluate and update them to ensure their accuracy, currency, and quality. This paper advances the use and process of outside peer review for community resources in addressing ongoing accuracy, quality, and currency issues. It further describes the next step of moving the updated materials to an online collaborative community platform for future iterative review in order to build upon mechanisms for open science, ongoing iteration, participation, and transparent community engagement. Setting: Research data management resources were developed in support of the DataONE (Data Observation Network for Earth project, which has deployed a sustainable, long-term network to ensure the preservation and access to multi-scale, multi-discipline, and multi-national environmental and biological science data (Michener et al. 2012. Created by members of the Community Engagement and Education (CEE Working Group in 2011-2012, the freely available Educational Modules included three complementary components (slides, handouts, and exercises that were designed to be adaptable for use in classrooms as well as for research data management training. Methods: Because the modules were initially created and launched in 2011-2012, the current members of the (renamed Community Engagement and Outreach (CEO Working Group were concerned that the materials could be and / or quickly become outdated and should be reviewed for accuracy, currency, and quality. In November 2015, the Working Group developed an evaluation rubric for use by outside reviewers. Review criteria were developed based on surveys and usage scenarios from previous DataONE projects. Peer reviewers were selected from the DataONE community network for their expertise in the areas covered by one of the 11 educational modules

  17. What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?”

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Chris R Triggle

    2007-03-01

    Full Text Available Chris R Triggle1, David J Triggle21School of Medical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; 2School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo NY, USAAbstract: Peer review is an essential component of the process that is universally applied prior to the acceptance of a manuscript, grant or other scholarly work. Most of us willingly accept the responsibilities that come with being a reviewer but how comfortable are we with the process? Peer review is open to abuse but how should it be policed and can it be improved? A bad peer review process can inadvertently ruin an individual’s career, but are there penalties for policing a reviewer who deliberately sabotages a manuscript or grant? Science has received an increasingly tainted name because of recent high profile cases of alleged scientific misconduct. Once considered the results of work stress or a temporary mental health problem, scientific misconduct is increasingly being reported and proved to be a repeat offence. How should scientific misconduct be handled—is it a criminal offence and subject to national or international law? Similarly plagiarism is an ever-increasing concern whether at the level of the student or a university president. Are the existing laws tough enough? These issues, with appropriate examples, are dealt with in this review.Keywords: peer review, journal impact factors, conflicts of interest, scientific misconduct, plagiarism

  18. Discussion of Comments from a Peer Review of A Technique for Human Event Anlysis (ATHEANA)

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Bley, D.C.; Cooper, S.E.; Forester, J.A.; Kolaczkowski, A.M.; Ramey-Smith, A,; Wreathall J.

    1999-01-28

    In May of 1998, a technical basis and implementation guidelines document for A Technique for Human Event Analysis (ATHEANA) was issued as a draft report for public comment (NUREG-1624). In conjunction with the release of draft NUREG- 1624, a peer review of the new human reliability analysis method its documentation and the results of an initial test of the method was held over a two-day period in June 1998 in Seattle, Washington. Four internationally known and respected experts in HK4 or probabilistic risk assessment were selected to serve as the peer reviewers. In addition, approximately 20 other individuals with an interest in HRA and ATHEANA also attended the peer and were invited to provide comments. The peer review team was asked to comment on any aspect of the method or the report in which improvements could be made and to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. They were asked to focus on two major aspects: Are the basic premises of ATHEANA on solid ground and is the conceptual basis adequate? Is the ATHEANA implementation process adequate given the description of the intended users in the documentation? The four peer reviewers asked questions and provided oral comments during the peer review meeting and provided written comments approximately two weeks after the completion of the meeting. This paper discusses their major comments.

  19. Peer review for conceptual design of the new safe confinement for the Chernobyl NPP shelter object

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Kupny, Valentin; Shestopalov, Vyacheslav; Sobotovich, Emlen; Tokarevsky, Vladimir; Veryuzhsky, Yuri; Abdulakhatov, Murat

    2005-01-01

    The results of peer review for Conceptual Design of the New Safe Confinement (NSC) for Chernobyl NPP Shelter Object in the Arch option are presented. NSC consists of: 1) main building, including steel arch structure of tubular trusses, covered with thin-sheet metal (its bay in the direction north-south is equal to 257.44 m, height - 108.39 m, length - 150 m), foundations, western and eastern front walls; 2) technological (process) building, including sites for decontamination, fragmentation and packaging, sanitary locks, workshops and other technological premises; 3) auxiliary systems and structures. The following questions are considered: evolution of the requirements to the new Shelter-2, compliance of functional and engineering solutions; compliance with normative documents, standards and laws. The Arch design has no advantages compared with other known options for SO transformation into an ecologically safe system: by its process capabilities, it yields to the Dock-Caisson design; by cost of construction and operational expenses, it yields to the 'Monolith design; by dose expenses for construction and strength parameters it yields to the 'Rainbow design. (author)

  20. How to write a scholarly book review for publication in a peer-reviewed journal: a review of the literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lee, Alexander D; Green, Bart N; Johnson, Claire D; Nyquist, Julie

    2010-01-01

    To describe and discuss the processes used to write scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals and to provide a recommended strategy and book appraisal worksheet to use when conducting book reviews. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature was conducted in June 2009 using a combination of controlled vocabulary and truncated text words to capture articles relevant to writing scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The initial search identified 839 citations. Following the removal of duplicates and the application of selection criteria, a total of 78 articles were included in this review including narrative commentaries (n = 26), editorials or journal announcements (n = 25), original research (n = 18), and journal correspondence pieces (n = 9). Recommendations for planning and writing an objective and quality book review are presented based on the evidence gleaned from the articles reviewed and from the authors' experiences. A worksheet for conducting a book review is provided. The scholarly book review serves many purposes and has the potential to be an influential literary form. The process of publishing a successful scholarly book review requires the reviewer to appreciate the book review publication process and to be aware of the skills and strategies involved in writing a successful review.

  1. SALTO guidelines. Guidelines for peer review of long term operation and ageing management of nuclear power plants

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2008-01-01

    The average age of nuclear power plants (NPPs) connected to the grid worldwide is increasing. About 20% of all the power reactors operating worldwide have been in operation for more than 30 years, and almost 50% have been in operation for 20 to 30 years, while a rather limited number of new NPPs are being put into operation. In view of this trend, many countries are giving a high priority to continuing the operation of NPPs beyond the time frame originally anticipated (e.g. 30 or 40 years). Long term operation (LTO) for NPPs is operation beyond the established time frame originally set forth by the license term, design limits, standards or regulations. LTO needs to be justified by a safety assessment considering life limiting processes and features for structures, systems and components. Proper and safe LTO is based on the experience and practices of various countries in areas such as plant license renewal, life extension, continued operation and life management. Other activities, including periodic safety review, ageing management and plant modification, are also relevant to LTO. Ageing management of an NPP is an important activity that must be considered before and in conjunction with the decision to enter LTO. Ageing management of NPPs deals with the physical ageing of structures, systems and components (SSCs) that can result in the degradation of their performance characteristics. Thus ageing management helps ensure that SSCs important to safety remain capable of performing their required safety functions. An effective ageing management programme (AMP) is a key element of the safe and reliable operation of NPPs during the originally planned time frame originally planned for their operation, as well as for the period of LTO. In order to assist Member States in managing ageing effectively, the IAEA is developing related safety standards and guidance publications. International peer review is a useful tool for Member States to exchange experience, learn from each

  2. The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yeo, Sara K; Liang, Xuan; Brossard, Dominique; Rose, Kathleen M; Korzekwa, Kaine; Scheufele, Dietram A; Xenos, Michael A

    2017-11-01

    Using the "#arseniclife" controversy as a case study, we examine the roles of blogs and Twitter in post-publication review. The controversy was initiated by a scientific article about bacteria able to substitute arsenic for phosphorus in its genetic material. We present the debate chronologically, using prominent online media to reconstruct the events. Using tweets that discussed the controversy, we conducted quantitative sentiment analysis to examine skeptical and non-skeptical tones on Twitter. Critiques of and studies refuting the arsenic life hypothesis were publicized on blogs before formal publication in traditional academic spaces and were shared on Twitter, influencing issue salience among a range of audiences. This case exemplifies the role of new media in informal post-publication peer review, which can complement traditional peer review processes. The implications drawn from this case study for future conduct and transparency of both formal and informal peer review are discussed.

  3. Effects of peer review on communication skills and learning motivation among nursing students.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yoo, Moon Sook; Chae, Sun-Mi

    2011-04-01

    The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of video-based peer review on communication skills and learning motivation among nursing students. A non-equivalent control with pretest-posttest design was used. The participants were 47 sophomore nursing students taking a fundamentals of nursing course at a nursing college in Korea. Communication with a standardized patient was videotaped for evaluation. The intervention group used peer reviews to evaluate the videotaped performance; a small group of four students watched the videotape of each student and then provided feedback. The control group assessed themselves alone after watching their own videos. Communication skills and learning motivation were measured. The intervention group showed significantly higher communication skills and learning motivation after the intervention than did the control group. The findings suggest that peer review is an effective learning method for nursing students to improve their communication skills and increase their motivation to learn. Copyright 2011, SLACK Incorporated.

  4. Press Start: the value of an online student-led, peer-reviewed game studies journal

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Matthew Barr

    2017-12-01

    Full Text Available In this article, an online student journal is described, and the ways in which student participants value the journal are discussed. Press Start is a peer-reviewed international journal of game studies, which aims to publish the best student work related to the academic study of video games. Content analysis of qualitative survey data (n = 29 provides insights into what students value about the journal, revealing six broad themes: community and support, inclusiveness and accessibility, the published research, feedback from peer review, experience of conducting peer review and the opportunity to publish. The article concludes by suggesting that engagement with online student journals should not be limited in terms of geography or the level of study, unless there are robust pedagogical reasons for doing so.

  5. Catalogue of Korean manuscripts and rare books

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Lerbæk Pedersen, Bent

    2014-01-01

    Catalogue of Korean manuscripts and rare books in The Royal Library, Copenhagen and the National Museum of Denmark......Catalogue of Korean manuscripts and rare books in The Royal Library, Copenhagen and the National Museum of Denmark...

  6. Efficacy of homeopathy in livestock according to peer-reviewed publications from 1981 to 2014.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Doehring, C; Sundrum, A

    2016-12-17

    Homeopathy is widely used in livestock, especially in order to reduce the use of antibiotics, although it is often seen as controversial. A comprehensive literature review has been conducted to assess the efficacy of homeopathy in cattle, pigs and poultry. Only peer-reviewed publications dealing with homeopathic remedies, which could possibly replace or prevent the use of antibiotics in the case of infective diseases or growth promotion in livestock were included. Search results revealed a total number of 52 trials performed within 48 publications fulfilling the predefined criteria. Twenty-eight trials were in favour of homeopathy, with 26 trials showing a significantly higher efficacy in comparison to a control group, whereas 22 showed no medicinal effect. Cure rates for the treatments with antibiotics, homeopathy or placebo varied to a high degree, while the remedy used did not seem to make a big difference. Looking at all the studies, no study was repeated under comparable conditions. Consequently, the use of homeopathy currently cannot claim to have sufficient prognostic validity where efficacy is concerned. When striving for high therapeutic success in treatment, the potential of homeopathy in replacing or reducing antibiotics can only be validated if evidence of efficacy is confirmed by randomised controlled trials under modified conditions. British Veterinary Association.

  7. Peer review CALMET/CALPUFF dispersion modelling analysis : Proposed Duke Point generation facility Georgia Strait Crossing pipeline

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2002-01-01

    A peer review of the air quality dispersion modeling analysis for the proposed gas-fired plant at Duke Point in the vicinity of Nanaimo, British Columbia was required, and SENES Consultants Limited (SENES) was commissioned to perform it. British Columbia Hydro had requested that Levelton Engineering Ltd. prepare an air quality impact assessment, and it was submitted to be included in Vancouver Island Generation Project (VIGP) permit application. This permit application was for the Joint Panel Review of the Georgia Strait Crossing Pipeline (GSX) Project and the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office. The CALMET/CALPUFF Modelling System had been used by Levelton to conduct the air quality dispersion modelling analysis. Copies of the input and output files that had been used for the conduct of the modelling analysis were provided to SENES. The ability for SENES to reproduce the modelling results that had been published in the GSX application represented the first step in the peer review. This was accomplished by running the files received from Levelton into the CALMET/CALPUFF models. A detailed review of the methodology selected by Levelton during the conduct of the dispersion modelling analysis was then initiated by SENES. Some deficiencies were identified by SENES, despite concurrence with the overall conceptual approach adopted by Levelton. The deficiencies concerned meteorological data; startup, partial load and upset conditions; pollutant emissions; health risk assessment; cumulative impact on ambient particulate matter 10 concentrations; and collateral environmental impacts. refs., 2 tabs., 21 figs

  8. Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study

    Science.gov (United States)

    Herbert, Danielle L; Graves, Nicholas; Clarke, Philip; Barnett, Adrian G

    2015-01-01

    Objective To prospectively test two simplified peer review processes, estimate the agreement between the simplified and official processes, and compare the costs of peer review. Design, participants and setting A prospective parallel study of Project Grant proposals submitted in 2013 to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. The official funding outcomes were compared with two simplified processes using proposals in Public Health and Basic Science. The two simplified processes were: panels of 7 reviewers who met face-to-face and reviewed only the nine-page research proposal and track record (simplified panel); and 2 reviewers who independently reviewed only the nine-page research proposal (journal panel). The official process used panels of 12 reviewers who met face-to-face and reviewed longer proposals of around 100 pages. We compared the funding outcomes of 72 proposals that were peer reviewed by the simplified and official processes. Main outcome measures Agreement in funding outcomes; costs of peer review based on reviewers’ time and travel costs. Results The agreement between the simplified and official panels (72%, 95% CI 61% to 82%), and the journal and official panels (74%, 62% to 83%), was just below the acceptable threshold of 75%. Using the simplified processes would save $A2.1–$A4.9 million per year in peer review costs. Conclusions Using shorter applications and simpler peer review processes gave reasonable agreement with the more complex official process. Simplified processes save time and money that could be reallocated to actual research. Funding agencies should consider streamlining their application processes. PMID:26137884

  9. The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Stephen A Gallo

    Full Text Available There is a paucity of data in the literature concerning the validation of the grant application peer review process, which is used to help direct billions of dollars in research funds. Ultimately, this validation will hinge upon empirical data relating the output of funded projects to the predictions implicit in the overall scientific merit scores from the peer review of submitted applications. In an effort to address this need, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS conducted a retrospective analysis of peer review data of 2,063 applications submitted to a particular research program and the bibliometric output of the resultant 227 funded projects over an 8-year period. Peer review scores associated with applications were found to be moderately correlated with the total time-adjusted citation output of funded projects, although a high degree of variability existed in the data. Analysis over time revealed that as average annual scores of all applications (both funded and unfunded submitted to this program improved with time, the average annual citation output per application increased. Citation impact did not correlate with the amount of funds awarded per application or with the total annual programmatic budget. However, the number of funded applications per year was found to correlate well with total annual citation impact, suggesting that improving funding success rates by reducing the size of awards may be an efficient strategy to optimize the scientific impact of research program portfolios. This strategy must be weighed against the need for a balanced research portfolio and the inherent high costs of some areas of research. The relationship observed between peer review scores and bibliometric output lays the groundwork for establishing a model system for future prospective testing of the validity of peer review formats and procedures.

  10. The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gallo, Stephen A; Carpenter, Afton S; Irwin, David; McPartland, Caitlin D; Travis, Joseph; Reynders, Sofie; Thompson, Lisa A; Glisson, Scott R

    2014-01-01

    There is a paucity of data in the literature concerning the validation of the grant application peer review process, which is used to help direct billions of dollars in research funds. Ultimately, this validation will hinge upon empirical data relating the output of funded projects to the predictions implicit in the overall scientific merit scores from the peer review of submitted applications. In an effort to address this need, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) conducted a retrospective analysis of peer review data of 2,063 applications submitted to a particular research program and the bibliometric output of the resultant 227 funded projects over an 8-year period. Peer review scores associated with applications were found to be moderately correlated with the total time-adjusted citation output of funded projects, although a high degree of variability existed in the data. Analysis over time revealed that as average annual scores of all applications (both funded and unfunded) submitted to this program improved with time, the average annual citation output per application increased. Citation impact did not correlate with the amount of funds awarded per application or with the total annual programmatic budget. However, the number of funded applications per year was found to correlate well with total annual citation impact, suggesting that improving funding success rates by reducing the size of awards may be an efficient strategy to optimize the scientific impact of research program portfolios. This strategy must be weighed against the need for a balanced research portfolio and the inherent high costs of some areas of research. The relationship observed between peer review scores and bibliometric output lays the groundwork for establishing a model system for future prospective testing of the validity of peer review formats and procedures.

  11. Does Peer Review of Radiation Plans Affect Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brunskill, Kelsey; Nguyen, Timothy K; Boldt, R Gabriel; Louie, Alexander V; Warner, Andrew; Marks, Lawrence B; Palma, David A

    2017-01-01

    Peer review is a recommended component of quality assurance in radiation oncology; however, it is resource-intensive and its effect on patient care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the published data to assess the reported clinical impact of peer review on radiation treatment plans. A systematic review of published English studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and abstracts published from major radiation oncology scientific meeting proceedings. For inclusion, the studies were required to report the effect of peer review on ≥1 element of treatment planning (eg, target volume or organ-at-risk delineation, dose prescription or dosimetry). The initial search strategy identified 882 potentially eligible studies, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text review and final analysis. Across a total of 11,491 patient cases, peer review programs led to modifications in a weighted mean of 10.8% of radiation treatment plans. Five studies differentiated between major and minor changes and reported weighted mean rates of change of 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The most common changes were related to target volume delineation (45.2% of changed plans), dose prescription or written directives (24.4%), and non-target volume delineation or normal tissue sparing (7.5%). Our findings suggest that peer review leads to changes in clinical care in approximately 1 of every 9 cases overall. This is similar to the reported rates of change in peer review studies from other oncology-related specialties, such as radiology and pathology. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  12. Does Peer Review of Radiation Plans Affect Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Brunskill, Kelsey; Nguyen, Timothy K.; Boldt, R. Gabriel; Louie, Alexander V.; Warner, Andrew; Marks, Lawrence B.; Palma, David A.

    2017-01-01

    Purpose: Peer review is a recommended component of quality assurance in radiation oncology; however, it is resource-intensive and its effect on patient care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the published data to assess the reported clinical impact of peer review on radiation treatment plans. Methods and Materials: A systematic review of published English studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and abstracts published from major radiation oncology scientific meeting proceedings. For inclusion, the studies were required to report the effect of peer review on ≥1 element of treatment planning (eg, target volume or organ-at-risk delineation, dose prescription or dosimetry). Results: The initial search strategy identified 882 potentially eligible studies, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text review and final analysis. Across a total of 11,491 patient cases, peer review programs led to modifications in a weighted mean of 10.8% of radiation treatment plans. Five studies differentiated between major and minor changes and reported weighted mean rates of change of 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The most common changes were related to target volume delineation (45.2% of changed plans), dose prescription or written directives (24.4%), and non-target volume delineation or normal tissue sparing (7.5%). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that peer review leads to changes in clinical care in approximately 1 of every 9 cases overall. This is similar to the reported rates of change in peer review studies from other oncology-related specialties, such as radiology and pathology.

  13. Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Herbert, Danielle L; Graves, Nicholas; Clarke, Philip; Barnett, Adrian G

    2015-07-02

    To prospectively test two simplified peer review processes, estimate the agreement between the simplified and official processes, and compare the costs of peer review. A prospective parallel study of Project Grant proposals submitted in 2013 to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. The official funding outcomes were compared with two simplified processes using proposals in Public Health and Basic Science. The two simplified processes were: panels of 7 reviewers who met face-to-face and reviewed only the nine-page research proposal and track record (simplified panel); and 2 reviewers who independently reviewed only the nine-page research proposal (journal panel). The official process used panels of 12 reviewers who met face-to-face and reviewed longer proposals of around 100 pages. We compared the funding outcomes of 72 proposals that were peer reviewed by the simplified and official processes. Agreement in funding outcomes; costs of peer review based on reviewers' time and travel costs. The agreement between the simplified and official panels (72%, 95% CI 61% to 82%), and the journal and official panels (74%, 62% to 83%), was just below the acceptable threshold of 75%. Using the simplified processes would save $A2.1-$A4.9 million per year in peer review costs. Using shorter applications and simpler peer review processes gave reasonable agreement with the more complex official process. Simplified processes save time and money that could be reallocated to actual research. Funding agencies should consider streamlining their application processes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

  14. Experience of the United States in Hosting and Supporting IAEA Peer Review Missions

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Mamish, N.

    2016-01-01

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) provides a number of peer review services to its Member States. The United States has strongly supported these peer reviews since their inception. In 2010, the United States hosted an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission, with a follow-up mission completed in 2014. The missions provided valuable recommendations and suggestions, identified a number of best practices, and acknowledged the prompt and effective actions taken by the NRC following the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Through hosting an International Physical Protection Advisory Service (IPPAS) mission in 2013, the United States benefited both from the insights provided by the team, as well as the U.S. Government’s gap analyses and preparatory efforts in advance of the mission. The United States strongly supports the IAEA’s Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) program, inviting a peer review mission to a U.S. nuclear power plant every 3 years. Although OSART is an operational, not regulatory, peer review, the NRC provides funding for the mission and gives inspection credit to operators that host them. The United States also contributes significant technical expertise to IAEA peer review missions hosted by other Member States. With the IRRS and IPPAS reaching their 10th and 20th anniversaries respectively, these programs have improved as they have matured. However, it remains critical for Member States to continue to support these programs, and provide feedback to the IAEA Secretariat on their effectiveness and areas where IAEA might enhance them. Doing so will ensure peer reviews remain an effective tool for strengthening nuclear safety and security worldwide. (author)

  15. On the peer review process and its implications for future PRAs

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Kastenberg, W.E.

    1989-01-01

    A Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is an effort to quantify nuclear power plant safety in terms of the frequency and consequences of severe accidents. Even though risk analysis can be considered a mature field, the results of recent PRA's are not as robust as they should be because of uncertainty. Some of the major contributors to the uncertainty regarding our current state of knowledge with respect to PRA are: System behavior is subjected to human intervention (and behavior) which is difficult to quantify. Phenomena encountered during severe accidents are difficult to model because they involve multi-component, multi-phase physico-chemical effects in ill-defined geometries. System behavior due to severe external events (e.g., earthquakes, fires) is difficult to model and quantify. Various aspects of plant design and operation are omitted from consideration such as design errors, plant aging and partial operation of engineered safety features. NUREG-1150, have been subject to peer review. The objective of this paper is to discuss the Peer Review of the Draft Reactor Risk Reference Document, and its implications of the future. We begin with a discussion of the objectives of a peer review, peer review committees, and the comments of a peer review committee. We then discuss a major aspect of the NUREG-1150 Peer Review dealing with uncertainty and expert opinion. Given these discussions, some implications for future PRA's will be presented. The goal is to initiate dialogue so that the PRA process as well as its bottom line results achieve credibility in the technical community

  16. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A; Dobránszki, Judit

    2015-01-01

    Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers' money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific

  17. Is Any Social Media Publicity Good Publicity? The Case of @RealPeerReview and Altmetrics

    OpenAIRE

    Lanamäki, Arto; Ahmad, Muhammad Usman

    2017-01-01

    People familiar with the Twitter account @RealPeerReview might associate it with online cultural wars, representing the “alt-right” side of that war. According to Nagle (2017), the other side is the “identitarian privilege-checking left” (p. 75) whose main preoccupation is “gender fluidity and providing a safe space to explore other concerns like mental ill-health, physical disability, race, cultural identity, and ‘intersectionality’” (p. 69). The @RealPeerReview Twitter account, associated w...

  18. Fate of Manuscripts Rejected From the Red Journal

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Holliday, Emma B.; Yang, George; Jagsi, Reshma; Hoffman, Karen E.; Bennett, Katherine Egan; Grace, Calley; Zietman, Anthony L.

    2015-01-01

    Purpose: To evaluate characteristics associated with higher rates of acceptance for original manuscripts submitted for publication to the International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics (IJROBP) and describe the fate of rejected manuscripts. Methods and Materials: Manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP from May 1, 2010, to August 31, 2010, and May 1, 2012, to August 31, 2012, were evaluated for author demographics and acceptance status. A PubMed search was performed for each IJROBP-rejected manuscript to ascertain whether the manuscript was ultimately published elsewhere. The Impact Factor of the accepting journal and the number of citations of the published manuscript were also collected. Results: Of the 500 included manuscripts, 172 (34.4%) were accepted and 328 (65.6%) were rejected. There was no significant difference in acceptance rates according to gender or degree of the submitting author, but there were significant differences seen based on the submitting author's country, rank, and h-index. On multivariate analysis, earlier year submitted (P<.0001) and higher author h-index (P=.006) remained significantly associated with acceptance into the IJROBP. Two hundred thirty-five IJROBP-rejected manuscripts (71.7%) were ultimately published in a PubMed-listed journal as of July 2014. There were no significant differences in any submitting author characteristics. Journals accepting IJROBP-rejected manuscripts had a lower median [interquartile range] 2013 impact factor compared with the IJROBP (2.45 [1.53-3.71] vs 4.176). The IJROBP-rejected manuscripts ultimately published elsewhere had a lower median [interquartile range] number of citations (1 [0-4] vs 6 [2-11]; P<.001), which persisted on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to the IJROBP is approximately one-third, and approximately 70% of rejected manuscripts are ultimately published in other PubMed-listed journals, but these ultimate

  19. [Study on two manuscripts with colored illustrations collected in France].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Liu, Yu-Ping; Cao, Hui

    2013-09-01

    Two manuscripts with colored illustrations in French libraries were investigated. The research showed that: the first manuscript with colored pictures include 2 volumes, titled Animaux et Plantes de Chine collected in Library of Museum National d'Historie Naturelle (MNHN);the other manuscript with colored pictures has only 1 volume, titled Botanique Chinoise collected in Library of Societe Asiatique, College de France, which were identified as illustrations of Ben cao gang mu (Compendium of Materia Medica) (1640 edition) by Li Shi-zhen. These pictures were copied by P. d'Incarville, and are similar to Plantes fleurs et arbres de Chine in Bibliotheque de l'Institut de Franceand, Collection de Plantes Veneneuses de la Chine Gravees et Imprimees en Couleurs par les Missionnaries Jesuites in Bibliotheque Nationale de France, respectively. The latter two manuscripts were identified as illustrations of Ben cao pin hui jing yao (Essential Collections of Materia Medica) (1700 edition).

  20. Writing and Publishing a Research Paper in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

    Science.gov (United States)

    Porter, Stephen R.

    2007-01-01

    Writing and publishing a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal is a complicated process. This paper tries to take some of the mystery out of that process by describing how a good research paper should be structured, and how the journal submission process works.

  1. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Huisman, A.H.M.; Smits, J.P.J.M.

    2017-01-01

    To gain insight into the duration and quality of the scientific peer review process, we analyzed data from 3500 review experiences submitted by authors to the SciRev.sc website. Aspects studied are duration of the first review round, total review duration, immediate rejection time, the number,

  2. Implementation and Validation of PACS Integrated Peer Review for Discrepancy Recording of Radiology Reporting

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Olthof, A. W.; van Ooijen, P. M. A.

    The purpose of this work is to demonstrate the possibility of implementation of a PACS-integrated peer review system based on RADPEER T classification providing a step-wise implementation plan utilizing features already present in the standard PACS implementation and without the requirement of

  3. Participation, Interaction and Social Presence: An Exploratory Study of Collaboration in Online Peer Review Groups

    Science.gov (United States)

    Zhao, Huahui; Sullivan, Kirk P. H.; Mellenius, Ingmarie

    2014-01-01

    A key reason for using asynchronous computer conferencing in instruction is its potential for supporting collaborative learning. However, few studies have examined collaboration in computer conferencing. This study examined collaboration in six peer review groups within an asynchronous computer conferencing. Eighteen tertiary students participated…

  4. Power of Peer Review: An Online Collaborative Learning Assignment in Social Psychology

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cathey, Christie

    2007-01-01

    In a semester-long, peer review assignment, undergraduates enrolled in a social psychology course wrote essays that applied course concepts to life experiences. Students anonymously posted essays for the entire class to view, and peers posted commentaries on classmates' essays using an online discussion board. Students rated the assignment as…

  5. External Peer Review of Assessment: An Effective Approach to Verifying Standards?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bloxham, Sue; Hudson, Jane; den Outer, Birgit; Price, Margaret

    2015-01-01

    There is growing international concern to regulate and assure standards in higher education. External peer review of assessment, often called external examining, is a well-established approach to assuring standards. Australian higher education is one of several systems without a history of external examining for undergraduate programmes that is…

  6. Peer review audit of occupational health reports--process and outcomes.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lalloo, D; Ghafur, I; Macdonald, E B

    2012-01-01

    Peer review is widely used in the selection and publication of scientific research. Its application in clinical practice is emerging, particularly with increased emphasis on clinical governance and the imminent introduction of revalidation. To formalize our peer review process of occupational health (OH) reports and formally assess the outcomes of this process. A prospective internal audit was carried out of all peer reviewed OH reports between June and August 2010. An abbreviated assessment form, based on Questions 4-12 of the Sheffield Assessment Instrument for Letters (SAIL) was utilized. The report was assessed using the abbreviated SAIL, with one of four possible outcome options-no action, no changes made to report following discussion with author, changes made without discussion with author and changes made following discussion with author. The audit identified that 27% of OH reports required modifications. Eighteen per cent were related to typographical errors, spelling, grammar and administrative fields being incomplete. Nine per cent were related to more complex reasons, most commonly, all the manager's questions not being addressed, review arrangements not being clear and the report not being clear and understandable to the intended readership. Peer review can be a useful tool in improving the standard of OH reports, specifically picking up minor errors and potentially more significant areas of concern. It can also be a valuable educational tool in terms of personal feedback, benchmarking and exposure to different styles of report writing.

  7. Peer review of psychodynamic psychotherapy. Experimental studies of the American Psychological Association/CHAMPUS program.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cohen, L H; Pizzirusso, D

    1982-12-01

    Two factorial experiments examined the effects of reviewer theoretical orientation, documented treatment progress, and patient concurrence data on the peer review of clinical treatment reports that described long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy with a depressed, female outpatient. The experiments employed an unobtrusive methodology; peer reviewers believed that their evaluations would affect the disposition of actual mental health insurance claims. Subjects (n = 105) were American Psychological Association/Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) peer reviewers of a psychodynamic, behavioral, or eclectic theoretical orientation. The psychodynamic reviewers, compared with the behavioral and eclectic reviewers, were more positive in their ratings of treatment and more generous in their future care reimbursement recommendations. Additionally, the data demonstrated that APA/CHAMPUS peer review was sensitive to reported treatment progress, and that reviewers of diverse orientations were equally responsive to documented progress in psychodynamic psychotherapy. The patient concurrence manipulation had little effect on the dependent measures. Implications for mental health quality assurance programs are discussed.

  8. The Reliability and Validity of Peer Review of Writing in High School AP English Classes

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schunn, Christian; Godley, Amanda; DeMartino, Sara

    2016-01-01

    One approach to writing instruction that has been shown to improve secondary students' academic writing without increasing demands on teachers' time is peer review. However, many teachers and students worry that students' feedback and assessment of their peers' writing is less accurate than teachers'. This study investigated whether Advanced…

  9. Partners in crisis : peer review of partnership in crisis-related interventions

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Haar, G. van der; Hilhorst, D.; Boeckel, K. van

    2009-01-01

    This report is the outcome of a peer review of partnership in crisis-related interventions jointly realized by Cordaid, ICCO and Kerk in Actie, the Netherlands Red Cross, Oxfam Novib and War Child Holland and supported by PSO and Disaster Studies

  10. Peer Review Plan for OPPT Work Plan Risk Assessment of 1 - Bromopropane (“1 - BP”)

    Science.gov (United States)

    This document outlines the peer review plan for a risk assessment which addresses occupational uses of 1-BP in dry-cleaning and foam gluing operations, consumer uses in aerosol solvent cleaners and spray adhesives, and its effects on human health.

  11. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Biodiesel and Other Technologies Summary

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-28

    This document discloses the comments provided by a review panel at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Biomass Program Peer Review held on November 15-16, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and the Biodiesel and Other Technologies, held on August 14th and 15th in Golden, Colorado.

  12. The role of peer review in Norwegian quality assurance: potential consequences for excellence and diversity

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Langfeldt, Liv; Stensaker, Bjørn; Harvey, Lee; Huisman, Jeroen; Westerheijden, Donald F.

    2010-01-01

    The article analyses the role of peer review within broader external quality assurance schemes. Based on an analytical framework emphasising that modern quality assurance schemes are designed as a balancing act between standardised guidelines and professional judgement, the article uses data from a

  13. Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hasty, Robert T; Garbalosa, Ryan C; Barbato, Vincenzo A; Valdes, Pedro J; Powers, David W; Hernandez, Emmanuel; John, Jones S; Suciu, Gabriel; Qureshi, Farheen; Popa-Radu, Matei; San Jose, Sergio; Drexler, Nathaniel; Patankar, Rohan; Paz, Jose R; King, Christopher W; Gerber, Hilary N; Valladares, Michael G; Somji, Alyaz A

    2014-05-01

    Since its launch in 2001, Wikipedia has become the most popular general reference site on the Internet and a popular source of health care information. To evaluate the accuracy of this resource, the authors compared Wikipedia articles on the most costly medical conditions with standard, evidence-based, peer-reviewed sources. The top 10 most costly conditions in terms of public and private expenditure in the United States were identified, and a Wikipedia article corresponding to each topic was chosen. In a blinded process, 2 randomly assigned investigators independently reviewed each article and identified all assertions (ie, implication or statement of fact) made in it. The reviewer then conducted a literature search to determine whether each assertion was supported by evidence. The assertions found by each reviewer were compared and analyzed to determine whether assertions made by Wikipedia for these conditions were supported by peer-reviewed sources. For commonly identified assertions, there was statistically significant discordance between 9 of the 10 selected Wikipedia articles (coronary artery disease, lung cancer, major depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, back pain, and hyperlipidemia) and their corresponding peer-reviewed sources (P<.05) and for all assertions made by Wikipedia for these medical conditions (P<.05 for all 9). Most Wikipedia articles representing the 10 most costly medical conditions in the United States contain many errors when checked against standard peer-reviewed sources. Caution should be used when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care.

  14. Open and Anonymous Peer Review in a Digital Online Environment Compared in Academic Writing Context

    Science.gov (United States)

    Razi, Salim

    2016-01-01

    This study compares the impact of "open" and "anonymous" peer feedback as an adjunct to teacher-mediated feedback in a digital online environment utilising data gathered on an academic writing course at a Turkish university. Students were divided into two groups with similar writing proficiencies. Students peer reviewed papers…

  15. European Union response to Fukushima. European stress tests and peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Jamet, Philippe

    2012-01-01

    Following the severe accidents which started in the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP on 11 March 2011, the European Council requested that a comprehensive safety and risk assessment, in light of preliminary lessons learned, be performed on all EU nuclear plants. Therefore, stress tests and peer review assessing natural initiating events, the loss of safety systems and severe accident management have been performed in the 15 European Union countries with nuclear power plants as well as Switzerland and Ukraine. The final peer review report of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) highlights four main areas for improvement to be explored across Europe: 1. Development by the Western European Nuclear Regulators' Association (WENRA), with the contribution of the best available EU expertise, of a European guidance on assessment of natural hazards and margins; 2. Importance of Periodic Safety Review to be underlined by ENSREG; 3. Expeditious implementation of the recognised measures to protect containment integrity; 4. Prevention of accidents resulting from natural hazards and limitation of their consequences. The peer review of the European stress tests was completed in April 2012. In their conclusive statement issued 26 April 2012, the national European regulators and the European Commission as European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) required that follow-up would occur by way of an ENSREG action plan. Country specific action plans will be developed and peer review workshop will be organised to share lessons learned on the implementation of post-Fukushima safety improvements.

  16. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Biochemical and Products Platform Summary

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document discloses the comments provided by a review panel at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Biomass Program Peer Review held on November 15-16, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and the Biochemical and Products Platform Review held on August 7-9, 2007 in Denver, Colorado.

  17. Is it time to standardize ethics guiding the peer review process?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bosetti, Francesca; Toscano, Christopher D

    2008-02-01

    While most scientific journals have well defined ethics requirements for authors, very few journals explicitly specify the ethics standards that govern the actions of editors, editorial board members, and reviewers. We believe it is time to create a standardized policy for all medical and scientific journals that guides the ethical conduct of all stakeholders in the peer review process.

  18. Is it time to standardize ethics guiding the peer review process?

    OpenAIRE

    Bosetti, Francesca; Toscano, Christopher D.

    2007-01-01

    While most scientific journals have well defined ethics requirements for authors, very few journals explicitly specify the ethics standards that govern the actions of editors, editorial board members, and reviewers. We believe it is time to create a standardized policy for all medical and scientific journals that guides the ethical conduct of all stakeholders in the peer review process.

  19. From SSWR to Peer-Reviewed Publication: How Many Live and How Many Die?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Perron, Brian E.; Taylor, Harry Owen; Vaughn, Michael G.; Grogan-Kaylor, Andrew; Ruffolo, Mary C.; Spencer, Michael

    2011-01-01

    The purpose of this study was to estimate how many presentations at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) are subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. A 30% random sample of abstracts presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of SSWR was reviewed. To determine publication status of the presentations, the authors…

  20. Automated Assessment of the Quality of Peer Reviews Using Natural Language Processing Techniques

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ramachandran, Lakshmi; Gehringer, Edward F.; Yadav, Ravi K.

    2017-01-01

    A "review" is textual feedback provided by a reviewer to the author of a submitted version. Peer reviews are used in academic publishing and in education to assess student work. While reviews are important to e-commerce sites like Amazon and e-bay, which use them to assess the quality of products and services, our work focuses on…