WorldWideScience

Sample records for included peer-reviewed manuscripts

  1. Navigating manuscript assessment: The new practitioner's guide to primary literature peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Smith, Devlin V; Stokes, Laura B; Marx, Kayleigh; Aitken, Samuel L

    2018-01-01

    For pharmacists, the first years after graduation are spent developing their knowledge base, advancing as a practitioner, and honing their abilities as healthcare providers and drug information experts. New practitioners encounter many challenges during this time, which for many include publishing original research or reviewing manuscripts for colleagues and medical journals. Inexperience navigating the publication process, from submission to receipt of (and response to) peer review commentary, is often cited as a major barrier to timely publication of resident and new practitioner research. Serving as a peer reviewer in turn provides the new practitioner with insight on this process and can be an enlightening experience used to garner confidence in subsequently submitting their own formal manuscripts. A number of publications describing steps for peer review are available, however, many of these articles address more experienced reviewers or critique the peer review process itself. No definitive resource exists for new pharmacy practitioners interested in developing their peer review skills. The information presented in this summative guide should be used in conjunction with practice opportunities to help new practitioners develop proficiency at peer review.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. NASA Product Peer Review Process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jenks, Ken

    2009-01-01

    This viewgraph presentation describes NASA's product peer review process. The contents include: 1) Inspection/Peer Review at NASA; 2) Reasons for product peer reviews; 3) Different types of peer reviews; and 4) NASA requirements for peer reviews. This presentation also includes a demonstration of an actual product peer review.

  10. Peer reviewing e-learning: opportunities, challenges, and solutions.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ruiz, Jorge G; Candler, Chris; Teasdale, Thomas A

    2007-05-01

    Peer review is the foundation of academic publication and a necessary step in the scrutiny of any scholarly work. Simply defined, peer review is the attentive, unbiased assessment of any scholarly work that is submitted for formal scrutiny. Although medical school faculty increasingly use technology in clinical teaching, e-learning materials are often not subjected to a rigorous peer review process. The authors contrast peer review of e-learning materials with that of print materials, describe peer review issues regarding e-learning materials, propose approaches to address the challenges of peer review of e-learning materials, and outline directions for refinement of the e-learning peer review process. At its core, the peer review of e-learning materials should not differ substantially from that of traditional manuscripts. However, e-learning introduces new demands that impel reviewers to consider aspects that are unique to educational technology, including pedagogy, format, usability, navigation, interactivity, delivery, ease of updating, distribution, and access. Four approaches are offered to ease the burden and improve the quality of e-learning peer review: develop peer review training, embrace multidisciplinary peer review, develop guidelines, and provide incentives and compensation. The authors conclude with suggestions about peer review research.

  11. 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.

  12. Peer Review of Teaching

    OpenAIRE

    Fernandez, Charles E.; Yu, Jenny

    2007-01-01

    This article provides an overview and description of peer review of teaching for faculty members and administrators who would like to implement a peer review program. This may include classroom and clinical settings. A brief overview, procedure, and a teaching competence evaluation rubric are provided

  13. The changing face of peer review

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Irene Hames

    2014-02-01

    Full Text Available It is a time of great innovation in peer review. Traditional models are being adapted and completely new ones introduced. Independent peer-review services are also starting to be offered by organizations outside the traditional journal ecosphere. In both new and established systems, the importance of increasing openness, transparency, and interaction between peer-review participants is being recognized, and these are being introduced to varying degrees. Concern with the ‘wastage’ of review effort in traditional peer review, where manuscripts often go from journal to journal, being reviewed afresh at each, before being accepted for publication, is also being addressed. Reviews are being transferred (‘cascaded’ and shared between some journals. The separation of the two basic functions of peer review—critical review and selection—as originally introduced by the journal PLOS ONE has been a major innovation, leading to the publication of sound work irrespective of its perceived novelty, interest, or importance. Post-publication review is also becoming more important and is another growth area. The concept of ‘portable’ reviews has been introduced, where authors can take reviews with them—either after they have obtained them from a peer-review provider in return for a fee or had their manuscript reviewed and declined at some journals—and include them with submissions to journals. The dynamics of publication are changing alongside, with journals able to ‘bid’ for papers that have been reviewed by independent organizations and make publishing offers to the authors. A number of innovations and ‘alternative’ peer-review models are described. They all, however, face many of the same issues as traditional peer review, and the same basic principles of good and ethical practice apply.

  14. Peer Reviewer

    OpenAIRE

    Baru Mansjur, Mansjur

    2016-01-01

    - Peer Reviewer Effects Of Histomorohometric, Bone Tu Implant Contac and Asseointegration On a novel Hybrid Micro/Nano Topografhy Modfie Dental Implant in The Mandibular Canine Premolar Area Of The Mini Pigs

  15. Peer Review

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Avital, Michel

    2018-01-01

    that the community’s hunger for publication accompanies only a modest appetite for providing the necessary support to sustain the consequent increase in peer-review load. The advent of blockchain technologies and the proliferation of cryptocurrencies presents an opportunity to develop a token-based peer...

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 40 Protection of Environment 24 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review. 194.27 Section 194.27... § 194.27 Peer review. (a) Any compliance application shall include documentation of peer review that has... barrier evaluation as required in § 194.44. (b) Peer review processes required in paragraph (a) of this...

  1. 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

  2. Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando

    2018-01-01

    The peer-review crisis is posing a risk to the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system. Journals have to ask many potential peer reviewers to obtain a minimum acceptable number of peers accepting reviewing a manuscript. Several solutions have been suggested to overcome this shortage. From reimbursing for the job, to eliminating pre-publication reviews, one cannot predict which is more dangerous for the future of scholarly publishing. And, why not acknowledging their contribution to the final version of the article published? PubMed created two categories of contributors: authors [AU] and collaborators [IR]. Why not a third category for the peer-reviewer?

  3. Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Fernandez-Llimos F

    2018-03-01

    Full Text Available The peer-review crisis is posing a risk to the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system. Journals have to ask many potential peer reviewers to obtain a minimum acceptable number of peers accepting reviewing a manuscript. Several solutions have been suggested to overcome this shortage. From reimbursing for the job, to eliminating pre-publication reviews, one cannot predict which is more dangerous for the future of scholarly publishing. And, why not acknowledging their contribution to the final version of the article published? PubMed created two categories of contributors: authors [AU] and collaborators [IR]. Why not a third category for the peer-reviewer?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Mentored peer reviewing for PhD faculty and students.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Xu, Jiayun; Kim, Kyounghae; Kurtz, Melissa; Nolan, Marie T

    2016-02-01

    There is a need for scholars to be prepared as peer reviewers in order to ensure the continual publication of quality science. However, developing the skills to craft a constructive critique can be difficult. In this commentary, we discuss the use of a group peer review mentoring model for PhD students to gain experience in peer review from a faculty member who is experienced in peer review. Central to this model, was the opportunity for each student and faculty mentor to openly discuss their critique of the manuscript. Through this enriching experience, novice researchers were able to learn the elements of a good peer review, better determine a manuscript's substantive contribution to science, and advance the quality of their own manuscript writing. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. Publications and the peer review system

    Science.gov (United States)

    The peer review process as it relates to scientific publications in entomological journals is facing a number of serious issues that must be addressed. Among those issues are the increasing submissions from international authors writing in English as a second or third language, manuscripts lacking s...

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

    Science.gov (United States)

    Vorobel, Oksana; Kim, Deoksoon

    2014-01-01

    Recent studies on peer review groups in second language classes have focused on various topics, including collaboration (Carr, 2008) and the effect of peer review versus teacher feedback on students' writing (Zhang, 1995). One area that has received little attention is the content of students' speech during peer review. This longitudinal case…

  15. 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.

  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. Re-Viewing Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Flynn, Elizabeth A.

    2011-01-01

    In this article, the author revisits her essay, "Students as Readers of Their Classmates' Writing," by providing a review of the literature on peer review over the past three decades and comments on patterns she sees in waves of peer review research and theorizing. She describes her subsequent experience with peer review in her own classes, and…

  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. 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

  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. 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

  4. Reviewing Manuscripts for Biomedical Journals

    Science.gov (United States)

    Garmel, Gus M

    2010-01-01

    Writing for publication is a complex task. For many professionals, producing a well-executed manuscript conveying one's research, ideas, or educational wisdom is challenging. Authors have varying emotions related to the process of writing for scientific publication. Although not studied, a relationship between an author's enjoyment of the writing process and the product's outcome is highly likely. As with any skill, practice generally results in improvements. Literature focused on preparing manuscripts for publication and the art of reviewing submissions exists. Most journals guard their reviewers' anonymity with respect to the manuscript review process. This is meant to protect them from direct or indirect author demands, which may occur during the review process or in the future. It is generally accepted that author identities are masked in the peer-review process. However, the concept of anonymity for reviewers has been debated recently; many editors consider it problematic that reviewers are not held accountable to the public for their decisions. The review process is often arduous and underappreciated, one reason why biomedical journals acknowledge editors and frequently recognize reviewers who donate their time and expertise in the name of science. This article describes essential elements of a submitted manuscript, with the hopes of improving scientific writing. It also discusses the review process within the biomedical literature, the importance of reviewers to the scientific process, responsibilities of reviewers, and qualities of a good review and reviewer. In addition, it includes useful insights to individuals who read and interpret the medical literature. PMID:20740129

  5. Group consensus peer review in radiation oncology: commitment to quality.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Duggar, W Neil; Bhandari, Rahul; Yang, Chunli Claus; Vijayakumar, Srinivasan

    2018-03-27

    Peer review, especially prospective peer review, has been supported by professional organizations as an important element in optimal Radiation Oncology practice based on its demonstration of efficacy at detecting and preventing errors prior to patient treatment. Implementation of peer review is not without barriers, but solutions do exist to mitigate or eliminate some of those barriers. Peer review practice at our institution involves three key elements: new patient conference, treatment planning conference, and chart rounds. The treatment planning conference is an adaptation of the group consensus peer review model from radiology which utilizes a group of peers reviewing each treatment plan prior to implementation. The peer group in radiation oncology includes Radiation Oncologists, Physician Residents, Medical Physicists, Dosimetrists, and Therapists. Thus, technical and clinical aspects of each plan are evaluated simultaneously. Though peer review is held in high regard in Radiation Oncology, many barriers commonly exist preventing optimal implementation such as time intensiveness, repetition, and distraction from clinic time with patients. Through the use of automated review tools and commitment by individuals and administration in regards to staffing, scheduling, and responsibilities, these barriers have been mitigated to implement this Group Consensus Peer Review model into a Radiation Oncology Clinic. A Group Consensus Peer Review model has been implemented with strategies to address common barriers to effective and efficient peer review.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara

    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 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

  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. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-01

    All papers published in this Volume 12 of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the editors of the 25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems proceedings, Professor Romeo Susan-Resiga, Dr Sebastian Muntean and Dr Sandor Bernad. Reviews were conducted by expert referees from the Scientific 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 25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems are: Anton ANTONTechnical University of Civil Engineering, BucharestRomania François AVELLANEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneSwitzerland Fidel ARZOLAEDELCAVenezuela Thomas ASCHENBRENNERVoith Hydro Gmb H & Co. KG, HeidenheimGermany Anton BERGANTLitostroj Power d.o.o., LjubljanaSlovenia Gerard BOISENSAM, LilleFrance Hermod BREKKENTNU, TrondheimNorway Stuart COULSON Voith Hydro Inc., YorkUSA Eduard EGUSQUIZAPolytechnical University Catalonia BarcelonaSpain Arpad FAYUniversity of MiskolczHungary Richard FISHERVoith Hydro Inc., York USA Regiane FORTES-PATELLAInstitut Polytechnique de GrenobleFrance Aleksandar GAJICUniversity of BelgradeSerbia Arno GEHRERAndritz Hydro GrazAustria José GONZÁLEZUniversidad de OviedoSpain François GUIBAULTEcole Polytechnique de MontrealCanada Chisachi KATOUniversity of TokyoJapan Kwang-Yong KIMInha University, IncheonKorea Jiri KOUTNIKVoith Hydro Gmb H & Co. KG, HeidenheimGermany Adrian LUNGUDunarea de Jos University of GalatiRomania Christophe NICOLETPower Vision Engineering Sàrl, LausanneSwitzerland Torbjøm K. NIELSENNTNU, TrodheimNorway Michihiro NISHIKyushu Institute of TechnologyJapan Maryse PAGEHydro Quebec IREQ, VarennesCanada Etienne PARKINSONAndritz Hydro LtdSwitzerland František POCHYLYBrno UniversityCzech Republic Stefan RIEDELBAUCHVoith Hydro Gmb H & Co. KG

  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. Peer reviews and the role of a journal editor

    Science.gov (United States)

    Obtaining peer reviews for manuscripts submitted to scientific journals is becoming increasingly difficult. Changes to the system are necessary, and editors must cultivate and maintain a solid base of reviewers to help evaluate journal submissions. This article outlines some steps editors can and sh...

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. The Potential of Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Johnson, Susan Moore; Fiarman, Sarah E.

    2012-01-01

    Peer review of teachers is controversial for several reasons. Some say peer reviewers encroach on the rightful domain of the principal as instructional leader. Others argue that, because peer evaluators are fellow teachers, they may be biased or unwilling to make hard decisions. Many teachers find the prospect of peer evaluation unsettling because…

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. Peer Review: Has It a Future?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Soh, Kay Cheng

    2013-01-01

    Although its history is short, peer review has fast become a fixture of journal publications acquiring the status of a ritual in the academia. Many relevant and important issues have been raised leading to doubts about the value of peer review. The advent of electronic publishing further threatens the future of peer review. For peer review to…

  18. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 45 Public Welfare 4 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Peer review. 1388.9 Section 1388.9 Public Welfare... PROGRAM THE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS § 1388.9 Peer review. (a) The purpose of the peer review... D, Section 152 of the Act, must be evaluated through the peer review process. (c) Panels must be...

  19. 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.

  20. 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

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Joosten, Robbie P. [Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam (Netherlands); Soueidan, Hayssam; Wessels, Lodewyk F. A. [Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam (Netherlands); Perrakis, Anastassis, E-mail: a.perrakis@nki.nl [Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam (Netherlands)

    2013-12-01

    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. Peer review at the Health Information and Libraries Journal.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Grant, Maria J

    2014-12-01

    At its best, peer review can mean receiving constructive feedback to help you make the most of your writing. At the Health Information and Libraries Journal, we strive to make the peer review a positive process for both authors and referees. We adopt a process of double-blind peer review. To receive two reviews in a timely manner, three referees are initially invited for each article submitted. The referees are asked to submit their review noting errors, areas of ambiguity or clarification required before the editor and editorial team consider the manuscript ready for publication. As with most journals, it's unlikely that your writing will be accepted in its original form; a typical outcome will be for a recommendation for major or minor revisions. This is good! It means the editorial team has seen something of likely interest to their readership and wants to help you develop it to a publishable standard. There can be a surprising amount of development and change in a manuscript from original submission through to publication. While you may be experienced in your field, you may not have much experience of writing for publication. As a referee, you get an intriguing insight into the shape of manuscripts in their original form. © 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Journal.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Aghaee, Naghmeh; Hansson, Henrik

    2013-01-01

    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…

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. The Dedisciplining of Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Frodeman, Robert; Briggle, Adam

    2012-01-01

    The demand for greater public accountability is changing the nature of ex ante peer review at public science agencies worldwide. Based on a four year research project, this essay examines these changes through an analysis of the process of grant proposal review at two US public science agencies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the…

  7. 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...

  8. 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.

  9. 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, Ppeer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2.60-3.12]). Peer review quality differs based on obstetrics 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Peer review. 550.17 Section 550.17 Agriculture... § 550.17 Peer review. Upon request of the REE Agency, cooperators may be requested to provide documentation in support of peer review activities and cooperator personnel may be requested to participate in...

  13. Advancing Kinesiology through Improved Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-01-01

    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…

  14. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health PUBLIC....5 Peer review. An individual may not be considered for appointment into the SBRS unless his/her qualifications have been reviewed by a PHS peer review committee and the committee has recommended appointment to...

  15. Demystifying the peer-review process - workshop

    Science.gov (United States)

    Scientific writing and peer-review are integral parts of the publishing process. This workshop aims to demystify the peer-review process for early career scientists and provide insightful tips for streamlining the submission and peer review process for all researchers. Providing ...

  16. 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…

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. Clinical peer review in the United States: history, legal development and subsequent abuse.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Vyas, Dinesh; Hozain, Ahmed E

    2014-06-07

    The Joint Commission on Accreditation requires hospitals to conduct peer review to retain accreditation. Despite the intended purpose of improving quality medical care, the peer review process has suffered several setbacks throughout its tenure. In the 1980s, abuse of peer review for personal economic interest led to a highly publicized multimillion-dollar verdict by the United States Supreme Court against the perpetrating physicians and hospital. The verdict led to decreased physician participation for fear of possible litigation. Believing that peer review was critical to quality medical care, Congress subsequently enacted the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) granting comprehensive legal immunity for peer reviewers to increase participation. While serving its intended goal, HCQIA has also granted peer reviewers significant immunity likely emboldening abuses resulting in Sham Peer Reviews. While legal reform of HCQIA is necessary to reduce sham peer reviews, further measures including the need for standardization of the peer review process alongside external organizational monitoring are critical to improving peer review and reducing the prevalence of sham peer reviews.

  20. 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.

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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. PMID:26579064

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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....

  11. A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chauvin, Anthony; Moher, David; Altman, Doug; Schriger, David L; Alam, Sabina; Hopewell, Sally; Shanahan, Daniel R; Recchioni, Alessandro; Ravaud, Philippe; Boutron, Isabelle

    2017-09-15

    Systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications highlighted that interventions were limited and have little impact. This study aims to compare the accuracy of early career peer reviewers who use an innovative online tool to the usual peer reviewer process in evaluating the completeness of reporting and switched primary outcomes in completed reports. This is a cross-sectional study of individual two-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the BioMed Central series medical journals, BMJ , BMJ Open and Annals of Emergency Medicine and indexed with the publication type 'Randomised Controlled Trial'. First, we will develop an online tool and training module based (a) on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist and the Explanation and Elaboration document that would be dedicated to junior peer reviewers for assessing the completeness of reporting of key items and (b) the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Outcome Monitoring Project process used to identify switched outcomes in completed reports of the primary results of RCTs when initially submitted. Then, we will compare the performance of early career peer reviewers who use the online tool to the usual peer review process in identifying inadequate reporting and switched outcomes in completed reports of RCTs at initial journal submission. The primary outcome will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript. The secondary outcomes will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript for the CONSORT items and the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio to detect the item as adequately reported and to identify a switch in outcomes. We aim to include 120 RCTs and 120 early career peer reviewers. The research protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the INSERM Institutional Review Board (21 January 2016). The study is based on voluntary

  12. 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

  13. 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…

  14. Peer Review: Promoting Efficient School District Operations

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hale, Jason S.

    2010-01-01

    Many professions recognize the benefits of peer reviews to assess processes and operations because peers can more easily identify one another's inefficiencies and provide some kind of intervention. Generally, the goal of the peer review process is to verify whether the work satisfies the standards set by the industry. A number of states have begun…

  15. 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.

  16. Gender bias in scholarly peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Helmer, Markus; Schottdorf, Manuel; Neef, Andreas; Battaglia, Demian

    2017-03-21

    Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing.

  17. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review procedures. 34.102 Section 34.102 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.102 Peer review procedures. The OJJDP peer review process is contained in an OJJDP “Peer...

  18. Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    John Ernest Kratz

    Full Text Available Data "publication" seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ∼ 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences- asking what expectations"data publication" raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data's documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published data.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Management of peer reviews. 34.110 Section 34.110 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES... the peer review process. ...

  3. 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…

  4. 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.

  5. Organising a manuscript reporting quality improvement or patient safety research.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Holzmueller, Christine G; Pronovost, Peter J

    2013-09-01

    Peer-reviewed publication plays important roles in disseminating research findings, developing generalisable knowledge and garnering recognition for authors and institutions. Nonetheless, many bemoan the whole manuscript writing process, intimidated by the arbitrary and somewhat opaque conventions. This paper offers practical advice about organising and writing a manuscript reporting quality improvement or patient safety research for submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Each section of the paper discusses a specific manuscript component-from title, abstract and each section of the manuscript body, through to reference list and tables and figures-explaining key principles, offering content organisation tips and providing an example of how this section may read. The paper also offers a checklist of common mistakes to avoid in a manuscript.

  6. 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...

  7. NCI Consumers Guide to Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    To define the role consumer advocate in the peer review of applications that support extramural clinical and population-based research and clinical career development and training by various grant and cooperative agreement mechanisms.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. Geothermal Technologies Program Overview - Peer Review Program

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Milliken, JoAnn [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2011-06-06

    This Geothermal Technologies Program presentation was delivered on June 6, 2011 at a Program Peer Review meeting. It contains annual budget, Recovery Act, funding opportunities, upcoming program activities, and more.

  11. 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.

  12. 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/.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. Random Versus Nonrandom Peer Review: A Case for More Meaningful Peer Review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Itri, Jason N; Donithan, Adam; Patel, Sohil H

    2018-05-10

    Random peer review programs are not optimized to discover cases with diagnostic error and thus have inherent limitations with respect to educational and quality improvement value. Nonrandom peer review offers an alternative approach in which diagnostic error cases are targeted for collection during routine clinical practice. The objective of this study was to compare error cases identified through random and nonrandom peer review approaches at an academic center. During the 1-year study period, the number of discrepancy cases and score of discrepancy were determined from each approach. The nonrandom peer review process collected 190 cases, of which 60 were scored as 2 (minor discrepancy), 94 as 3 (significant discrepancy), and 36 as 4 (major discrepancy). In the random peer review process, 1,690 cases were reviewed, of which 1,646 were scored as 1 (no discrepancy), 44 were scored as 2 (minor discrepancy), and none were scored as 3 or 4. Several teaching lessons and quality improvement measures were developed as a result of analysis of error cases collected through the nonrandom peer review process. Our experience supports the implementation of nonrandom peer review as a replacement to random peer review, with nonrandom peer review serving as a more effective method for collecting diagnostic error cases with educational and quality improvement value. Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  18. A Brief Introduction on Peer Review: New Possibilities

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Sean Scanlan

    2013-06-01

    Full Text Available From the classroom, to the lab, to the studio, to industry, and to the academy, evaluating work is part of everyday life. Whether we call it critiquing, refereeing, or peer reviewing, the goals are the same: to make the object under review better, to verify that its claims are not false, or at the very least, to ascertain that the object has some merit. Jenna Pack Sheffield’s note "Open Peer Review: Collective Intelligence as a Framework for Theorizing Approaches to Peer Review in the Humanities" discusses the definition of “open peer review” and looks at various ways it’s been used to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the process. This issue of NANO includes interviews with three editors who share their ideas about the shape of current peer review problems and what the future might look like for academics, tenure review boards, and publishers. First, Sean Scanlan conducted an email interview with Masoud Yazdani, the editor of Intellect Books, an independent academic publisher in the fields of creative practice and popular culture, whose aim is to publish scholarly books and journals that provide a vital space for widening critical debate in new and emerging subjects. Second, Sean Scanlan interviews Aaron Barlow, of New York City College of Technology, who shares his views on the problems of traditional peer review. Third, NANO assistant editor Rebecca Devers interviews Martha J. Cutter, the former editor of MELUS, about the complexities of processing, reviewing, and publishing a journal that receives in over 300 submissions each year.

  19. 7 CFR 3415.11 - 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. 3415.11 Section... 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...

  20. 7 CFR 3411.11 - 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. 3411.11 Section... 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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…

  4. [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.

  5. [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.

  6. 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

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

    OpenAIRE

    Mrowinski, Maciej J.; Fronczak, Piotr; Fronczak, Agata; Ausloos, Marcel; Nedic, Olgica

    2017-01-01

    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. ...

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. Evaluating Management Information Systems, A Protocol for Automated Peer Review Systems

    OpenAIRE

    Black, Gordon C.

    1980-01-01

    This paper discusses key issues in evaluating an automated Peer Review System. Included are the conceptual base, design, steps in planning structural components, operation parameters, criteria, costs and a detailed outline or protocol for use in the evaluation.

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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…

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  1. Peer reviews: taking on new meanings.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Raia, Lucille

    2011-01-01

    Peer reviews in nursing are historically used to gauge performance within an individual's scope of practice or as a tool to evaluate a sentinel or adverse event. Quality of care measures, clinical pertinence, and evaluating standards of care have begun as parallel strategies to replace the former uses in assuring the right care at the right time in the right setting.

  2. 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…

  3. 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.

  4. The impact of peer review on paediatric forensic reports.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kariyawasam, Uditha

    2016-10-01

    To retrospectively evaluate the common grammar and spelling errors of the medico-legal reports written by the doctors at the Victorian Forensic Paediatric Medical Service (VFPMS) in both Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) and Monash Medical Centre. The reports were evaluated at two points in time; before and after peer review. The aim of the study was to ascertain whether peer review improved the grammar and spelling in VFPMS medico-legal reports. Draft VFPMS reports are sent to the VFPMS medical director for peer review. The current study sampled 50 reports that were sent consecutively to Dr. Anne Smith from 1st of May 2015. The 50 corresponding final reports were then retrieved from the VFPMS database. The 50 pairs of draft and final reports were scored using a 50-point scoring system. The scores of the draft reports were compared to the scores of the final report to assess if there was a change in quality as measured using an explicit criteria audit of report structure, simple grammar, jargon use and spelling. The audit did not include evaluation of the validity of forensic opinions. The overall scores were statistically analysed using descriptive statistics and a paired T-test. The scores of the reports improved by 2.24% when the final reports were compared to the draft reports (p audit. Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  5. 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

  6. Performance assessment: a peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Lieberman, J.A.; Lee, W.W.L.

    1986-01-01

    This paper describes the rationale, membership, operation and major observations of the Performance Assessment National Review Group. The Group was assembled by Weston at the request of the US Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to review performance assessment work in the US basalt, salt and tuff repository projects. The purposes were to evaluate the adequacy of the current methods, identify deficiencies, and suggest potential improvement on repository performance assessment. To perform the review, Weston retained a group of distinguished consultants who have had extensive experience in disciplines pertinent to management of radioactive wastes including mathematical modeling of fluid transport. Topics reviewed included flow and transport, source term and uncertainty analysis. While the emphasis was on methodologies, the Projects were specifically requested to show currently available results so that the way they utilized familiar methodologies could be evaluated. This paper will highlight some of the technical observations of the Group as well as some managerial and institutional issues

  7. A peer review process as part of the implementation of clinical pathways in radiation oncology: Does it improve compliance?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gebhardt, Brian J; Heron, Dwight E; Beriwal, Sushil

    Clinical pathways are patient management plans that standardize evidence-based practices to ensure high-quality and cost-effective medical care. Implementation of a pathway is a collaborative process in our network, requiring the active involvement of physicians. This approach promotes acceptance of pathway recommendations, although a peer review process is necessary to ensure compliance and to capture and approve off-pathway selections. We investigated the peer review process and factors associated with time to completion of peer review. Our cancer center implemented radiation oncology pathways for every disease site throughout a large, integrated network. Recommendations are written based upon national guidelines, published literature, and institutional experience with evidence evaluated hierarchically in order of efficacy, toxicity, and then cost. Physicians enter decisions into an online, menu-driven decision support tool that integrates with medical records. Data were collected from the support tool and included the rate of on- and off-pathway selections, peer review decisions performed by disease site directors, and time to complete peer review. A total of 6965 treatment decisions were entered in 2015, and 605 (8.7%) were made off-pathway and were subject to peer review. The median time to peer review decision was 2 days (interquartile range, 0.2-6.8). Factors associated with time to peer review decision >48 hours on univariate analysis include disease site (P peer review (P 48 hours. Clinical pathways are an integral tool for standardizing evidence-based care throughout our large, integrated network, with 91.3% of all treatment decisions being made as per pathway. The peer review process was feasible, with peer review of treatment decisions encourages compliance with clinical pathway recommendations. Copyright © 2017 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  8. 75 FR 4062 - Peer Review Best Practices Workshop

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-26

    ... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Peer Review Best Practices Workshop AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of..., demonstration and deployment programs and has used a variety of peer review approaches to select the best...'' for reviewing and selecting project proposals. The workshop will explore classic peer review processes...

  9. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 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 Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members of...

  10. A proposal for an 'equal peer-review' statement.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Moustafa, Khaled

    2015-08-01

    To make the peer-review process as objective as possible, I suggest the introduction of an 'equal peer-review' statement that preserves author anonymity across the board, thus removing any potential bias related to nominal or institutional 'prestige'; this would guarantee an equal peer-review process for all authors and grant applicants. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  11. 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...

  12. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... influence the quality of the services provided. (d) As part of the independent peer review, the reviewers... 45 Public Welfare 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Independent peer review. 96.136 Section 96.136... Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant § 96.136 Independent peer review. (a) The State shall for the...

  13. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Use of peer review. 34.104 Section 34.104 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34... programs for which a large number of applications is expected, preapplications (concept papers) may be...

  14. 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)

  15. Investigating Peer Review as an Intentional Learning Strategy to Foster Collaborative Knowledge-Building in Students of Instructional Design

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brill, Jennifer M.; Hodges, Charles B.

    2011-01-01

    Peer review has been advocated for as an intentional strategy to support the knowledge and skill attainment of adult learners preparing for professional practice, including those students preparing for instructional design and technology practice. The purposes of this article are to discuss the practical application of peer review as an…

  16. 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

  17. Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 2: Data-Driven Peer Review Selection and Assignment.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Reiner, Bruce I

    2017-12-01

    In conventional radiology peer review practice, a small number of exams (routinely 5% of the total volume) is randomly selected, which may significantly underestimate the true error rate within a given radiology practice. An alternative and preferable approach would be to create a data-driven model which mathematically quantifies a peer review risk score for each individual exam and uses this data to identify high risk exams and readers, and selectively target these exams for peer review. An analogous model can also be created to assist in the assignment of these peer review cases in keeping with specific priorities of the service provider. An additional option to enhance the peer review process would be to assign the peer review cases in a truly blinded fashion. In addition to eliminating traditional peer review bias, this approach has the potential to better define exam-specific standard of care, particularly when multiple readers participate in the peer review process.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Krivanek, Robert, E-mail: r.krivanek@iaea.org

    2014-12-15

    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.

  3. 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.

  4. Peer Review in a Social Policy Course: Lessons Learned

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Shauna P. Acquavita

    2013-04-01

    Full Text Available Peer review is a tool that provides students with a sense of how their work is perceived by others. Built on refection and feedback, peer review assesses the quality of academic processes and products based on well-understood criteria. Peer review was implemented in a baccalaureate social work policy course to enhance writing and critical thinking skills. Students were surveyed on their experiences and indicated that peer review activities provided beneficial learning exercises. The information gathered suggests methods for future implementation of peer review in social work education.

  5. Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ford, Emily

    2015-01-01

    Open peer review, peer review where authors' and reviewers' identities are disclosed to one another, is a growing trend in scholarly publishing. Through observation of four journals in STEM disciplines, PLOS One, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, PeerJ, and F1000Research, an observational overview is conducted. The overview relies on defined characteristics of open peer review. Results show that despite differing open peer review implementations, each journal retains editorial involvement in scholarly publishing. Further, the analysis shows that only one of these implementations is fully transparent in its peer review and decision making process. Finally, the overview contends that journals should clearly outline peer review and editorial processes in order to allow for open peer review to be better understood and adopted by authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of science communications.

  6. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mrowinski, Maciej J; Fronczak, Piotr; Fronczak, Agata; Ausloos, Marcel; Nedic, Olgica

    2017-01-01

    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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Manuscript 101: A Data-Driven Writing Exercise For Beginning Scientists

    OpenAIRE

    Ralston, Amy; Halbisen, Michael

    2017-01-01

    Learning to write a scientific manuscript is one of the most important and rewarding scientific training experiences, yet most young scientists only embark on this experience relatively late in graduate school, after gathering sufficient data in the lab. Yet, familiarity with the process of writing a scientific manuscript and receiving peer reviews, often leads to a more focused and driven experimental approach. To jump-start this training, we developed a protocol for teaching manuscript writ...

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lee, Christopher

    2011-01-01

    A selected-papers (SP) network is a network in which researchers who read, write, and review articles subscribe to each other based on common interests. Instead of reviewing a manuscript in secret for the Editor of a journal, each reviewer simply publishes his review (typically of a paper he wishes to recommend) to his SP network subscribers. Once the SP network reviewers complete their review decisions, the authors can invite any journal editor they want to consider these reviews and initial audience size, and make a publication decision. Since all impact assessment, reviews, and revisions are complete, this decision process should be short. I show how the SP network can provide a new way of measuring impact, catalyze the emergence of new subfields, and accelerate discovery in existing fields, by providing each reader a fine-grained filter for high-impact. I present a three phase plan for building a basic SP network, and making it an effective peer review platform that can be used by journals, conferences, users of repositories such as arXiv, and users of search engines such as PubMed. I show how the SP network can greatly improve review and dissemination of research articles in areas that are not well-supported by existing journals. Finally, I illustrate how the SP network concept can work well with existing publication services such as journals, conferences, arXiv, PubMed, and online citation management sites. PMID:22291635

  16. 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.

  17. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Corradini, M.L. [Wisconsin Univ., Madison, WI (United States). Dept. of Nuclear Engineering; Dhir, V.K. [Dhir, (V.K.) Santa Monica, CA (United States); Haste, T.J. [AEA Technology, Winfrith (United Kingdom); Heames, T.J. [Science Applications, Inc., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Jenks, R.P. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States); Kelly, J.E. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Khatib-Rahbar, M. [Energy Research, Inc., Rockville, MD (United States); Viskanta, R. [Purdue Univ., Lafayette, IN (United States). Heat Transfer Lab.

    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.

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  1. An approach to peer review in forensic pathology.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sims, D Noel; Langlois, Neil E I; Byard, Roger W

    2013-07-01

    Peer review in forensic pathology has been a long time in evolution but may provide a very useful mechanism to check for, and to correct, errors, in addition to establishing an important educative vehicle for pathologists. A process is reported that has been established at our institution that involves both informal peer review in the mortuary and formal auditing of a set number of cases. Every autopsy case is discussed at a daily meeting of pathologists before a provisional cause of death is released. In addition, one in ten cases including all homicides, deaths in custody, suspicious and paediatric cases, and randomly selected additional cases undergo formal auditing by a second pathologist. Finally, administrative staff check the completed report. This formalized process, in a jurisdiction where autopsies are usually performed by only one pathologist, has been extremely useful in standardizing autopsy reports and in enabling pathologists to discuss cases and associated issues on a regular basis. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. An open science peer review oath

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2015-01-01

    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......: 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...... 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...

  5. Radioactive waste management: International peer reviews

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Warnecke, E.; Bonne, A.

    1995-01-01

    The Agency's peer review service for radioactive waste management - known as the Waste Management Assessment and Technical Review Programme (WATRP) - started in 1989, building upon earlier types of advisory programmes. WATRP's international experts today provide advice and guidance on proposed or ongoing radioactive waste management programmes; planning, operation, or decommissioning of waste facilities; or on legislative, organizational, and regulatory matters. Specific topics often cover waste conditioning, storage, and disposal concepts or facilities; or technical and other aspects of ongoing or planned research and development programmes. The missions can thus contributed to improving waste management systems and plans, and in raising levels of public confidence in them, as part of IAEA efforts to assist countries in the safe management of radioactive wastes. This article presents a brief overview of recent WATRP missions in Norway, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic and Finland

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. How operational issues impact science peer review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Blacker, Brett S.; Golombek, Daniel; Macchetto, Duccio

    2006-06-01

    In some eyes, the Phase I proposal selection process is the most important activity handled by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). Proposing for HST and other missions consists of requesting observing time and/or archival research funding. This step is called Phase I, where the scientific merit of a proposal is considered by a community based peer-review process. Accepted proposals then proceed thru Phase II, where the observations are specified in sufficient detail to enable scheduling on the telescope. Each cycle the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Telescope Allocation Committee (TAC) reviews proposals and awards observing time that is valued at $0.5B, when the total expenditures for HST over its lifetime are figured on an annual basis. This is in fact a very important endeavor that we continue to fine-tune and tweak. This process is open to the science community and we constantly receive comments and praise for this process. In this last year we have had to deal with the loss of the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) and move from 3-gyro operations to 2-gyro operations. This paper will outline how operational issues impact the HST science peer review process. We will discuss the process that was used to recover from the loss of the STIS instrument and how we dealt with the loss of 1/3 of the current science observations. We will also discuss the issues relating to 3-gyro vs. 2-gyro operations and how that changes impacted Proposers, our in-house processing and the TAC.

  10. With thanks to our 2016 peer reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

    2017-01-01

    2016 peer reviewers We are grateful to the following people for their significant contribution to Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada as peer reviewers in 2016. Their expertise ensures the quality of our journal and promotes the sharing of new knowledge among peers in Canada and internationally. Jillian Avis Sunday Azagba Sharon Bartholomew Michèle Boileau-Falardeau Jimmy Bourque Darren Brenner Robert Brison Yves Carrière Neena Chappell Guanmin Chen Yue Chen Edward Chesney Anna Chudyk Martin Cooke Erica Di Ruggiero Janet Durbin Charlene Elliott Peter Ellis Alexa Ferdinands Bradley Ferguson Lauren Fiechtner Maylene Fong Marilyn Fortin Nancy Gell Margo Greenwood Rita Henderson Erin Hobin Andrew Howell Natalie Iciaszczyk Jeff Johnson Janet Elizabeth Jull Tetyana Kendzerska Nicholas King Elaine Kingwell Victoria Kirsh Erin Kropac Liana Leach Claire Leblanc Yann Le Bodo Daniel Lebouthillier Isra Levy Elizabeth Lin Catherine Mah Loraine Marrett Caitlin McArthur Teri McComber Amy McPherson Verena Menec Leia Minaker Howard Morrison Yeeli Mui Kiyuri Naicker Tor Oiamo Scott Patten Marie-Claude Paquette Cheryl Peters Jennifer Petkovic William Pickett Michelle Ploughman Daniel Poremski Harry Prapavessis Steven Prus Jürgen Rehm Laurene Rehman Sandra Reynolds Annie Rhodes Celia Rodd Kaley Roosen Ellen Rosenberg Linda Rothman Jerry Schultz Kelly Skinner Robin Skinner Robin Somerville Becky Spencer Richard Stanwick Michael Stevenson David Streiner Laura Struik Anna Syrowatka Christopher Tait Chen Tang Kara Thompson Michelle Vine Claudio Violato JianLi Wang Stéphanie Ward Cynthia Weijs Russell Wilkins Keri Lynn Williams Renate Ysseldyk Tingting Zhang Christopher Zou

  11. Detailed prospective peer review in a community radiation oncology clinic.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mitchell, James D; Chesnut, Thomas J; Eastham, David V; Demandante, Carlo N; Hoopes, David J

    In 2012, we instituted detailed prospective peer review of new cases. We present the outcomes of peer review on patient management and time required for peer review. Peer review rounds were held 3 to 4 days weekly and required 2 physicians to review pertinent information from the electronic medical record and treatment planning system. Eight aspects were reviewed for each case: 1) workup and staging; 2) treatment intent and prescription; 3) position, immobilization, and simulation; 4) motion assessment and management; 5) target contours; 6) normal tissue contours; 7) target dosimetry; and 8) normal tissue dosimetry. Cases were marked as, "Meets standard of care," "Variation," or "Major deviation." Changes in treatment plan were noted. As our process evolved, we recorded the time spent reviewing each case. From 2012 to 2014, we collected peer review data on 442 of 465 (95%) radiation therapy patients treated in our hospital-based clinic. Overall, 91 (20.6%) of the cases were marked as having a variation, and 3 (0.7%) as major deviation. Forty-two (9.5%) of the cases were altered after peer review. An overall peer review score of "Variation" or "Major deviation" was highly associated with a change in treatment plan (P peer review. Indicators on position, immobilization, simulation, target contours, target dosimetry, motion management, normal tissue contours, and normal tissue dosimetry were significantly associated with a change in treatment plan. The mean time spent on each case was 7 minutes. Prospective peer review is feasible in a community radiation oncology practice. Our process led to changes in 9.5% of cases. Peer review should focus on technical factors such as target contours and dosimetry. Peer review required 7 minutes per case. Published by Elsevier Inc.

  12. Peer Review in Radiology: A Resident and Fellow Perspective.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Grenville, Jeffrey; Doucette-Preville, David; Vlachou, Paraskevi A; Mnatzakanian, Gevork N; Raikhlin, Antony; Colak, Errol

    2016-02-01

    The purpose of this study was to explore Canadian radiology residents' and fellows' understanding, attitudes, opinions, and preferences toward peer review. An Internet-based anonymous questionnaire designed to understand one's familiarity, attitudes, opinions, and preferences toward peer review was distributed to radiology residents and fellows across Canada. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and answers were stratified by level of training. A total of 136 trainees responded to the survey with 92 completed survey responses available for descriptive statistics. Approximately half of respondents are familiar with peer review (49%), and 39% of trainees are involved in peer review. Most respondents (92%) expressed an interest in learning more about peer review; believe that it should be incorporated into the residency training curriculum (86%), be mandatory (72%), and that current participation will increase odds of future participation (91%). Most trainees (80%) are comfortable advising one another about errors, but less comfortable advising staff (21%). Residents and fellows welcome the opportunity to learn more about peer review and believe it should be incorporated into the residency training curriculum. Understanding the attitudes and perceptions held by trainees regarding peer review is important, as a means to optimize education and maximize current and future participation in peer review. Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  13. Peer Review Improves the Quality of MCQ Examinations

    Science.gov (United States)

    Malau-Aduli, Bunmi S.; Zimitat, Craig

    2012-01-01

    The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the introduction of peer review processes on the quality of multiple-choice examinations in the first three years of an Australian medical course. The impact of the peer review process and overall quality assurance (QA) processes were evaluated by comparing the examination data generated in earlier…

  14. Using Calibrated Peer Review to Teach Basic Research Skills

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bracke, Marianne S.; Graveel, John G.

    2014-01-01

    Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) is an online tool being used in the class Introduction to Agriculture and Purdue University (AGR 10100) to integrate a writing and research component (http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/Home.aspx). Calibrated Peer Review combines the ability to create writing intensive assignments with an introduction to the peer-review…

  15. 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…

  16. 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…

  17. 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…

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. 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)

  2. 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…

  3. EU and OECD benchmarking and peer review compared

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Groenendijk, Nico

    2009-01-01

    Benchmarking and peer review are essential elements of the so-called EU open method of coordination (OMC) which has been contested in the literature for lack of effectiveness. In this paper we compare benchmarking and peer review procedures as used by the EU with those used by the OECD. Different

  4. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review methods. 34.105 Section 34... Review § 34.105 Peer review methods. (a) For both competitive and noncompetitive applications, peer... announcement or otherwise established by the Administrator, together with the assignment of numerical values...

  5. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... specific health care issues; and (5) Appropriate representation based on gender, racial/ethnic origin, and... the contract(s) awarded as a result of the peer review. (e) Conflict of interest. (1) Members of peer review groups will be screened for potential conflicts of interest prior to appointment and will be...

  6. 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.

  7. 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…

  8. 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.

  9. Evaluating Management Information Systems, A Protocol for Automated Peer Review Systems

    Science.gov (United States)

    Black, Gordon C.

    1980-01-01

    This paper discusses key issues in evaluating an automated Peer Review System. Included are the conceptual base, design, steps in planning structural components, operation parameters, criteria, costs and a detailed outline or protocol for use in the evaluation. At the heart of the Peer Review System is the criteria utilized for measuring quality. Criteria evaluation should embrace, as a minimum, appropriateness, validity and reliability, and completemess or comprehensiveness of content. Such an evaluation is not complete without determining the impact (clinical outcome) of the service system or the patient and the population served.

  10. 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

  11. Peer review of RELAP5/MOD3 documentation

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Craddick, W.G.

    1993-01-01

    A peer review was performed on a portion of the documentation of the RELAP5/MOD3 computer code. The review was performed in two phases. The first phase was a review of Volume 3, Developmental Assessment problems, and Volume 4, Models and Correlations. The reviewers for this phase were Dr. Peter Griffith, Dr. Yassin Hassan, Dr. Gerald S. Lellouche, Dr. Marino di Marzo and Mr. Mark Wendel. The reviewers recommended a number of improvements, including using a frozen version of the code for assessment guided by a validation plan, better justification for flow regime maps and extension of models beyond their data base. The second phase was a review of Volume 6, Quality Assurance of Numerical Techniques in RELAP5/MOD3. The reviewers for the second phase were Mr. Mark Wendel and Dr. Paul T. Williams. Recommendations included correction of numerous grammatical and typographical errors and better justification for the use of Lax's Equivalence Theorem

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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...

  16. 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.

  17. Quality Control and Peer Review of Data Sets: Mapping Data Archiving Processes to Data Publication Requirements

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mayernik, M. S.; Daniels, M.; Eaker, C.; Strand, G.; Williams, S. F.; Worley, S. J.

    2012-12-01

    Data sets exist within scientific research and knowledge networks as both technical and non-technical entities. Establishing the quality of data sets is a multi-faceted task that encompasses many automated and manual processes. Data sets have always been essential for science research, but now need to be more visible as first-class scholarly objects at national, international, and local levels. Many initiatives are establishing procedures to publish and curate data sets, as well as to promote professional rewards for researchers that collect, create, manage, and preserve data sets. Traditionally, research quality has been assessed by peer review of textual publications, e.g. journal articles, conference proceedings, and books. Citation indices then provide standard measures of productivity used to reward individuals for their peer-reviewed work. Whether a similar peer review process is appropriate for assessing and ensuring the quality of data sets remains as an open question. How does the traditional process of peer review apply to data sets? This presentation will describe current work being done at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in the context of the Peer REview for Publication & Accreditation of Research Data in the Earth sciences (PREPARDE) project. PREPARDE is assessing practices and processes for data peer review, with the goal of developing recommendations. NCAR data management teams perform various kinds of quality assessment and review of data sets prior to making them publicly available. The poster will investigate how notions of peer review relate to the types of data review already in place at NCAR. We highlight the data set characteristics and management/archiving processes that challenge the traditional peer review processes by using a number of questions as probes, including: Who is qualified to review data sets? What formal and informal documentation is necessary to allow someone outside of a research team to review a data set

  18. On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Andersen, Line Edslev

    2017-01-01

    For the past three decades, peer review practices have received much attention in the literature. But although this literature covers many research fields, only one previous systematic study has been devoted to the practice of peer review in mathematics, namely a study by Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove from 2010. This lack of attention may be due to a view that peer review in mathematics is more reliable, and therefore less interesting as an object of study, than peer review in other fields. In fact, Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove argue that peer review in mathematics is relatively reliable. At the same time, peer review in mathematics differs from peer review in most, if not all, other fields in that papers submitted to mathematical journals are usually only reviewed by a single referee. Furthermore, recent empirical studies indicate that the referees do not check the papers line by line. I argue that, in spite of this, mathematical practice in general and refereeing practices in particular are such that the common practice of mathematical journals of using just one referee is justified from the point of view of proof validity assessment. The argument is based on interviews I conducted with seven mathematicians.

  19. Assessing RN-to-RN peer review on clinical units.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pfeiffer, Judith A; Wickline, Mary A; Deetz, Jill; Berry, Elise S

    2012-04-01

    The primary purpose of this study was to measure informal registered nurse (RN)-to-RN peer review (defined as collegial communication about the quality of nursing care) at the work-unit level. Survey design with cluster sampling of 28 hospital or ambulatory care units (n = 541 respondents). Results were compared with existing patient safety and satisfaction data. A chi-squared test was used to compare responses against nurse characteristics. Nurses agreed that RN-to-RN peer review takes place on their units, but no correlation with patient safety and satisfaction data was found. Misunderstandings about the meaning of peer review were evident. Open-ended comments revealed barriers to peer review: fear of retribution, language barriers and lack of professionalism. Nurses need clarification of peer review. Issues with common language in a professional environment need to be addressed and nurses can learn collaboration from each other's cultures. Managers should support RN-to-RN peer review on clinical units. Methods used here may be useful to assess current departmental nurse peer review. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

  20. Superconductivity Program for electric power systems: 1994 annual PEER review. Volume 1, Meeting proceedings

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1994-01-01

    This is Volume I of information presented at the Annual Peer Review of the Superconductivity Program For Electric Power Systems. Topics include: Wire development; powder synthesis; characterization of superconducting materials; electric power applications; magnetic refrigerators; and motor cooling issues. Individual reports were processed separately for the database

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jackson, Jeffrey L; Srinivasan, Malathi; Rea, Joanna; Fletcher, Kathlyn E; Kravitz, Richard L

    2011-01-01

    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. Our study purpose was to assess the predictive validity of reviewer quality ratings and editorial decisions in a general medicine journal. 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. 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. 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 reviewers is low, the accuracy of sorting is improved with a greater

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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...... 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...

  5. Learning About and Benefiting From Peer Review: A Course Assignment for Doctoral Students at Two Different Universities.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sethares, Kristen A; Morris, Nancy S

    2016-06-01

    Peer review is an expectation of PhD-prepared nurses but a lack of evidence in the best methods to train students is of concern. Guided by the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model, faculty at two universities developed, implemented, and evaluated a peer review assignment for 22 second-year PhD nursing students. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Students reported the process of peer review was beneficial (82%) because it informed their own writing (59%), assisted them to read more critically (73%), and increased their appreciation of the role of peer review in the revision process (77%). Giving constructive feedback was difficult for students, but the feedback they received was helpful. Peer review is important to the development of science and an expectation of PhD-prepared nurses. Methods to include peer review in education are needed. [J Nurs Educ. 2016;55(6):342-344.]. Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.

  6. 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!

  7. 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)

  8. 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).

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015)

    Science.gov (United States)

    Grimaldo, Francisco; Marušić, Ana

    2018-01-01

    This paper examines research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 by looking at records indexed from the Scopus database. Although it is often argued that peer review has been poorly investigated, we found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005. A half of this work was indexed as research articles, a third as editorial notes and literature reviews and the rest were book chapters or letters. We identified the most prolific and influential scholars, the most cited publications and the most important journals in the field. Co-authorship network analysis showed that research on peer review is fragmented, with the largest group of co-authors including only 2.1% of the whole community. Co-citation network analysis indicated a fragmented structure also in terms of knowledge. This shows that despite its central role in research, peer review has been examined only through small-scale research projects. Our findings would suggest that there is need to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing across different research communities. PMID:29466467

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hojat, Mohammadreza; Gonnella, Joseph S; Caelleigh, Addeane S

    2003-01-01

    High publication demands and the low acceptance rate of peer review journals place the journal editors and their reviewers in a powerful position. Journal reviewers have a vital role not only in influencing the journal editor's publication decisions, but also in the very nature and direction of scientific research. Because of their influence in peer review outcomes, journal reviewers are aptly described as the "gatekeepers of science." In this article we describe several pitfalls that can impede reviewers' impartial judgement. These include such issues as confirmatory bias, the negative results bias (the file drawer problem), the Matthew effect, the Doctor Fox effect, and gender, race, theoretical orientation, and "political correctness." We argue that procedures currently used by many professional journals, such as blind or masked review, may not completely alleviate the effects of these pitfalls. Instead, we suggest that increasing reviewers' awareness of the pitfalls, accountability, and vigilance can improve fairness in the peer review process. The ultimate responsibilities belong to the journal editors who are confronted with the difficult task of satisfying journal readers, contributors, reviewers, and owners. We recommend that the journal editors conduct periodic internal and external evaluations of their journals' peer review process and outcomes, with participation of reviewers, contributors, readers and owners.

  17. The JSC Engineering Directorate Product Peer Review Process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jenks, Kenneth C.

    2009-01-01

    The JSC Engineering Directorate has developed a Product Peer Review process in support of NASA policies for project management and systems engineering. The process complies with the requirements of NPR 7120.5, NPR 7123.1 and NPR 7150.2 and follows the guidance in NASA/SP-2007-6105. This presentation will give an overview of the process followed by a brief demonstration of an actual peer review, with audience participation.

  18. Print and Manuscript

    OpenAIRE

    Erne, Lukas Christian

    2007-01-01

    Positioning Shakespeare at the "crossroads of manuscript and print" and exploring what the choice of print or manuscript reveals about the poet's intended audience and the social persona the poet wanted to assume and fashion, argues that "Shakespeare's authorial self-presentation begins as a poet and, more specifically, as a print-published poet" with the publication of Venus and Adonis in 1593 and the allusion to the publication of Rape of Lucrece in the next year. Yet also considers the imp...

  19. Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Shepherd, Jonathan; Frampton, Geoff K; Pickett, Karen; Wyatt, Jeremy C

    2018-01-01

    To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer review of research funding proposals in health. A two-stage evidence synthesis: (1) a systematic map to describe the key characteristics of the evidence base, followed by (2) a systematic review of the studies stakeholders prioritised as relevant from the map on the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review 'innovations'. Standard processes included literature searching, duplicate inclusion criteria screening, study keyword coding, data extraction, critical appraisal and study synthesis. A total of 83 studies from 15 countries were included in the systematic map. The evidence base is diverse, investigating many aspects of the systems for, and processes of, peer review. The systematic review included eight studies from Australia, Canada, and the USA, evaluating a broad range of peer review innovations. These studies showed that simplifying the process by shortening proposal forms, using smaller reviewer panels, or expediting processes can speed up the review process and reduce costs, but this might come at the expense of peer review quality, a key aspect that has not been assessed. Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed. There is increasing international research activity into the peer review of health research funding. The studies reviewed had methodological limitations and variable generalisability to research funders. Given these limitations it is not currently possible to recommend immediate implementation of these innovations. However, many appear promising based on existing evidence, and could be adapted as necessary by funders and evaluated. Where feasible, experimental evaluation, including randomised controlled trials, should be conducted, evaluating impact on effectiveness, efficiency and quality.

  20. Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency

    Science.gov (United States)

    Frampton, Geoff K.; Pickett, Karen; Wyatt, Jeremy C.

    2018-01-01

    Objective To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer review of research funding proposals in health. Methods A two-stage evidence synthesis: (1) a systematic map to describe the key characteristics of the evidence base, followed by (2) a systematic review of the studies stakeholders prioritised as relevant from the map on the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review ‘innovations’. Standard processes included literature searching, duplicate inclusion criteria screening, study keyword coding, data extraction, critical appraisal and study synthesis. Results A total of 83 studies from 15 countries were included in the systematic map. The evidence base is diverse, investigating many aspects of the systems for, and processes of, peer review. The systematic review included eight studies from Australia, Canada, and the USA, evaluating a broad range of peer review innovations. These studies showed that simplifying the process by shortening proposal forms, using smaller reviewer panels, or expediting processes can speed up the review process and reduce costs, but this might come at the expense of peer review quality, a key aspect that has not been assessed. Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed. Conclusions There is increasing international research activity into the peer review of health research funding. The studies reviewed had methodological limitations and variable generalisability to research funders. Given these limitations it is not currently possible to recommend immediate implementation of these innovations. However, many appear promising based on existing evidence, and could be adapted as necessary by funders and evaluated. Where feasible, experimental evaluation, including randomised controlled trials, should be conducted, evaluating impact

  1. Overcoming pitfalls: Results from a mandatory peer review process for written examinations.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wilby, Kyle John; El Hajj, Maguy S; El-Bashir, Marwa; Mraiche, Fatima

    2018-04-01

    Written assessments are essential components of higher education practices. However, faculty members encounter common pitfalls when designing questions intended to evaluate student-learning outcomes. The objective of this project was to determine the impact of a mandatory examination peer review process on question accuracy, alignment with learning objectives, use of best practices in question design, and language/grammar. A mandatory peer review process was implemented for all midterm (before phase) and final (after phase) examinations. Peer review occurred by two reviewers and followed a pre-defined guidance document. Non-punitive feedback given to faculty members served as the intervention. Frequencies of flagged questions according to guidance categories were compared between phases. A total of 21 midterm and 21 final exam reviews were included in the analysis. A total of 637 questions were reviewed across all midterms and 1003 questions were reviewed across all finals. Few questions were flagged for accuracy and alignment with learning outcomes. The median total proportion of questions flagged for best practices was significantly lower for final exams versus midterm exams (15.8 vs. 6.45%, p = 0.014). The intervention did not influence language and grammar errors (9.68 vs. 10.0% of questions flagged before and after, respectively, p = 0.305). A non-punitive peer review process for written examinations can overcome pitfalls in exam creation and improve best practices in question writing. The peer-review process had a substantial effect at flagging language/grammar errors but error rate did not differ between midterm and final exams. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Peer Review in Higher Education: Student Perceptions before and after Participation

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mulder, Raoul A.; Pearce, Jon M.; Baik, Chi

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is integral to academic endeavour, but opportunities for students to benefit from peer review in higher education remain limited, and relatively little is known about how student perceptions influence their appreciation of peer review. University student perceptions were examined before and after experiencing student peer review in…

  6. 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... information, or conferences, must be reviewed by a peer review panel that consists of a majority of non...

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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.)

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. Peer review of RELAP5/MOD3 documentation

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Craddick, W.G.

    1994-01-01

    A peer review was performed on a portion of the documentation of the RELAP5/MOD3 computer code. The review was performed in two phases. The first phase was a review of Vol. III, Developmental Assessment Problems, and Vol. IV, Models and Correlations. The reviewers for this phase were Dr. Peter Griffith, Dr. Yassin Hassan, Dr. Gerald S. Lellouche, Dr. Marino di Marzo and Mr. Mark Wendel. The reviewers recommended a number of improvements, including using a frozen version of the code for assessment guided by a validation plan, better discussion of discrepancies between the code and experimental data, and better justification for flow regime maps and extension of models beyond their data base. The second phase was a review of Vol. VI, Quality Assurance of Numerical Techniques in RELAP5/MOD3. The reviewers for the second phase were Mr. Mark Wendel and Dr. Paul T. Williams. Recommendations included correction of numerous grammatical and typographical errors and better justification for the use of Lax's Equivalence Theorem

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. WANO peer review. Organization and benefits as seen by WANO; WANO Peer Review. Durchfuehrung und Nutzen aus Sicht der WANO

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Haferburg, Manfred [WANO-Paris Centre, Neuilly sur Seine (France)

    2010-02-15

    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.)

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Strickland, N H

    2015-11-01

    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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Proposals for the writing of peer reviews in lexicography

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Bergenholtz, Henning; Gouws, Rufus

    2015-01-01

    In lexicography a good review is important for the dictionary maker(s), the publishing house and the whole lexicographical community. It is also important for the reviewers because it can expand their research record. Up to a few years ago reviews were still acknowledged in research databases...... 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...

  6. 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.

  7. Peer Review and Reflective Teaching Practices: An Effective Mechanism for Quality Enhancement in Higher Education

    OpenAIRE

    Raj, Sony Jalarajan; Massey, Susan R.; Jose, Soumya

    2017-01-01

    Quality education and teacher accountability are predominant issues generating apprehension in higher education. Traditional methods of evaluation are giving way to more contemporary methods. One technique that is being implemented in many universities throughout the world that provides feedback and improves pedagogical approaches is a formative and collaborative process known as peer review of teaching (PRT). Review of the literature included 34 studies which identified five themes that offe...

  8. 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

  9. Efficacy of homeopathy in livestock according to peer-reviewed publications from 1981 to 2014

    OpenAIRE

    Doehring, C.; Sundrum, A.

    2016-01-01

    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 to...

  10. Evidence-based Peer Review for Radiation Therapy - Updated Review of the Literature with a Focus on Tumour Subsite and Treatment Modality.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Huo, M; Gorayski, P; Poulsen, M; Thompson, K; Pinkham, M B

    2017-10-01

    Technological advances in radiation therapy permit steep dose gradients from the target to spare normal tissue, but increase the risk of geographic miss. Suboptimal target delineation adversely affects clinical outcomes. Prospective peer review is a method for quality assurance of oncologists' radiotherapy plans. Published surveys suggest it is widely implemented. However, it may not be feasible to review every case before commencement of radiation therapy in all departments. The rate of plan changes following peer review of cases without a specific subsite or modality is typically around 10%. Stereotactic body radiation therapy, head and neck, gynaecological, gastrointestinal, haematological and lung cases are associated with higher rates of change of around 25%. These cases could thus be prioritised for peer review. Other factors may limit peer review efficacy including organisational culture, time constraints and the physical environment in which sessions are held. Recommendations for peer review endorsed by the American Society for Radiation Oncology were made available in 2013, but a number of relevant studies have been published since. Here we review and update the literature, and provide an updated suggestion for the implementation of peer review to serve as an adjunct to published guidelines. This may help practitioners evaluate their current processes and maximise the utility and effectiveness of peer review sessions. Copyright © 2017 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  11. Journal peer review: a bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper's revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rigby, J; Cox, D; Julian, K

    2018-01-01

    Journal peer review lies at the heart of academic quality control. This article explores the journal peer review process and seeks to examine how the reviewing process might itself contribute to papers, leading them to be more highly cited and to achieve greater recognition. Our work builds on previous observations and views expressed in the literature about (a) the role of actors involved in the research and publication process that suggest that peer review is inherent in the research process and (b) on the contribution reviewers themselves might make to the content and increased citation of papers. Using data from the journal peer review process of a single journal in the Social Sciences field (Business, Management and Accounting), we examine the effects of peer review on papers submitted to that journal including the effect upon citation, a novel step in the study of the outcome of peer review. Our detailed analysis suggests, contrary to initial assumptions, that it is not the time taken to revise papers but the actual number of revisions that leads to greater recognition for papers in terms of citation impact. Our study provides evidence, albeit limited to the case of a single journal, that the peer review process may constitute a form of knowledge production and is not the simple correction of errors contained in submitted papers.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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 ...

  15. Peer Review of Assessment Network: Supporting Comparability of Standards

    Science.gov (United States)

    Booth, Sara; Beckett, Jeff; Saunders, Cassandra

    2016-01-01

    Purpose: This paper aims to test the need in the Australian higher education (HE) sector for a national network for the peer review of assessment in response to the proposed HE standards framework and propose a sector-wide framework for calibrating and assuring achievement standards, both within and across disciplines, through the establishment of…

  16. 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…

  17. Is Peer Review Training Effective in Iranian EFL Students' Revision?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Esmaeeli, Hadiseh; Abasi, Maasumeh; Soori, Afshin

    2014-01-01

    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…

  18. Enhancing Proof Writing via Cross-Institutional Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ernst, Dana C.; Hodge, Angie; Schultz, Andrew

    2015-01-01

    In the Spring of 2011, two of the authors of this paper taught number theory courses at their respective institutions. Twice during the semester, students in each class submitted proofs of two to three theorems to be peer reviewed by students in the other class. Each student wrote anonymous and formal referee reports of the submitted theorems,…

  19. 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…

  20. 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…

  1. 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...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sandewall, Erik

    2011-01-01

    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. PMID:22363282

  3. 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 ...

  4. 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

  5. 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…

  6. Constructing the Components of a Lab Report Using Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Berry, David E.; Fawkes, Kelli L.

    2010-01-01

    A protocol that emphasizes lab report writing using a piecemeal approach coupled with peer review is described. As the lab course progresses, the focus of the report writing changes sequentially through the abstract and introduction, the discussion, and the procedure. Two styles of lab programs are presented. One style rotates the students through…

  7. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Guanidine Nitrate

    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 ...

  8. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Picric Acid

    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 ...

  9. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for O-Aminophenol

    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 ...

  10. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for N-Heptane

    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 ...

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2004-06-01

    Statement 1994-95. Canberra: AGPS. Cook- Deegan , R.M. Merit Review for Federally Funded Science and Technology: A White Paper for the Council of the...18p. Craig -B, "SPE Peer-Review Critique", JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY, 1994, Vol 46, Iss 7, pp 563-563 Cram-DL Stebbins-M Eom-HS Ratto-N

  14. 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 ...

  15. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Guanidine Chloride

    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. QA REVIEWS: HOW THEY DIFFER FROM PEER REVIEWS

    Science.gov (United States)

    Research papers and reports written by scientists and engineers in the United States Environmental Protection Agency are reviewed by the agency's quality assurance staff. EPA papers and reports are subjected to peer reviews that check for the validity of conclusions and the gener...

  17. 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 ...

  18. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Diundecyl Phthalate

    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 ...

  19. Investigating Mandatory Peer Review of Teaching In Schools

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brix, Jacinta; Grainger, Peter; Hill, Angela

    2014-01-01

    Accountability agendas are influencing the secondary education sector in Australian schools. Analysis of student achievement, student feedback mechanisms and personal reflection are forming part of these agendas as methods of teacher evaluation. Additionally, and more recently, teacher evaluation through "peer review" is emerging as a…

  20. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Lewisite

    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 ...

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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...

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. U.S. EPA. 2000. Science Policy Council Handbook: Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    The goal of the Peer Review Policy and this Handbook is to enhance the quality and credibility of Agency decisions by ensuring that the scientific and technical work products underlying these decisions receive appropriate levels of peer review by independe

  7. A peer review arrangement for radiological protection

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Buck, P.W.; Saxby, W.N.; Thurston, B.B.

    1987-01-01

    An impartial Board was set up in 1980 at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment to review the health and safety aspects of the design and operation of nuclear chemical processing plant. Its primary aim was to provide advice as to whether a facility or project was acceptably safe to operate. The examinations by the Board now scan the full life of facilities from conception, through design, construction, commissioning, operation, modification, to eventual decommissioning and disposal, and include safety management aspects. Sound safety principles which minimise health and safety risks to employees, other persons on site, the general public and the environment are required. This formal safety assurance procedure, includes the archive of all documentation, minutes of its meetings etc. As an example of the documentation provided in 1984, a summary from a safety submission on the ventilation system of a plutonium processing facility is included which illustrates the use of target design values for radiation exposure which are well below national limits. (author)

  8. 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.

  9. A peer review arrangement for radiological protection

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Buck, P.W.; Saxby, W.N.; Thurston, B.B.

    1985-01-01

    The primary aim of the impartial Board set up in 1980 at A.W.R.E. Aldermaston was to provide considered advice to the Director of the Establishment that a facility or project was acceptably safe to operate, so that he could then authorise it. The examinations now scan the life of facilities from conception, through design, construction, commissioning, operation, modification, to eventual decommissioning and disposal, and include safety management. The Board seeks evidence of sound safety principle application, minimising health and safety risks to employees, others on site, the general public and environment. The formal safety assurance procedure, including the archive of documentation called for the Board and the minutes of its meetings, records the justification for design and operating decisions made on safety grounds. The procedure has had a significant effect on safety awareness. A summary from a 1984 submission on the ventilation system of a plutonium processing facility is included, illustrating the use of target design values for radiation exposure which are well below national limits. (U.K.)

  10. 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

  11. The Potential of Dual-Language Cross-Cultural Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ruecker, Todd

    2011-01-01

    This article explores the potential of dual-language cross-cultural peer review and how it improves on traditional monolingual and monocultural peer review. Drawing on scholarship related to international exchange programmes, peer review, and two-way immersion programmes in the United States as well as data collected while facilitating the…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... 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...

  14. 7 CFR 3400.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... 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...

  15. 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…

  16. 76 FR 67439 - External Peer Review Meeting for Draft Microbial Risk Assessment Guideline: Pathogenic...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-11-01

    ... ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-053; FRL-9485-1] External Peer Review Meeting for... review draft does not represent EPA policy. The public may register to attend this peer review meeting as... to consider the comments from the external peer review meeting, along with public comments received...

  17. 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…

  18. Peer Review in Class: Metrics and Variations in a Senior Course

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yankulov, Krassimir; Couto, Richard

    2012-01-01

    Peer reviews are the generally accepted mode of quality assessment in scholarly communities; however, they are rarely used for evaluation at college levels. Over a period of 5 years, we have performed a peer review simulation at a senior level course in molecular genetics at the University of Guelph and have accumulated 393 student peer reviews.…

  19. 7 CFR 3401.12 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... 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...

  20. Analysis of Peer Review Comments: QM Recommendations and Feedback Intervention Theory

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schwegler, Andria F.; Altman, Barbara W.

    2015-01-01

    Because feedback is a critical component of the continuous improvement cycle of the Quality Matters (QM) peer review process, the present research analyzed the feedback that peer reviewers provided to course developers after a voluntary, nonofficial QM peer review of online courses. Previous research reveals that the effects of feedback on…

  1. 7 CFR 3411.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... 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...

  2. 34 CFR 350.51 - What is the purpose of peer review?

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the purpose of peer review? 350.51 Section 350... PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM How Does the Secretary Make an Award? § 350.51 What is the purpose of peer review? The purpose of peer review is to insure that— (a) Those activities supported by the National...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... 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...

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

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    van Rens, L.; Hermarij, P.; Pilot, A.; Beishuizen, J.J.; Hofman, H.; van der Wal, M.

    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

  5. LeaD-In: A Cultural Change Model for Peer Review of Teaching in Higher Education

    Science.gov (United States)

    Barnard, A.; Nash, R.; McEvoy, K.; Shannon, S.; Waters, C.; Rochester, S.; Bolt, S.

    2015-01-01

    Peer review of teaching is recognized increasingly as one strategy for academic development even though historically peer review of teaching is often unsupported by policy, action and culture in many Australian universities. Higher education leaders report that academics generally do not engage with peer review of teaching in a systematic or…

  6. Predicting Academics' Willingness to Participate in Peer Review of Teaching: A Quantitative Investigation

    Science.gov (United States)

    White, Kiri; Boehm, Emilia; Chester, Andrea

    2014-01-01

    Peer review of teaching is a collegial process designed to help academics reflect on and improve their teaching practice. Considerable research supports the value of peer review of teaching. However, uptake of voluntary programs is typically low. Few studies have examined the predictors of engagement in voluntary peer review. This study surveyed…

  7. Undergraduate Essay Writing: Online and Face-to-Face Peer Reviews

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chong, Mike R.; Goff, Lori; Dej, Kimberly

    2012-01-01

    We implemented two different approaches of using peer review to support undergraduate essay assignments for students taking large second-year courses in life sciences and biology: a web-based online peer review (OPR) approach and a more traditional face-to-face peer review (FPR) approach that was conducted in tutorial settings. The essays…

  8. 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…

  9. 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.

  10. Sarcomas in north west England: I. Histopathological peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Harris, M; Hartley, A L; Blair, V; Birch, J M; Banerjee, S S; Freemont, A J; McClure, J; McWilliam, L J

    1991-08-01

    A total of 468 cases of bone, soft tissue and visceral sarcomas (and certain other tumours) diagnosed during the years 1982-84 in North West England were entered in a study of histopathological peer review, incidence and survival. This paper describes the effects of peer review. Material was reviewed by a panel of five pathologists for 413 of the 450 cases originally registered as sarcomas with the Regional Cancer Registry. The diagnosis of sarcomas was confirmed in 76% cases and and there was agreement on sub-type for 53% cases. Measures of agreement were lowest for the two sub-types most commonly diagnosed i.e. malignant fibrous histiocytoma and leiomyosarcoma. Degree of agreement between individual pathologists and final panel diagnosis was also very variable but never less than 65%. It is concluded that second opinion is essential in cases of presumed sarcomas for studies of incidence and aetiology and to ensure that appropriate treatment is selected.

  11. 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)

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. Teaching undergraduates the process of peer review: learning by doing.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rangachari, P K

    2010-09-01

    An active approach allowed undergraduates in Health Sciences to learn the dynamics of peer review at first hand. A four-stage process was used. In stage 1, students formed self-selected groups to explore specific issues. In stage 2, each group posted their interim reports online on a specific date. Each student read all the other reports and prepared detailed critiques. In stage 3, each report was discussed at sessions where the lead discussant was selected at random. All students participated in the peer review process. The written critiques were collated and returned to each group, who were asked to resubmit their revised reports within 2 wk. In stage 4, final submissions accompanied by rebuttals were graded. Student responses to a questionnaire were highly positive. They recognized the individual steps in the standard peer review, appreciated the complexities involved, and got a first-hand experience of some of the inherent variabilities involved. The absence of formal presentations and the opportunity to read each other's reports permitted them to study issues in greater depth.

  17. 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)

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Andrea C Tricco

    Full Text Available To review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants.Studies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs, the Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM Reviews, and the Campbell Library were searched from 2005 to April 2016. A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles. Two individuals screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data with discrepancies resolved by a third person consistently.After screening 5524 citations and 170 full-text articles, one article evaluating gender-blinding of grant applications using an uncontrolled before-after study design was included. In this study, 891 applications for long-term fellowships in 2006 were included and 47% of the applicants were women. These were scored by 13 peer reviewers (38% were women. The intervention included eliminating references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendations, and interview reports that were sent to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly.There is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias should be adapted and tested in the context of grant peer review to

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Evaluation of internal peer-review to train nurses recruiting to a randomized controlled trial--Internal Peer-review for Recruitment Training in Trials (InterPReTiT).

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mann, Cindy; Delgado, Debbie; Horwood, Jeremy

    2014-04-01

    A discussion and qualitative evaluation of the use of peer-review to train nurses and optimize recruitment practice in a randomized controlled trial. Sound recruitment processes are critical to the success of randomized controlled trials. Nurses recruiting to trials must obtain consent for an intervention that is administered for reasons other than anticipated benefit to the patient. This requires not only patients' acquiescence but also evidence that they have weighed the relevant information in reaching their decision. How trial information is explained is vital, but communication and training can be inadequate. A discussion of a new process to train nurses recruiting to a randomized controlled trial. Literature from 1999-2013 about consenting to trials is included. Over 3 months from 2009-2010, recruiting nurses reviewed recruitment interviews recorded during the pilot phase of a single-site randomized controlled trial and noted content, communication style and interactions. They discussed their findings during peer-review meetings, which were audio-recorded and analysed using qualitative methodology. Peer-review can enhance nurses' training in trial recruitment procedures by supporting development of the necessary communication skills, facilitating consistency in information provision and sharing best practice. Nurse-led peer-review can provide a forum to share communication strategies that will elicit and address participant concerns and obtain evidence of participant understanding prior to consent. Comparing practice can improve consistency and accuracy of trial information and facilitate identification of recruitment issues. Internal peer-review was well accepted and promoted team cohesion. Further evaluation is needed. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. Quantifying the effect of editor-author relations on manuscript handling times.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sarigöl, Emre; Garcia, David; Scholtes, Ingo; Schweitzer, Frank

    2017-01-01

    In this article we study to what extent the academic peer review process is influenced by social relations between the authors of a manuscript and the editor handling the manuscript. Taking the open access journal PlosOne as a case study, our analysis is based on a data set of more than 100,000 articles published between 2007 and 2015. Using available data on handling editor, submission and acceptance time of manuscripts, we study the question whether co-authorship relations between authors and the handling editor affect the manuscript handling time , i.e. the time taken between the submission and acceptance of a manuscript. Our analysis reveals (1) that editors handle papers co-authored by previous collaborators significantly more often than expected at random, and (2) that such prior co-author relations are significantly related to faster manuscript handling. Addressing the question whether these shorter manuscript handling times can be explained by the quality of publications, we study the number of citations and downloads which accepted papers eventually accumulate. Moreover, we consider the influence of additional (social) factors, such as the editor's experience, the topical similarity between authors and editors, as well as reciprocal citation relations between authors and editors. Our findings show that, even when correcting for other factors like time, experience, and performance, prior co-authorship relations have a large and significant influence on manuscript handling times, speeding up the editorial decision on average by 19 days.

  8. Should copyright be transferred before a manuscript is accepted?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A

    2017-10-01

    Academic journals that undergo a process of academic scrutiny often pass a stage of peer review and subsequent editorial approval. In a process that can take weeks or months (in some cases, even years), an author aims to satisfy the requirements of peer reviewer and editorial scrutiny that would merit publication of their work. It is customary to, in traditional, non-open access journals, to then sign over copyright to the publisher, upon which the publisher then issues a proof, and the manuscript is then published. Even though it is obvious that an author would not submit to a journal with the objective of having it rejected, the issue of the timing of copyright transfer is one which does not appear to have been discussed in the literature, possibly because the order of transfer, i.e., after acceptance of a paper for publication, seems naturally logical. With the modernization of online submission systems, the transfer of copyright tends to occur online, after acceptance. However, on occasion, some journals request the transfer of copyright before peer review and editorial processing occurs, i.e., upon the act of submission. This letter examines three cases of Springer Nature plant science journals that demand the transfer of copyright to the journal's society upon submission, in direct violation of their instructions for authors. Authors have no right to challenge this discrepancy, nor can they complete submission in accordance with the instructions for authors because they are forced to submit copyright upon submission. Not only does transfer of copyright at such an early stage of the publishing process constitute a waste of authors' time-a precious commodity in a cut-throat field of science-in the three cases indicated in this paper, they may constitute a violation of authors' rights. The ethics of this request by the journals and publisher need to be debated.

  9. 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.

  10. Inuit Elderly: A Systematic Review of Peer Reviewed Journal Articles.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Somogyi, Balvinder K; Barker, Melanie; MacLean, Calvin; Grischkan, Pamela

    2015-01-01

    Over the last century, Inuit have experienced rapid social changes that have greatly impacted their way of life, health, and intergenerational traditions. Although there is a growing body of research concerning Inuit youth, relatively little is known about elderly Inuit. In an effort to bridge this knowledge gap, a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles was conducted. This review identified a dearth of research on older Inuit, and highlighted limitations in service provision to this primarily rural and isolated population. Implications for policy and practice and recommendations for future research are also discussed.

  11. 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. PMID:23951223

  12. 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.

  13. Clinical Nurse Specialists Guide Staff Nurses to Promote Practice Accountability Through Peer Review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Semper, Julie; Halvorson, Betty; Hersh, Mary; Torres, Clare; Lillington, Linda

    2016-01-01

    The aim of the study was to describe the clinical nurse specialist role in developing and implementing a staff nurse education program to promote practice accountability using peer review principles. Peer review is essential for professional nursing practice demanding a significant culture change. Clinical nurse specialists in a Magnet-designated community hospital were charged with developing a staff nurse peer review education program. Peer review is a recognized mechanism of professional self-regulation to ensure delivery of quality care. The American Nurses Association strongly urges incorporating peer review in professional nursing practice models. Clinical nurse specialists play a critical role in educating staff nurses about practice accountability. Clinical nurse specialists developed an education program guided by the American Nurses Association's principles of peer review. A baseline needs assessment identified potential barriers and learning needs. Content incorporated tools and strategies to build communication skills, collaboration, practice change, and peer accountability. The education program resulted in increased staff nurse knowledge about peer review and application of peer review principles in practice. Clinical nurse specialists played a critical role in helping staff nurses understand peer review and its application to practice. The clinical nurse specialist role will continue to be important in sustaining the application of peer review principles in practice.

  14. 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…

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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...

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  1. The peer reviewers' openness initiative : incentivizing open research practices through peer review

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Morey, R.; Chambers, C.; Etchells, P.; Harris, C.; Hoekstra, R.; Lakens, D.; Lewandowsky, S.; Morey, C.; Newman, D.; Schönbrodt, F.; Vanpaemel, W.; Wagenmakers, E.-J.; Zwaan, R.

    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,

  2. Sharing Your Practice Expertise: Writing Clinical Manuscripts for Publication.

    Science.gov (United States)

    McGrath, Jacqueline M; Brandon, Debra

    2015-08-01

    Please do not be afraid of the writing process; we are here to help you through this journey. If you need mentorship through the process, consider looking to an expert or mentor on your unit or at a nearby university. If you do not find the mentorship you are seeking nearby, please let us know. We will put you in contact with 1 of our editorial board members to help guide you through the writing process. We want you to be successful so please have an outline of your idea and the type of manuscript you are planning to write developed. When you contact us, please share your questions openly—there are no “dumb” questions. Please refer often to our author guidelines during the writing process. Details for how best to submit a manuscript for the Clinical Issues in Neonatal Care section are outlined within the author guidelines. Finally, it is important to remember that ANC is a 4-color journal, so please submit full-color tables, graphs, and pictures to enhance the readability of your manuscript. During the editorial process we will do everything we can to facilitate and enhance your work. We will make recommendations that we believe will increase its scholarly application to improving neonatal care and outcomes. Revisions are often requested. After peer review, the section editor and coeditors will review the manuscript well in advance of the production deadline and provide additional feedback as needed. The end goal is excellent presentation of materials for our readers. If you are a reviewer for ANC , the next time you are asked to review a Clinical Issues in Neonatal Care manuscript, please consider the quality of the manuscript in relationship to guiding clinical care at the bedside and make recommendations to improve the manuscript so that staff nurses will best relate to the content. Do not be afraid to make recommendations about missing content or suggestions about ways to enhance the content and make it easier for clinicians to understand. Help us and the

  3. 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

  4. Implementing peer review of teaching: a guide for dental educators.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cunningham, I M; Johnson, I; Lynch, C D

    2017-04-07

    Peer review of teaching (PRT) is well established and valued within higher education. Increasingly, dental educators involved in undergraduate or postgraduate teaching are required to undertake PRT as part of their teaching development. Despite this, there is a paucity of literature relating to PRT within dental education, and none that considers the implementation of PRT within large dental teaching establishments. This article describes in detail a staged process for the planning and implementation of PRT within a UK dental school. It uses relevant educational literature to supplement the authors' experiences and recommendations. By highlighting aspects of the process which are key to successful implementation, it is a useful guide for all dental educator teams who wish to successfully introduce, restructure or refresh a PRT scheme.

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Sport prostheses and prosthetic adaptations for the upper and lower limb amputees: an overview of peer reviewed literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bragaru, Mihai; Dekker, Rienk; Geertzen, Jan H B

    2012-09-01

    Sport prostheses are used by both upper- and lower-limb amputees while participating in sports and other physical activities. Although the number of these devices has increased over the past decade, no overview of the peer reviewed literature describing them has been published previously. Such an overview will allow specialists to choose appropriate prostheses based on available scientific evidence rather than on personal experience or preference. To provide an overview of the sport prostheses as they are described by the papers published in peer reviewed literature. Literature review. Four electronic databases were searched using free text and Medical Subject Headings (MESH) terms. Papers were included if they concerned a prosthesis or a prosthetic adaptation used in sports. Papers were excluded if they did not originate from peer reviewed sources, if they concerned prostheses for body parts other than the upper or lower limbs, if they concerned amputations distal to the wrist or ankle, or if they were written in a language other than English. Twenty-four papers were included in this study. The vast majority contained descriptive data and consisted of expert opinions and technical notes. Data concerning the energy efficiency, technical characteristics and special mechanical properties of prostheses or prosthetic adaptations for sports, other than running, are scarce.

  8. AllergenOnline: A peer-reviewed, curated allergen database to assess novel food proteins for potential cross-reactivity.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Goodman, Richard E; Ebisawa, Motohiro; Ferreira, Fatima; Sampson, Hugh A; van Ree, Ronald; Vieths, Stefan; Baumert, Joseph L; Bohle, Barbara; Lalithambika, Sreedevi; Wise, John; Taylor, Steve L

    2016-05-01

    Increasingly regulators are demanding evaluation of potential allergenicity of foods prior to marketing. Primary risks are the transfer of allergens or potentially cross-reactive proteins into new foods. AllergenOnline was developed in 2005 as a peer-reviewed bioinformatics platform to evaluate risks of new dietary proteins in genetically modified organisms (GMO) and novel foods. The process used to identify suspected allergens and evaluate the evidence of allergenicity was refined between 2010 and 2015. Candidate proteins are identified from the NCBI database using keyword searches, the WHO/IUIS nomenclature database and peer reviewed publications. Criteria to classify proteins as allergens are described. Characteristics of the protein, the source and human subjects, test methods and results are evaluated by our expert panel and archived. Food, inhalant, salivary, venom, and contact allergens are included. Users access allergen sequences through links to the NCBI database and relevant references are listed online. Version 16 includes 1956 sequences from 778 taxonomic-protein groups that are accepted with evidence of allergic serum IgE-binding and/or biological activity. AllergenOnline provides a useful peer-reviewed tool for identifying the primary potential risks of allergy for GMOs and novel foods based on criteria described by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003). © 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    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.

  10. 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

  11. Design And Implementation Of Online Submission and Peer Review System A Case Study Of E-Journal Of University Of Zakho

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Karwan Jacksi

    2015-08-01

    Full Text Available Abstract With the aim of designing and implementing a web-based article submission management system for academic research papers several international models such as Elsevier Editorial System and ICOCI International Conference on Computing and Informatics are studied and analyzed. Through this analysis an open access web-based article submission and peer review system for Journal of University of Zakho JUOZ is employed. This kind of systems is not only capable of solving issues such as complex manuscript management time-delays in the process of reviewing and loss of manuscripts that occurs often in off-line paper submission and review processes but also is capable to build the foundation for e-journal publications. Consequently an active and rapid scholarly communication medium can be made. The implementation and deployment of this system can improve the rank of the university and the reputation and the globalization of science and technology research journals.

  12. 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…

  13. Peer Review of Teaching: Best Practices for a Non-Programmatic Approach

    Science.gov (United States)

    Alabi, Jaena; Weare, William H., Jr.

    2014-01-01

    Many academic librarians who provide library instruction have never received formal training in educational theory and methods. 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…

  14. 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…

  15. Bound by Tradition? Peer Review and New Scholarship: An Institutional Case Study

    Science.gov (United States)

    White, Barbara Jo; Cruz, Laura; Ellern, Jill; Ford, George; Moss, Hollye

    2012-01-01

    Peer review is by no means a routine process for traditional, or basic, research. Even so, peer review is even less routinized for other forms of scholarship. In 1990, Ernest Boyer called for a reconsideration of scholarship and extended the definition to be inclusive of non-traditional modes of scholarly production and delivery. However, peer…

  16. 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…

  17. The Effect of Peer Review on Student Learning Outcomes in a Research Methods Course

    Science.gov (United States)

    Crowe, Jessica A.; Silva, Tony; Ceresola, Ryan

    2015-01-01

    In this study, we test the effect of in-class student peer review on student learning outcomes using a quasiexperimental design. We provide an assessment of peer review in a quantitative research methods course, which is a traditionally difficult and technical course. Data were collected from 170 students enrolled in four sections of a…

  18. Working in Triads: A Case Study of a Peer Review Process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Grainger, Peter; Bridgstock, Martin; Houston, Todd; Drew, Steve

    2015-01-01

    Peer review of teaching has become an accepted educational procedure in Australia to quality assure the quality of teaching practices. The institutional implementation of the peer review process can be viewed as genuine desire to improve teaching quality or an imposition from above as a measure of accountability and performativity. One approach is…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Geithner, Christina A.; Pollastro, Alexandria N.

    2016-01-01

    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.…

  20. 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.

  1. 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…

  2. 33 CFR 385.22 - Independent scientific review and external peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... external peer review. 385.22 Section 385.22 Navigation and Navigable Waters CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT... RESTORATION PLAN CERP Implementation Processes § 385.22 Independent scientific review and external peer review... members, shall not attempt to influence the panel's review or assign this panel any other tasks, nor...

  3. 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...

  4. 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…

  5. Social Workers' Attitudes toward Peer-Reviewed Literature: The Evidence Base

    Science.gov (United States)

    Knight, Carolyn

    2013-01-01

    Social workers from one state chapter of the National Association of Social Workers were surveyed to assess their use of and attitudes toward the peer-reviewed literature and their engagement in evidence-based practice. Results reveal that, in general, the practitioners in this study did not read the peer-reviewed literature, particularly articles…

  6. 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

  7. 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...... 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...

  8. An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jelena Aleksic

    2015-01-01

    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.

  9. [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.

  10. The Joy of Teaching Literacy. The Thirty-Fourth Yearbook: A Double Peer Reviewed Publication of the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Marin, Linda, Ed.; Boggs, Merry, Ed.; Szabo, Susan, Ed.; Morrision, Timothy, Ed.; Garza-Garcia, Lizabeth, Ed.

    2012-01-01

    The Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers (ALER) Yearbook, Volume 34, includes papers presented at the annual conference, which have gone through a double peer review process. It also includes the Presidential Address and the keynote addresses given at the conference. For ALER's 55th annual meeting, the Association of Literacy…

  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. 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

  13. The peer review gap: A longitudinal case study of gendered publishing and occupational patterns in a female-rich discipline, Western North America (1974–2016)

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fulkerson, Tiffany; Hill, Katheryn

    2017-01-01

    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 variation in the

  14. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pierie, J P; Walvoort, H C; Overbeke, A J

    1996-11-30

    Academic biomedical journals use peer review and editing to help to select and improve the quality of articles. We have investigated whether articles accepted by the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, the Dutch Journal of Medicine, were improved after peer review and editing (post-acceptance scientific and copy editing). 400 readers of the journal (100 each of medical students, recent medical graduates, general practitioners, and specialists) were invited to participate in a questionnaire survey. The first 25 from each group who agreed to participate were included. We posted a pack containing a set of identically appearing typescripts (ie, blinding) of the submitted, accepted, and published versions of 50 articles that had been published in Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. Each evaluator received two of the sets of versions, and each set was evaluated by one person from each group. The package also included two questionnaires: the first was used to compare the submitted with the accepted version (25 questions), the second compared the accepted with the published version (17 questions). The questions were answered on five-point scales, and were about the quality of the articles or were general/overall scores. We analysed the data as scores of 3-5 (ie, improvement) versus 1-2. After peer review, the quality in 14 of 23 questions (61%) was significantly improved (p = 0.03 or smaller). In particular, the overall score and general medical value were significantly improved (p = 0.00001 for each). Editing led to significant improvement in 11 of 16 questions (69%, p = 0.017 or smaller), and especially in style and readability (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004). Generally, we found no differences between the scores of the four categories of evaluators. 72% of the evaluators correctly identified which version was which. Evaluations by readers of the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd indicated significant improvement of published articles after both peer review and editing. We think that peer review

  15. 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

  16. Peer-review Platform for Astronomy Education Activities

    Science.gov (United States)

    Heenatigala, Thilina; Russo, Pedro; Gomez, Edward; Strubbe, Linda

    2015-08-01

    Astronomy educators and teachers worldwide commonly request and search for high-quality astronomy activities to do with their students. Hundreds of astronomy education activities exist, as well as many resource repositories to find them. However, the quality of such resources is highly variable as they are not updated regularly or limited with content review. Since its launch in 2013, astroEDU has been addressing these issues and more by following a peer-review process. Each activity submitted is reviewed by an educator and a professional astronomer, balancing both the scientific and educational value of the content. Moreover, the majority of the reviewers are invited from IAU commissions related to the field of the activity, as an effort to get IAU members actively involved in the project. The website code, activities and layout design are open-access in order to make them accessible and adoptable for educators around the world. Furthermore the platform harnesses the OAD volunteer database to develop existing astronomy education activities into the astroEDU activity format. Published activities are also pushed to partner repositories and each activity is registered for DOI, allowing authors to cite their work. To further test the activities and improve the platform, astroEDU editorial team organises workshops.

  17. 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.

  18. Peer Review of the Waste Package Material Performance Interim Report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    J. A. Beavers; T. M. Devine, Jr.; G. S. Frankel; R. H. Jones; R. G. Kelly; R. M. Latanision; J. H. Payer

    2001-01-01

    At the request of the U.S. Department of Energy, Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC, formed the Waste Package Materials Performance Peer Review Panel (the Panel) to review the technical basis for evaluating the long-term performance of waste package materials in a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This is the interim report of the Panel; a final report will be issued in February 2002. In its work to date, the Panel has identified important issues regarding waste package materials performance. In the remainder of its work, the Panel will address approaches and plans to resolve these issues. In its review to date, the Panel has not found a technical basis to conclude that the waste package materials are unsuitable for long-term containment at the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. Nevertheless, significant technical issues remain unsettled and, primarily because of the extremely long life required for the waste packages, there will always be some uncertainty in the assessment. A significant base of scientific and engineering knowledge for assessing materials performance does exist and, therefore, the likelihood is great that uncertainty about the long-term performance can be substantially reduced through further experiments and analysis

  19. Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sattler, David N; McKnight, Patrick E; Naney, Linda; Mathis, Randy

    2015-01-01

    This study developed and evaluated a brief training program for grant reviewers that aimed to increase inter-rater reliability, rating scale knowledge, and effort to read the grant review criteria. Enhancing reviewer training may improve the reliability and accuracy of research grant proposal scoring and funding recommendations. Seventy-five Public Health professors from U.S. research universities watched the training video we produced and assigned scores to the National Institutes of Health scoring criteria proposal summary descriptions. For both novice and experienced reviewers, the training video increased scoring accuracy (the percentage of scores that reflect the true rating scale values), inter-rater reliability, and the amount of time reading the review criteria compared to the no video condition. The increase in reliability for experienced reviewers is notable because it is commonly assumed that reviewers--especially those with experience--have good understanding of the grant review rating scale. The findings suggest that both experienced and novice reviewers who had not received the type of training developed in this study may not have appropriate understanding of the definitions and meaning for each value of the rating scale and that experienced reviewers may overestimate their knowledge of the rating scale. The results underscore the benefits of and need for specialized peer reviewer training.

  20. 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.

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. Literacy Is Transformative. The Thirty-Fifth Yearbook A Doubled Peer Reviewed Publication of the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Szabo, Susan, Ed.; Martin, Linda, Ed.; Haas, Leslie, Ed.; Garza-Garcia, Lizabeth, Ed.

    2013-01-01

    For their 56th annual meeting, the Association of Educators and Researchers (ALER) met in Grand Rapids, Michigan at the Amway Grand Hotel. This year's conference theme was Literacy Is Transformative, which was also used as the title for this year's Yearbook, Volume 35. Included are double-peer reviewed papers, the presidential address,…

  6. 76 FR 55384 - External Peer Review Meeting for the Draft Guidance of Applying Quantitative Data To Develop Data...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-09-07

    ... ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA/100/J-11/001; FRL-9460-1] External Peer Review Meeting for... attend this peer review meeting as observers. Time will be set aside for observers to give brief oral... the draft document, EPA intends to consider the comments from the external peer review meeting along...

  7. Don't Tell It Like It Is: Preserving Collegiality in the Summative Peer Review of Teaching

    Science.gov (United States)

    Iqbal, Isabeau A.

    2014-01-01

    While much literature has considered feedback and professional growth in formative peer reviews of teaching, there has been little empirical research conducted on these issues in the context of summative peer reviews. This article explores faculty members' perceptions of feedback practices in the summative peer review of teaching and reports on…

  8. 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

    ... Collect Information: Forms Pertaining to the Peer Review of ARS Research Projects AGENCY: Agricultural... S. Strauss, Peer Review Program Coordinator, Office of Scientific Quality Review; Agricultural... allow the ARS to efficiently manage data associated with the peer review of agricultural research. All...

  9. 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.

  10. Transition From Peer Review to Peer Learning: Experience in a Radiology Department.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Donnelly, Lane F; Dorfman, Scott R; Jones, Jeremy; Bisset, George S

    2017-10-18

    To describe the process by which a radiology department moved from peer review to peer collaborative improvement (PCI) and review data from the first 16 months of the PCI process. Data from the first 16 months after PCI were reviewed: number of case reviews performed, number of learning opportunities identified, percentage yield of learning opportunities identified, type of learning opportunities identified, and comparison of the previous parameters between case randomly reviewed versus actively pushed (issues actively identified and entered). Changes in actively pushed cases were also assessed as volume per month over the 16 months (run chart). Faculty members were surveyed about their perception of the conversion to PCI. In all, 12,197 cases were peer reviewed, yielding 1,140 learning opportunities (9.34%). The most common types of learning opportunities for all reviewed cases included perception (5.1%) and reporting (1.9%). The yield of learning opportunities from actively pushed cases was 96.3% compared with 3.88% for randomly reviewed cases. The number of actively pushed cases per month increased over the course of the period and established two new confidence intervals. The faculty survey revealed that the faculty perceived the new PCI process as positive, nonpunitive, and focused on improvement. The study demonstrates that a switch to PCI is perceived as nonpunitive and associated with increased radiologist submission of learning opportunities. Active entering of identified learning opportunities had a greater yield and perceived value, compared with random review of cases. Copyright © 2017 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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)

  17. A 'hybrid space’ for peer review: can Facebook inspire new ways of thinking?

    OpenAIRE

    Head, A; Glen, N; Thompson, S

    2009-01-01

    Peer review can be broadly categorised as either the individual-based review system used to review academic papers for publication or the group peer review system \\ud used, more usefully, in student reviews of their work. Web 2.0 technologies present an opportunity to consider a hybrid of these two modes of peer review. Using the rapid \\ud communication with, and 24/7 access to, a shared online environment it is possible to identify explore a form of hybrid space between the two orthodox mode...

  18. 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...... cash payment for reviews is not considered a good idea, a 'payback in kind' system is favored: i.e., if you want to submit papers to a journal you must be willing to review for that journal....

  19. 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.

  20. Antimony Trioxide (ATO) - Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and Disposition

    Science.gov (United States)

    This document summarizes the public and external peer review comments that the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) received for the draft work plan risk assessment for Antimony Trioxide (ATO).

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. Peer-Review Writing Workshops in College Courses: Students’ Perspectives about Online and Classroom Based Workshops

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Erin B. Jensen

    2016-11-01

    Full Text Available Peer-review workshops are commonly used in writing courses as a way for students to give their peers feedback as well as help their own writing. Most of the research on peer-review workshops focuses on workshops held in traditional in-person courses, with less research on peer-review workshops held online. Students in a freshman writing course experienced both a classroom based writing workshop and an online workshop and then took a survey about their experiences. The majority of the students preferred the online writing workshop because of the convenience of the workshop and being able to post anonymous reviews. Students whom preferred the traditional in-person writing workshop liked being able to talk with their peers about their papers. This research article focuses on the students’ responses and experiences with traditional and online peer-reviews.

  4. Application and development of peer review in China's nuclear power industry

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Huang Ping

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is one of the scientific methods and tools in management, which plays an active role in promoting and improving the performance of safe operation and management level of nuclear power plants. Peer review of nuclear power is not only comprehensively popularized and applied in China, but it is also innovated and developed in industry at all levels in recent years. In this paper, with the CNNC's relevant practice as main line, a variety of accepted peer review methods both at home and abroad were compared and analyzed, and the current application and development of peer review in China's nuclear power industry were described, as well as some suggestions for improvement were put forward to share with our craft brothers. (author)

  5. 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

  6. Army Corps of Engineers: Peer Review Process for Civil Works Project Studies Can Be Improved

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-03-01

    exceeding $45 million EIS Cost of peer review contract Western C-111 Spreader Canal Project Implementation Report Jacksonville South...Federal Programs Congressional Relations Public Affairs Please Print on Recycled Paper.

  7. 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.

  8. 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....

  9. 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

  10. 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...

  11. Peering into peer review: Galileo, ESP, Dr Scott Reuben, and advancing our professional evolution.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Biddle, Chuck

    2011-10-01

    The fundamental purpose of peer review is quality control that facilitates the introduction of information into our discipline; information that is essential to the care of patients who require anesthesia services. While the AANA Journal relies heavily on this process to maintain the overall quality of our scholarly literature, it may fail that objective under certain conditions. This editorial serves to inform readers of the nature and goals of the peer review process.

  12. Peer reviewing – a responsibility and a power of the university?

    OpenAIRE

    Smedsrød, Bård; Reierth, Eirik; Moksness, Lars; Longva, Leif

    2016-01-01

    Watch the VIDEO of the presentation.Journal coordinated peer reviewing, a hallmark of scholarly publishing, is also a pivotal part of other central academic processes, such as evaluation of research grant applications, and ranking of applicants for faculty/research positions. Hence, journal coordinated peer reviewing may be viewed as “the mother of academic peer reviewing”. On this background, it is astonishing that universities and other public R&D institutions take only a very limited inter...

  13. 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.

  14. Research Integrity and Peer Review-past highlights and future directions.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Boughton, Stephanie L; Kowalczuk, Maria K; Meerpohl, Joerg J; Wager, Elizabeth; Moylan, Elizabeth C

    2018-01-01

    In May 2016, we launched Research Integrity and Peer Review , an international, open access journal with fully open peer review (reviewers are identified on their reports and named reports are published alongside the article) to provide a home for research on research and publication ethics, research reporting, and research on peer review. As the journal enters its third year, we reflect on recent events and highlights for the journal and explore how the journal is faring in terms of gender and diversity in peer review. We also share the particular interests of our Editors-in-Chief regarding models of peer review, reporting quality, common research integrity issues that arise during the publishing process, and how people interact with the published literature. We continue to encourage further research into peer review, research and publication ethics and research reporting, as we believe that all new initiatives should be evidence-based. We also remain open to constructive discussions of the developments in the field that offer new solutions.

  15. 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

    2014-10-01

    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 mimicked scholarly peer review. This design is based on a model of a human activity system. Twenty-five different schools in Brazil, Germany, Poland and The Netherlands participated. The students (n = 880) conducted in small groups (n = 428) open inquiries on fermentation. All groups prepared an inquiry report for peer review. These reports were published on a website. Groups were randomly paired in an internet symposium, where they posted review comments to their peers. These responses were qualitatively analyzed on small groups' level of understanding regarding seven categories: inquiry question, hypothesis, management of control variables, accurate measurement, presenting results, reliability of results, discussion and conclusion. The mimicked scholarly review prompted a collective practice. Student understanding was significantly well on presenting results, discussion and conclusion, and significantly less on inquiry question and reliability of results. An enacted design, based on a model of a human activity system, created student understanding of quality in inquiries as well as an insight in a peer-reviewing practice. To what extent this model can be applied in a broader context of design research in science education needs further study.

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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...

  19. 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.

  20. Facilitating Improvements in Laboratory Report Writing Skills with Less Grading: A Laboratory Report Peer-Review Process

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jennifer R. Brigati

    2015-02-01

    Full Text Available Incorporating peer-review steps in the laboratory report writing process provides benefits to students, but it also can create additional work for laboratory instructors. The laboratory report writing process described here allows the instructor to grade only one lab report for every two to four students, while giving the students the benefits of peer review and prompt feedback on their laboratory reports. Here we present the application of this process to a sophomore level genetics course and a freshman level cellular biology course, including information regarding class time spent on student preparation activities, instructor preparation, prerequisite student knowledge, suggested learning outcomes, procedure, materials, student instructions, faculty instructions, assessment tools, and sample data. T-tests comparing individual and group grading of the introductory cell biology lab reports yielded average scores that were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.13, n = 23 for individual grading, n = 6 for group grading. T-tests also demonstrated that average laboratory report grades of students using the peer-review process were not significantly different from those of students working alone (p = 0.98, n = 9 for individual grading, n = 6 for pair grading. While the grading process described here does not lead to statistically significant gains (or reductions in student learning, it allows student learning to be maintained while decreasing instructor workload. This reduction in workload could allow the instructor time to pursue other high-impact practices that have been shown to increase student learning. Finally, we suggest possible modifications to the procedure for application in a variety of settings.

  1. Facilitating improvements in laboratory report writing skills with less grading: a laboratory report peer-review process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brigati, Jennifer R; Swann, Jerilyn M

    2015-05-01

    Incorporating peer-review steps in the laboratory report writing process provides benefits to students, but it also can create additional work for laboratory instructors. The laboratory report writing process described here allows the instructor to grade only one lab report for every two to four students, while giving the students the benefits of peer review and prompt feedback on their laboratory reports. Here we present the application of this process to a sophomore level genetics course and a freshman level cellular biology course, including information regarding class time spent on student preparation activities, instructor preparation, prerequisite student knowledge, suggested learning outcomes, procedure, materials, student instructions, faculty instructions, assessment tools, and sample data. T-tests comparing individual and group grading of the introductory cell biology lab reports yielded average scores that were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.13, n = 23 for individual grading, n = 6 for group grading). T-tests also demonstrated that average laboratory report grades of students using the peer-review process were not significantly different from those of students working alone (p = 0.98, n = 9 for individual grading, n = 6 for pair grading). While the grading process described here does not lead to statistically significant gains (or reductions) in student learning, it allows student learning to be maintained while decreasing instructor workload. This reduction in workload could allow the instructor time to pursue other high-impact practices that have been shown to increase student learning. Finally, we suggest possible modifications to the procedure for application in a variety of settings.

  2. Facilitating Improvements in Laboratory Report Writing Skills with Less Grading: A Laboratory Report Peer-Review Process†

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brigati, Jennifer R.; Swann, Jerilyn M.

    2015-01-01

    Incorporating peer-review steps in the laboratory report writing process provides benefits to students, but it also can create additional work for laboratory instructors. The laboratory report writing process described here allows the instructor to grade only one lab report for every two to four students, while giving the students the benefits of peer review and prompt feedback on their laboratory reports. Here we present the application of this process to a sophomore level genetics course and a freshman level cellular biology course, including information regarding class time spent on student preparation activities, instructor preparation, prerequisite student knowledge, suggested learning outcomes, procedure, materials, student instructions, faculty instructions, assessment tools, and sample data. T-tests comparing individual and group grading of the introductory cell biology lab reports yielded average scores that were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.13, n = 23 for individual grading, n = 6 for group grading). T-tests also demonstrated that average laboratory report grades of students using the peer-review process were not significantly different from those of students working alone (p = 0.98, n = 9 for individual grading, n = 6 for pair grading). While the grading process described here does not lead to statistically significant gains (or reductions) in student learning, it allows student learning to be maintained while decreasing instructor workload. This reduction in workload could allow the instructor time to pursue other high-impact practices that have been shown to increase student learning. Finally, we suggest possible modifications to the procedure for application in a variety of settings. PMID:25949758

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Albert, Arianne Y K; Gow, Jennifer L; Cobra, Alison; Vines, Timothy H

    2016-01-01

    There is concern in the academic publishing community that it is becoming more difficult to secure reviews for peer-reviewed manuscripts, but much of this concern stems from anecdotal and rhetorical evidence. We examined the proportion of review requests that led to a completed review over a 6-year period (2009-2015) in a mid-tier biology journal ( Molecular Ecology ). We also re-analyzed previously published data from four other mid-tier ecology journals ( Functional Ecology , Journal of Ecology , Journal of Animal Ecology , and Journal of Applied Ecology ), looking at the same proportion over the period 2003 to 2010. The data from Molecular Ecology showed no significant decrease through time in the proportion of requests that led to a review (proportion in 2009 = 0.47 (95 % CI = 0.43 to 0.52), proportion in 2015 = 0.44 (95 % CI = 0.40 to 0.48)). This proportion did decrease for three of the other ecology journals (changes in proportions from 2003 to 2010 = -0.10, -0.18, and -0.09), while the proportion for the fourth ( Functional Ecology ) stayed roughly constant (change in proportion = -0.04). Overall, our data suggest that reviewer agreement rates have probably declined slightly but not to the extent suggested by the anecdotal and rhetorical evidence.

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. The gender gap in peer-reviewed publications by physical therapy faculty members: a productivity puzzle.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kaufman, Regina R; Chevan, Julia

    2011-01-01

    Studies of peer-reviewed article publication by faculty in higher education show men publish more than women. Part of the difference in publishing appears to be attributable directly to gender. Gender differences in publishing productivity have not been explored in physical therapy. The purpose of this study was to explore effects of gender on peer-reviewed publication productivity in physical therapy. This was a cross-sectional study using survey methods. A survey was administered to a random sample of 881 physical therapy faculty members; 459 responses were used for analysis. Men were more likely than women to be married, have children, hold a PhD degree, be tenured or on a tenure track, and hold the position of department chair. There was a significant difference in peer-reviewed publication rates between male and female respondents. Negative binomial regression models revealed that female gender was a negative predictor of peer-reviewed publication, accounting for between 0.51 and 0.58 fewer articles per year for women than for men over the course of a career. Reasons for the gender differences are not clear. Factors such as grant funding, laboratory resources, nature of collaborative relationships, values for different elements of the teaching/research/service triad, and ability to negotiate the academic culture were not captured by our model. The gender gap in peer-reviewed publishing productivity may have implications for individuals and the profession of physical therapy and should be subject to further exploration.

  13. 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)

  14. Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation-Part 3: Automated Report Analysis and Data Reconciliation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Reiner, Bruce I

    2018-02-01

    One method for addressing existing peer review limitations is the assignment of peer review cases on a completely blinded basis, in which the peer reviewer would create an independent report which can then be cross-referenced with the primary reader report of record. By leveraging existing computerized data mining techniques, one could in theory automate and objectify the process of report data extraction, classification, and analysis, while reducing time and resource requirements intrinsic to manual peer review report analysis. Once inter-report analysis has been performed, resulting inter-report discrepancies can be presented to the radiologist of record for review, along with the option to directly communicate with the peer reviewer through an electronic data reconciliation tool aimed at collaboratively resolving inter-report discrepancies and improving report accuracy. All associated report and reconciled data could in turn be recorded in a referenceable peer review database, which provides opportunity for context and user-specific education and decision support.

  15. 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

  16. Improving the peer review process: an examination of commonalities between scholarly societies and knowledge networks

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Susu Nousala

    2011-08-01

    Full Text Available Whilst peer review is the common form of scholarly refereeing, there are many differing aspects to this process. There is a view that the system is not without its faults and this has given rise to increasing discussion and examination of the process as a whole. Since the importance of peer review is based on the primary way in which quality control is asserted within the academic world, the concern is what impact this is having on an ever increasing diversity of scholarship, in particular, within and between science and engineering disciplines. The peer review process as is commonly understood, and increasingly considered as a conservative approach which is failing to adequately deal with the challenges of assessing interdisciplinary research, publications and outputs.

  17. Was Muller's 1946 Nobel Prize research for radiation-induced gene mutations peer-reviewed?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Calabrese, Edward J

    2018-06-06

    This historical analysis indicates that it is highly unlikely that the Nobel Prize winning research of Hermann J. Muller was peer-reviewed. The published paper of Muller lacked a research methods section, cited no references, and failed to acknowledge and discuss the work of Gager and Blakeslee (PNAS 13:75-79, 1927) that claimed to have induced gene mutation via ionizing radiation six months prior to Muller's non-data Science paper (Muller, Science 66(1699):84-87, 1927a). Despite being well acclimated into the scientific world of peer-review, Muller choose to avoid the peer-review process on his most significant publication. It appears that Muller's actions were strongly influenced by his desire to claim primacy for the discovery of gene mutation. The actions of Muller have important ethical lessons and implications today, when self-interest trumps one's obligations to society and the scientific culture that supports the quest for new knowledge and discovery.

  18. 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.

  19. When reviews attack: ethics, free speech, and the peer review process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hadjistavropoulos, T; Bieling, P J

    2000-08-01

    The peer review process, whether formally applied in publication and grant review, or informally, such as exchange of ideas in scientific and professional newsgroups, has sparked controversy. Writers in this area agree that scholarly reviews that are inappropriate in tone are not uncommon. Indeed, commentators have suggested rules and guidelines that can be used to improve the review process and to make reviewers more accountable. In this paper, we examine the relevance and impact of ethical codes on the conduct of peer review. It is our contention that the peer review process can be improved, not by a new set of rules but through closer attention to the ethical principles to which we, as psychologists, already subscribe.

  20. 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.

  1. Nirex methodology for scenario and conceptual model development. An international peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1999-06-01

    Nirex has responsibilities for nuclear waste management in the UK. The company's top level objectives are to maintain technical credibility on deep disposal, to gain public acceptance for a deep geologic repository, and to provide relevant advice to customers on the safety implications of their waste packaging proposals. Nirex utilizes peer reviews as appropriate to keep its scientific tools up-to-date and to periodically verify the quality of its products. The NEA formed an International Review Team (IRT) consisting of four internationally recognised experts plus a member of the NEA Secretariat. The IRT performed an in-depth analysis of five Nirex scientific reports identified in the terms of reference of the review. The review was to primarily judge whether the Nirex methodology provides an adequate framework to support the building of a future licensing safety case. Another objective was to judge whether the methodology could aid in establishing a better understanding, and, ideally, enhance acceptance of a repository among stakeholders. Methodologies for conducting safety assessments include at a very basic level the identification of features, events, and processes (FEPs) relevant to the system at hand, their convolution in scenarios for analysis, and the formulation of conceptual models to be addressed through numerical modelling. The main conclusion of the IRT is that Nirex has developed a potentially sound methodology for the identification and analysis of FEPs and for the identification of conceptual model needs and model requirements. The work is still in progress and is not yet complete. (R.P.)

  2. The French Experience Regarding Peer Reviews to Improve the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Lachaume, J.-L.; Bélot, G.

    2015-01-01

    France has a 50 year history of control over radioactive sources. Convinced that peer reviews may be helpful to improve any regulatory system, France decided to experience a ‘full scope’ Integrated Regulatory Review Service mission in 2006 and its follow-up mission in 2009, including a review of the implementation of the Code of Conduct. The reviews, interviews and observations performed during these missions enabled the experts to have a thorough knowledge of the French system and to highlight its strengths and ways for improvements. Following these reviews, France decided to rely on its good practices, extend them as much as possible and to define, implement and address an action plan to improve its regulatory control over radioactive sources, while maintaining the prime responsibility on the operators. While good practices in the tracking of sources were maintained and slight evolutions were conducted in the safety regulations, licensing process, and inspection and enforcement actions, the major outcome of these reviews will obviously consist of the entrustment of the French Nuclear Safety Authority with the role of the regulatory authority for the security of radioactive sources and the implementation of dedicated provisions. (author)

  3. Clinical Case Reporting in the Peer-Reviewed Physical Therapy Literature: Time to Move Toward Functioning.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Davenport, Todd E

    2015-12-01

    Physical therapists increasingly are contributing clinical case reports to the health literature, which form the basis for higher quality evidence that has been incorporated into clinical practice guidelines. Yet, few resources exist to assist physical therapists with the basic mechanics and quality standards of producing a clinical case report. This situation is further complicated by the absence of uniform standards for quality in case reporting. The importance of including a concise yet comprehensive description of patient functioning in all physical therapy case reports suggest the potential appropriateness of basing quality guidelines on the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) model. The purpose of this paper is to assist physical therapists in creating high-quality clinical case reports for the peer-reviewed literature using the ICF model as a guiding framework. Along these lines, current recommendations related to the basic mechanics of writing a successful clinical case report are reviewed, as well and a proposal for uniform clinical case reporting requirements is introduced with the aim to improve the quality and feasibility of clinical case reporting in physical therapy that are informed by the ICF model. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  4. 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.

  5. A re-audit of the use of definitions of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in peer-reviewed literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Byard, Roger W; Lee, Vivian

    2012-11-01

    The use of different definitions of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) may make comparison of data among studies difficult. Fifty randomly selected papers dealing with SIDS that were published between 2010 and 2011 in peer-reviewed journals were reviewed to determine whether one of three internationally accepted definitions of SIDS had been either written in the text or referenced. A significant improvement in the use of definitions has occurred since 2005, with the percentage of papers either quoting or referencing a standard definition increasing by 26%, from 42 to 68%. The 1989 NICHD definition remained the most commonly used definition (35.1%) followed by the 2004 San Diego definition (26.3%). Although the percentage of papers where either no definition was provided or where an idiosyncratic or mis-cited definition was used fell 26%, from 58 to 32%, nearly one in three papers published on SIDS in peer-reviewed journals that were included in this study still did not cite a standard definition. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.

  6. 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

  7. 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. PMID:25184367

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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)

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. On-line Peer Review in Teaching Design-oriented Courses

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Hai Ning

    2004-02-01

    Full Text Available Peer review has been one of the very important designfacilitating processes practiced in education field, particularly in design-oriented courses such as MIT's 2.007 Robot Design. Typically students exchange ideas sketched on a piece of paper and critique on each other's design within a small team. We designed PREP web application backed up by a range of web services that handle the peer-review process on-line, and we argue that this is a significant step towards supporting designoriented course on-line. We believe that the lessons learned could be applied to other interested institutes that offer designoriented courses.

  15. 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

  16. ON COPIES OF THE MANUSCRIPT OF THE GLAGOLITIC QUARESIMALE

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Andrea Radošević

    2014-01-01

    Full Text Available Studies about the linguistic characteristics of a few Glagolitic manuscript versions of Quaresimale, as well as studies about other texts (The Treatise on the Seven Deadly Sins; Greblo's Commentary on the Passion of Christ that were included in the same manuscripts as the Lenten sermons, have already been published. After the structure of the Glagolitic Quaresimale, that has been preserved in the form of five Glagolitic manuscripts (Kolunić Quaresimale, Quaresimale III a 19, Greblo Quaresimale, Oport Quaresimale, Fatević Miscellany, had been studied, the next step in the research of the Glagolitic Quaresimale was to study the relationship between the written sermons and their performance, because the performance, or orality, is one of the main characteristics of sermons as a genre. The results of this study show that the different places in which the copies of the manuscript were kept, the thematic similarity between the sermons and other texts in manuscripts, as well as the attitude of the scribes towards the graphic design of the text, had influenced the performance of the Lenten sermons. The performances of these Glagolitic sermons reflect a great deal more variety than would be expected on the basis of the content of sermons in all five manuscripts which is very similar.

  17. European Union response to Fukushima. European stress tests and peer review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Jamet, Philippe [Autorite de Surete Nucleaire (ASN), Paris (France)

    2012-07-01

    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.

  18. 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.

  19. Perspectives on Peer-Review: Eight Years of Aropä

    Science.gov (United States)

    Purchase, Helen; Hamer, John

    2018-01-01

    Drawing on eight years of observation and correspondence from the Aropä project, we report on the issues important to academics who conduct on-line student peer-review activities, and the features they request to support their own instructional designs. The Aropä project is unusually broad, having so far supported over 100 instructors at 20…

  20. Students' Perception of Peer Review in an EFL Classroom

    Science.gov (United States)

    Harutyunyan, Liliya; Poveda, María Fernanda

    2018-01-01

    Even though there is plenty of published information about the advantages of peer review, little can be found on what the beneficiaries (i.e. the students) feel about this method and what they might expect from it. In this paper, we present an analysis of the perceptions of 44 students at one of the largest universities in Ecuador, who had just…

  1. Peer review i et obligatorisk bachelorkursus for civilingeniørstuderende i medikoteknik

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Wilhjelm, Jens E.; Prag, Sidsel-Marie Winther

    2018-01-01

    Et nyudviklet peer review-system, der integrerer studenterdata, administration og grafiske procesoversigter, blev afprøvet i et obligatorisk bachelorkursus. Overensstemmelse mellem de studerende og hjælpelærernes kvantitative bedømmelser blev undersøgt for en relativt udfordrende opgave med 15...

  2. Application of Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) Writing Assignments to Enhance Experiments with an Environmental Chemistry Focus

    Science.gov (United States)

    Margerum, Lawrence D.; Gulsrud, Maren; Manlapez, Ronald; Rebong, Rachelle; Love, Austin

    2007-01-01

    The browser-based software program, Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) developed by the Molecular Science Project enables instructors to create structured writing assignments in which students learn by writing and reading for content. Though the CPR project covers only one experiment in general chemistry, it might provide lab instructors with a method…

  3. Differences in Faculty Development Needs: Implications for Educational Peer Review Program Design

    Science.gov (United States)

    Toth, Kate E.; McKey, Colleen A.

    2010-01-01

    The purpose of faculty development in terms of the educational role is to assist faculty in becoming better educators. Educational peer review (EPR) is one method of faculty development. This article is based on a study that explored the different development needs of nursing faculty within a school of nursing at an Ontario university. The study…

  4. 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.

  5. Identifying the Potential Organizational Impact of an Educational Peer Review Program

    Science.gov (United States)

    Toth, Kate E.; McKey, Colleen A.

    2010-01-01

    The literature on educational peer review (EPR) has focused on evaluating EPR's impact on faculty and/or student learning outcomes; no literature exists on the potential organizational impact. A qualitative (case study) research design explored perceptions of 17 faculty and 10 administrators within a school of nursing in an Ontario university…

  6. 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

  7. Lessons Learned about Post-Tenure Review from the AAHE Peer Review of Teaching Project.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Taylor, James W.

    1999-01-01

    Describes use of a strategy adapted from the American Association for Higher Education's Peer Review of Teaching Project, the "reflective memo," to provide backward and forward view of post-tenure reviews in the chemistry department of the University of Wisconsin (Madison). The approach served as a guide in review of research, teaching,…

  8. The Effect of Peer Review on Information Literacy Outcomes in a Chemical Literature Course

    Science.gov (United States)

    Zwicky, David A.; Hands, Michael D.

    2016-01-01

    This article describes the use of peer review in a writing project involving upper-level chemistry students in a chemical literature course, with the goal of improving student performance in meeting information literacy outcomes. Students were asked to find articles on a topic of their choice over the course of a semester and assemble the results…

  9. 76 FR 4113 - Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Meeting on an In Vitro

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-24

    ... antagonist activity. These studies were funded primarily by a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant... Vitro Estrogen Receptor Transcriptional Activation Test Method for Endocrine Disruptor Chemical... Toxicological Methods (NICEATM); Announcement of an Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Meeting on an In...

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. An Analysis of Peer Review Response Types in Threaded Discussions of an Online Graduate Class

    Science.gov (United States)

    Molseed, Tim

    2011-01-01

    The effectiveness of a peer review process for online graduate students is predicated on a balance between "social"- and "task"-directed communications. The defining criteria of learning communities are presented to illustrate the operational meaning of social and the criteria for Critical Thinking used to illustrate the…

  13. Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pelaez, Nancy J

    2002-12-01

    The aim of this study was to determine whether problem-based writing with peer review (PW-PR) improves undergraduate student performance on physiology exams. Didactic lectures were replaced with assignments to give students practice explaining their reasoning while solving qualitative problems, thus transferring the responsibility for abstraction and generalization to the students. Performance on exam items about concepts taught using PW-PR was compared with performance on concepts taught using didactic lectures followed by group work. Calibrated Peer Review, a Web-delivered program, was used to collect student essays and to manage anonymous peer review after students "passed" three calibration peer reviews. Results show that the students had difficulty relating concepts. Relationship errors were categorized as (1) problems recognizing levels of organization, (2) problems with cause/effect, and (3) overgeneralizations. For example, some described cells as molecules; others thought that vesicles transport materials through the extracellular fluid. With PW-PR, class discussion was used to confront and resolve such difficulties. Both multiple-choice and essay exam results were better with PW-PR instead of lecture.

  14. 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…

  15. 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.

  16. Peer Review and the Dilemmas of Quality Control in Programme Accreditation in South African Higher Education: Challenges and Possibilities

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cross, Michael; Naidoo, Devika

    2011-01-01

    The paper scrutinises the dynamics and the nature of peer review in the programme evaluation and accreditation process within the context of diverse individual and institutional legacies in South Africa. It analyses the peer review process and highlights the contestation at political, policy and epistemological levels. The paper argues that,…

  17. Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Policies in Psychiatry and Medicine: A Comparative Study of Peer-Reviewed Journals

    Science.gov (United States)

    Khurana, Gauri; Henderson, Schuyler; Walter, Garry; Martin, Andres

    2012-01-01

    Objective: The authors reviewed and characterized conflict of interest (COI) and disclosure policies published in peer-reviewed psychiatric and nonpsychiatric journals. Methods: The authors examined peer-reviewed publications in the psychiatric (N=20) and nonpsychiatric (N=20) literature. Using qualitative and quantitative approaches, they…

  18. Accelerating Educational Innovation in the MPH Degree Program: What Is the Role of Peer Review of Teaching?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Vian, Taryn; Ashigbie, Paul G.

    2015-01-01

    Purpose: The environment of public health practice is rapidly changing, creating the need to adapt graduate education and accelerate educational innovation. Formative peer review is a strategy designed to promote critical reflection on teaching and to develop faculty as teachers. Through case study methods, we explore how peer review of teaching…

  19. Most Courses Are Not Born Digital: An Overview of the Quality Matters Peer Review Process for Online Course Design

    Science.gov (United States)

    Varonis, Evageline Marlos

    2014-01-01

    Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to discuss benefits of and barriers to online learning and describe utilization of the Quality Matters (QM) peer review process as a method to assure the quality of online courses. It outlines the QM higher education rubric, explains how the collaborative QM peer review process facilitates online course design…

  20. Manuscripts on foundation of Korea nuclear power

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Park, Ik Su

    1999-12-01

    It is comprised of the manuscripts and recollections on foundation of Korea nuclear power, which includes conversation with Yoon, Se Won, conversation with Choe, Paeng Seop, conversation with Lee, Dong Jip, conversation with Lee, Sang Su, conversation with Kim, Jong Ju, conversation with Lee, Jong Hun, conversation with Youn, Yong Ryeok, conversation with Han, Pil Sun, recollection of my nuclear power by Lee, Chang Gun, recollection of safety regulation in early nuclear power by An, Yeong Ju, recollection of nuclear business in early nuclear power by Lee, Min Ha, recollection of non destructive examination by Je, Hauk, extra story related nuclear power in early period by Heo, Nam and nuclear power and I by Park,Ik Su.