WorldWideScience

Sample records for international peer-reviewed research

  1. 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

  2. Writing Quality Peer Reviews of Research Manuscripts

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  3. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-02-01

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

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Aliaksandr eBirukou

    2011-12-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mu-Hsuan Huang

    2016-06-01

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

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. International peer reviews for radioactive waste management. General information and guidelines

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2005-01-01

    The NEA has an acknowledged role in developing a global strategy for examining the sustainability of the use of nuclear power and nuclear materials. One of the objectives of the NEA is to assist member countries in developing strategies for the safe, sustainable and broadly acceptable management of all types of radioactive waste, in particular long-lived waste and spent fuel. In this context, the Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) provides a forum for senior representatives from national agencies, regulatory authorities, policy making bodies, and research and development institutions with responsibilities in the management of radioactive waste and materials, as well as for other government-nominated specialists, to exchange information and experience on waste management policies and practices in NEA member countries, and to advance the state of the art on the technical and societal aspects of radioactive waste management. International peer reviews of national radioactive waste management programmes, or of specific aspects of them, have been increasingly carried out under the aegis of the RWMC over the past ten years. International peer review as a working method is closely associated with OECD practice, where it is facilitated by the homogeneous membership and the high degree of trust shared by the member countries. This document lays down the guidelines that the requesting country, the Secretariat and the international review team ought to have in mind when an international peer review is requested, organised or carried out. (author)

  13. Peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Twaij, H; Oussedik, S; Hoffmeyer, P

    2014-04-01

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

  14. 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...

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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...

  18. International peer reviews and radioactive waste management in France

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

    2006-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2004-06-01

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

  20. PEER REVIEWER

    OpenAIRE

    4.Indrianty, Sudirman

    2016-01-01

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

  1. PEER REVIEWER

    OpenAIRE

    27.Ade, Rosmana

    2016-01-01

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

  2. Peer review, basic research, and engineering: Defining a role for QA professionals in basic research environments

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Bodnarczuk, M.

    1989-02-01

    Within the context of doing basic research, this paper seeks to answer four major questions: (1) What is the authority structure of science. (2) What is peer review. (3) Where is the interface between basic physics research and standard engineering. and (4) Given the conclusions to the first three questions, what is the role of the QA professional in a basic research environment like Fermilab. 23 refs.

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. Behavioral Sciences: An International, Open-Access, Peer Reviewed Journal

    OpenAIRE

    Coverdale, John

    2011-01-01

    On behalf of the Editorial Board and the editorial management staff of MDPI, it is my great pleasure to introduce this new journal Behavioral Sciences. Behavioral Sciences seeks to publish original research and scholarship contributing to our understanding of human behavior. The journal will provide a forum for work that furthers knowledge and stimulates research in the behavioral sciences. We are committed to building a diverse and methodologically rigorous literature of interest and benefit...

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. International peer review in undergraduate dentistry: enhancing reflective practice in an online community of practice.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gardner, K; Bridges, S; Walmsley, D

    2012-11-01

    To stimulate and enhance student learning in the areas of global citizenship, critical reflection and e-learning, an online international peer review using a purpose-built web platform, has been developed between international dental schools. Since its inception in 2007, n = 6 dental schools from six different countries have participated with n = 384 dental students engaged in online peer review. Project development was conceptually analysed utilising Lave and Wenger's notion of a community of practice (CoP). Analysis drew on the three core components within the CoP organising framework: domain, community and practice. All three components were evident in building project identity. The domain focused on both curriculum and institutional co-operation. The community was evident for both educators and students. Finally, analysis of practice was found to be significant in terms of sustained interaction and collaboration. Empirical evaluation is recommended as the next phase of project design. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

  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. Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Herbert, Danielle L; Graves, Nicholas; Clarke, Philip; Barnett, Adrian G

    2015-07-02

    To prospectively test two simplified peer review processes, estimate the agreement between the simplified and official processes, and compare the costs of peer review. A prospective parallel study of Project Grant proposals submitted in 2013 to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. The official funding outcomes were compared with two simplified processes using proposals in Public Health and Basic Science. The two simplified processes were: panels of 7 reviewers who met face-to-face and reviewed only the nine-page research proposal and track record (simplified panel); and 2 reviewers who independently reviewed only the nine-page research proposal (journal panel). The official process used panels of 12 reviewers who met face-to-face and reviewed longer proposals of around 100 pages. We compared the funding outcomes of 72 proposals that were peer reviewed by the simplified and official processes. Agreement in funding outcomes; costs of peer review based on reviewers' time and travel costs. The agreement between the simplified and official panels (72%, 95% CI 61% to 82%), and the journal and official panels (74%, 62% to 83%), was just below the acceptable threshold of 75%. Using the simplified processes would save $A2.1-$A4.9 million per year in peer review costs. Using shorter applications and simpler peer review processes gave reasonable agreement with the more complex official process. Simplified processes save time and money that could be reallocated to actual research. Funding agencies should consider streamlining their application processes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

  12. Writing and Publishing a Research Paper in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

    Science.gov (United States)

    Porter, Stephen R.

    2007-01-01

    Writing and publishing a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal is a complicated process. This paper tries to take some of the mystery out of that process by describing how a good research paper should be structured, and how the journal submission process works.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. Role of online journals and peer-reviewed research

    Science.gov (United States)

    Robert L. Deal

    2014-01-01

    The recent explosion of online journals has lead some researchers, scientist and academics to reconsider their traditional venues for publishing research. These on-line journals have the potential for quickly disseminating research, but they also present lots of uncertainty, confusion, and pitfalls for researchers. Many academics search out journals with the high...

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Allison Hirst

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

  17. 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

  18. VoiceThread as a Peer Review and Dissemination Tool for Undergraduate Research

    Science.gov (United States)

    Guertin, L. A.

    2012-12-01

    VoiceThread has been utilized in an undergraduate research methods course for peer review and final research project dissemination. VoiceThread (http://www.voicethread.com) can be considered a social media tool, as it is a web-based technology with the capacity to enable interactive dialogue. VoiceThread is an application that allows a user to place a media collection online containing images, audio, videos, documents, and/or presentations in an interface that facilitates asynchronous communication. Participants in a VoiceThread can be passive viewers of the online content or engaged commenters via text, audio, video, with slide annotations via a doodle tool. The VoiceThread, which runs across browsers and operating systems, can be public or private for viewing and commenting and can be embedded into any website. Although few university students are aware of the VoiceThread platform (only 10% of the students surveyed by Ng (2012)), the 2009 K-12 edition of The Horizon Report (Johnson et al., 2009) lists VoiceThread as a tool to watch because of the opportunities it provides as a collaborative learning environment. In Fall 2011, eleven students enrolled in an undergraduate research methods course at Penn State Brandywine each conducted their own small-scale research project. Upon conclusion of the projects, students were required to create a poster summarizing their work for peer review. To facilitate the peer review process outside of class, each student-created PowerPoint file was placed in a VoiceThread with private access to only the class members and instructor. Each student was assigned to peer review five different student posters (i.e., VoiceThread images) with the audio and doodle tools to comment on formatting, clarity of content, etc. After the peer reviews were complete, the students were allowed to edit their PowerPoint poster files for a new VoiceThread. In the new VoiceThread, students were required to video record themselves describing their research

  19. 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.

  20. Peer-Reviewed Articles on Inclusive Research: Do Co-Researchers with Intellectual Disabilities Have a Voice?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Strnadová, Iva; Walmsley, Jan

    2018-01-01

    Background: Inclusive research is increasingly common in intellectual disabilities research, but ways in which voice of co-researchers with intellectual disabilities is presented remain underexplored in the literature. Materials and Method: The authors conducted a literature review and analysis of peer-reviewed journal articles reporting on…

  1. Lessons Learned from PISA: A Systematic Review of Peer-Reviewed Articles on the Programme for International Student Assessment

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hopfenbeck, Therese N.; Lenkeit, Jenny; El Masri, Yasmine; Cantrell, Kate; Ryan, Jeanne; Baird, Jo-Anne

    2018-01-01

    International large-scale assessments are on the rise, with the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) seen by many as having strategic prominence in education policy debates. The present article reviews PISA-related English-language peer-reviewed articles from the programme's first cycle in 2000 to its most current in 2015. Five…

  2. International Nuclear Safety Experts Conclude IAEA Peer Review of Swiss Regulatory Framework

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2011-01-01

    Full text: A team of international nuclear safety experts today completed a two-week International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) review of the regulatory framework for nuclear safety in Switzerland. The Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission noted good practices in the Swiss system and also made recommendations for the nation's nuclear regulatory authority, the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (ENSI). ''Our team developed a good impression of the independent Swiss regulator - ENSI - and the team considered that ENSI deserves particular credit for its actions to improve Swiss safety capability following this year's nuclear accident in Japan,'' said IRRS Team Leader Jean-Christophe Niel of France. The mission's scope covered the Swiss nuclear regulatory framework for all types of nuclear-related activities regulated by ENSI. The mission was conducted from 20 November to 2 December, mainly at ENSI headquarters in Brugg. The team held extensive discussions with ENSI staff and visited many Swiss nuclear facilities. IRRS missions are peer reviews, not inspections or audits, and are conducted at the request of host nations. For the Swiss review, the IAEA assembled a team of 19 international experts from 14 countries. The experts came from Belgium, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. ''The findings of the IRRS mission will help us to further improve our work. That is part of our safety culture,'' said ENSI Director General Hans Wanner. ''As Switzerland argued at international nuclear safety meetings this year for a strengthening of the international monitoring of nuclear power, we will take action to fulfil the recommendations.'' The IRRS team highlighted several good practices of the Swiss regulatory system, including the following: ENSI requires Swiss nuclear operators to back-fit their facilities by continuously upgrading

  3. Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU's Seventh Framework Programme for Research.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pina, David G; Hren, Darko; Marušić, Ana

    2015-01-01

    We analysed the peer review of grant proposals under Marie Curie Actions, a major EU research funding instrument, which involves two steps: an independent assessment (Individual Evaluation Report, IER) performed remotely by 3 raters, and a consensus opinion reached during a meeting by the same raters (Consensus Report, CR). For 24,897 proposals evaluated from 2007 to 2013, the association between average IER and CR scores was very high across different panels, grant calls and years. Median average deviation (AD) index, used as a measure of inter-rater agreement, was 5.4 points on a 0-100 scale (interquartile range 3.4-8.3), overall, demonstrating a good general agreement among raters. For proposals where one rater disagreed with the other two raters (n=1424; 5.7%), or where all 3 raters disagreed (n=2075; 8.3%), the average IER and CR scores were still highly associated. Disagreement was more frequent for proposals from Economics/Social Sciences and Humanities panels. Greater disagreement was observed for proposals with lower average IER scores. CR scores for proposals with initial disagreement were also significantly lower. Proposals with a large absolute difference between the average IER and CR scores (≥10 points; n=368, 1.5%) generally had lower CR scores. An inter-correlation matrix of individual raters' scores of evaluation criteria of proposals indicated that these scores were, in general, a reflection of raters' overall scores. Our analysis demonstrated a good internal consistency and general high agreement among raters. Consensus meetings appear to be relevant for particular panels and subsets of proposals with large differences among raters' scores.

  4. 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

  5. Ladies First? Not So Fast: Linguistic Sexism in Peer-Reviewed Research.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Willis, Malachi; Jozkowski, Kristen N

    2018-02-01

    The words we use reflect and influence our interpretation of the world. The role of gender within a language varies; biases based on social gender are referred to as linguistic sexism. Male firstness is the practice of persistently ordering masculine terms before feminine terms. Because academic writing is mandated to be free of bias, peer-reviewed research should not contain any form of linguistic sexism. To assess the presence of male firstness in academic writing, we examined 862 contemporary articles from 10 social science journals across three disciplines: sexuality, health, and psychology. To assess male firstness, we tallied common gendered pairs (e.g., "women and men"; "male and female") and calculated percentages indicating how often men were presented before women. We found that male firstness bias was present in each of the 10 journals. For individual journals, the percentage of gendered phrases that presented masculine terms first ranged from 57.7% to 88.8%. Sexuality and health journals demonstrated less linguistic sexism than psychology; however, there were no consistent trends between journals within each discipline. We discuss the current presence of male firstness in academic journals and the issues this bias triggers. Recommendations for reducing linguistic sexism in peer-reviewed research are also discussed.

  6. Waste management assessment and technical review programme. WATRP. An international peer review service for radioactive waste management activities

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1994-09-01

    International Atomic Energy Agency provides international peer review services in radioactive waste management to those Member States that have established radioactive waste management programmes. Such services are provided within Waste Management Assessment and Technical Review Programme (WATRP). The main objective of WATRP is to provide international expertise and information on a requested subject in the field of radioactive waste management and to validate that programmes and activities are sound and performing well. Refs, figs and tabs

  7. What's Wrong? Publishing in International Peer-Reviewed Journals on Russian Law

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Thomas Kruessmann

    2016-01-01

    Full Text Available Then pursuing publications in international peer-reviewed journals, many legal scholars from Russia and the wider post-Soviet space face severe difficulties. This paper looks atthe reasons for these difficulties in two analytical steps. Firstly, it offers aquantitative analysis of the output of the two leading international law journals that accept submissions on doctrinal law to see how often in the two preceding years (2014 and 2015 postSoviet legal scholars with their main place of work at a university have made it into these journals. Secondly, it asks what the qualitative standards for publication in such journals are and why they are at odds specifically with the scholarly tradition in the wider post-Soviet space. The main finding of the paper is that there is a mismatch between the high goals posed by university administrators in elevating universities to some standard of excellence and the limitations presented in the field of legal scholarship. The conclusion is that a substantive re-thinking of the approach to legal scholarship is required. The introduction of ‘early legal writing’ at least at the level of master studies is one recommendation to adequately prepare a future generation of legal scholars.

  8. Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rigby, John

    2013-01-01

    A small number of studies have sought to establish that research papers with more funding acknowledgements achieve higher impact and have claimed that such a link exists because research supported by more funding bodies undergoes more peer review. In this paper, a test of this link is made using recently available data from the Web of Science, a source of bibliographic data that now includes funding acknowledgements. The analysis uses 3,596 papers from a single year, 2009, and a single journal, the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Analysis of this data using OLS regression and two ranks tests reveals the link between count of funding acknowledgements and high impact papers to be statistically significant, but weak. It is concluded that count of funding acknowledgements should not be considered a reliable indicator of research impact at this level. Relatedly, indicators based on assumptions that may hold true at one level of analysis may not be appropriate at other levels.

  9. International nuclear safety experts conclude IAEA peer review of Canada's regulatory system

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2009-01-01

    Full text: An international team of nuclear safety experts today completed a two-week IAEA review of the regulatory framework and effectiveness of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). The team identified good practices within the system and gave advice on some areas for improvement. The IAEA has conveyed initial findings to Canadian authorities; the final report will be submitted by autumn. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assembled a team of nuclear, radiation, and waste safety experts at the request of the Government of Canada, to conduct an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission. The mission from 31 May to 12 June was a peer review based on IAEA Standards, not an inspection, nor an audit. The scope of the mission included sources, facilities and activities regulated by the CNSC: the operation of nuclear power plants (NPPs), research reactors and fuel cycle facilities; the refurbishment or licensing of new NPPs; uranium mining; radiation protection and environmental protection programmes; and the implementation of IAEA Code of Conduct on Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources. The 21-member team from 13 IAEA States and from the IAEA itself reviewed CNSC's work in all relevant areas: legislative and governmental responsibilities; responsibilities and functions; organization; activities of the regulatory body, including the authorization process, review and assessment, inspection and enforcement, the development of regulations, as well as guides and its the management system of CNSC. The basis for the review was a well-prepared self-assessment by the CNSC, including an evolution of its strengths and proposed actions to improve its regulatory effectiveness. Mr. Shojiro Matsuura, IRRS Team Leader and President of the Japanese Nuclear Safety Research Association, said the team 'was impressed by the extensive preparation at all CNSC staff levels.' 'We identified a number of good practices and made recommendations and suggestions

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Blinding Applicants in a First-Stage Peer-Review Process of Biomedical Research Grants: An Observational Study

    Science.gov (United States)

    Solans-Domènech, Maite; Guillamón, Imma; Ribera, Aida; Ferreira-González, Ignacio; Carrion, Carme; Permanyer-Miralda, Gaietà; Pons, Joan M. V.

    2017-01-01

    To blind or not researcher's identity has often been a topic of debate in the context of peer-review process for scientific publication and research grant application. This article reports on how knowing the name and experience of researchers/institutions influences the qualification of a proposal. We present our experience of managing the…

  13. International nuclear safety experts complete IAEA peer review of German regulatory system

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2008-01-01

    Full text: An international expert team has today completed a two-week IAEA review of Germany's nuclear regulatory system. The team identified good practices within the system and gave advice on some areas for further improvement. The IAEA has conveyed the initial findings to German authorities but the final report will be submitted within two months. At the request of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assembled a team of 14 experts to conduct an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission. This is a peer review based on IAEA Standards. It is not an inspection, nor an audit. The scope of the mission was limited to the safety regulation of nuclear power plants. Experts from Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, the US and from the IAEA took part in the mission, which was conducted from 7 to 19 September in Bonn, Stuttgart and Berlin. The main basis for the review was a well-prepared self-assessment made by the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and the Ministry of Environment of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (UM BW). 'The team members were impressed by the extensive preparation and dedication of the staff both at BMU and UM BW to excellence in nuclear safety,' said Mike Weightman, IRRS Team Leader and Chief Inspector of the UK nuclear regulatory body, the Nuclear Directorate of the Health and Safety Executive. 'We hope the IRRS mission will facilitate further improvements in the safety regulation of nuclear power in Germany and throughout the world.' 'Germany's invitation to undergo such a detailed review is a clear demonstration of its openness and commitment to continuously improve nuclear safety regulation,' said Philippe Jamet, Director of the IAEA's Nuclear Installation Safety Division. Among the particular strengths of BMU and UM BW associated with their

  14. International nuclear safety experts conclude IAEA peer review of China's regulatory system

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2010-01-01

    Full text: An international team of senior experts on nuclear safety regulation today completed a two-week International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) review of the governmental and regulatory framework for nuclear safety in the People's Republic of China. The team identified good practices within the system and gave advice on areas for future improvements. The IAEA has conveyed the team's main conclusions to the Government of the People's Republic of China. The final report will be submitted to China by Autumn 2010. At the request of Chinese authorities, the IAEA assembled a team of 22 experts to conduct an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission. This mission is a peer review based on the IAEA Safety Standards . It is not an inspection, nor an audit. The experts came from 15 different countries: Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary, Japan, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Ukraine and the United States. Mike Weightman, the United Kingdom's Head of Nuclear Directorate, HSE and HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations said: ''I was honoured and pleased to lead such a team of senior regulatory experts from around the world, and I was impressed by their commitment, experience and hard work to provide their best advice possible. We had very constructive interactions with the Chinese authority to maximize the beneficial impact of the mission.'' The scope of the mission included the regulation of nuclear and radiation safety of the facilities and activities regulated by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA). The mission was conducted from 18 to 30 July, mainly in Beijing. To observe Chinese regulatory activities, the IRRS team visited several nuclear facilities, including a nuclear power plant, a manufacturer of safety components for nuclear power plants, a research reactor, a fuel cycle facility, a waste management facility

  15. Radioactive waste safety appraisal. An international peer review of the licence application for the Australian near surface radioactive waste disposal facility. Report of the IAEA International Review Team

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2004-05-01

    Radioactive waste has been generated in Australia for a number of decades from the production and use of radioactive materials in medicine and industry, from the processing of various minerals containing natural radionuclides and from various research activities. It has been decided in the overall interest of safety and security to develop a radioactive waste disposal facility to accommodate the low level and short lived intermediate level waste, which make up the bulk of the waste, other than mining and minerals processing residues. A site selection process has been undertaken and environmental impact statement report prepared and approved. A licence application has been submitted to the national nuclear regulatory authority, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) for siting, construction and operation of the facility. In order to assist the CEO of ARPANSA with his deliberations in this regard a request was made to the IAEA, in terms of its statutory mandate to establish international safety standards for radioactive waste safety and to provide for their application, to undertake an international peer review of the licence application and to advise the CEO accordingly. The outcome and recommendations of this peer review are presented in the report

  16. Improving Scientific Research and Writing Skills through Peer Review and Empirical Group Learning

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Emilee Senkevitch

    2011-09-01

    Full Text Available Here we describe a semester-long, multipart activity called “Read and wRite to reveal the Research process” (R3 that was designed to teach students the elements of a scientific research paper. We implemented R3 in an advanced immunology course. In R3, we paralleled the activities of reading, discussion, and presentation of relevant immunology work from primary research papers with student writing, discussion, and presentation of their own lab findings. We used reading, discussing, and writing activities to introduce students to the rationale for basic components of a scientific research paper, the method of composing a scientific paper, and the applications of course content to scientific research. As a final part of R3, students worked collaboratively to construct a Group Research Paper that reported on a hypothesis-driven research project, followed by a peer review activity that mimicked the last stage of the scientific publishing process. Assessment of student learning revealed a statistically significant gain in student performance on writing in the style of a research paper from the start of the semester to the end of the semester.

  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. Negotiation on the Assessment of Research Articles with Academic Reviewers: Application of Peer-Review Approach of Teaching

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kumar, Prashant; Rafiq, Imran; Imam, Boulent

    2011-01-01

    This study provides an insight into the dominant negotiation processes that occur between the authors of research articles and academic reviewers at the peer reviewing stage. Data of reviewers comments and authors responses on 32 science and engineering based journal articles covering four decision categories (accept as is, accept with minor…

  19. 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

  20. Scientometric analysis: A technical need for medical science researchers either as authors or as peer reviewers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Masic, Izet

    2016-01-01

    The nature of performing a scientific research is a process that has several different components which consist of identifying the key research question(s), choices of scientific approach for the study and data collection, data analysis, and finally reporting on results. Generally, peer review is a series of procedures in the evaluation of a creative work or performance by other people, who work in the same or related field, with the aim of maintaining and improving the quality of work or performance in that field. The assessment of the achievement of every scientist, and thus indirectly determining his reputation in the scientific community of these publications, especially journals, is done through the so-called impact factor index. The impact factor predicts or estimates that how many annual citations article may receive after its publication. Evaluation of scientific productivity and assessment of the published articles of researchers and scientists can be made through the so-called H-index. The quality of published results of scientific work largely depends on knowledge sources that are used in the preparation, which means that it should be considered to serve the purpose and the very relevance of the information used. Scientometrics as a field of science covers all aforementioned issues, and scientometric analysis is obligatory for quality assessment of the scientific validity of published articles and other type of publications.

  1. The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sullivan, Joanne H.; Glisson, Scott R.

    2016-01-01

    Although the scientific peer review process is crucial to distributing research investments, little has been reported about the decision-making processes used by reviewers. One key attribute likely to be important for decision-making is reviewer expertise. Recent data from an experimental blinded review utilizing a direct measure of expertise has found that closer intellectual distances between applicant and reviewer lead to harsher evaluations, possibly suggesting that information is differentially sampled across subject-matter expertise levels and across information type (e.g. strengths or weaknesses). However, social and professional networks have been suggested to play a role in reviewer scoring. In an effort to test whether this result can be replicated in a real-world unblinded study utilizing self-assessed reviewer expertise, we conducted a retrospective multi-level regression analysis of 1,450 individual unblinded evaluations of 725 biomedical research funding applications by 1,044 reviewers. Despite the large variability in the scoring data, the results are largely confirmatory of work from blinded reviews, by which a linear relationship between reviewer expertise and their evaluations was observed—reviewers with higher levels of self-assessed expertise tended to be harsher in their evaluations. However, we also found that reviewer and applicant seniority could influence this relationship, suggesting social networks could have subtle influences on reviewer scoring. Overall, these results highlight the need to explore how reviewers utilize their expertise to gather and weight information from the application in making their evaluations. PMID:27768760

  2. The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gallo, Stephen A; Sullivan, Joanne H; Glisson, Scott R

    2016-01-01

    Although the scientific peer review process is crucial to distributing research investments, little has been reported about the decision-making processes used by reviewers. One key attribute likely to be important for decision-making is reviewer expertise. Recent data from an experimental blinded review utilizing a direct measure of expertise has found that closer intellectual distances between applicant and reviewer lead to harsher evaluations, possibly suggesting that information is differentially sampled across subject-matter expertise levels and across information type (e.g. strengths or weaknesses). However, social and professional networks have been suggested to play a role in reviewer scoring. In an effort to test whether this result can be replicated in a real-world unblinded study utilizing self-assessed reviewer expertise, we conducted a retrospective multi-level regression analysis of 1,450 individual unblinded evaluations of 725 biomedical research funding applications by 1,044 reviewers. Despite the large variability in the scoring data, the results are largely confirmatory of work from blinded reviews, by which a linear relationship between reviewer expertise and their evaluations was observed-reviewers with higher levels of self-assessed expertise tended to be harsher in their evaluations. However, we also found that reviewer and applicant seniority could influence this relationship, suggesting social networks could have subtle influences on reviewer scoring. Overall, these results highlight the need to explore how reviewers utilize their expertise to gather and weight information from the application in making their evaluations.

  3. 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).

  4. International Expert Team Concludes IAEA Peer Review of Poland's Regulatory Framework for Nuclear and Radiation Safety

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2013-01-01

    Full text: International safety experts last week concluded a two-week International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) mission to review the regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation safety in Poland. In its preliminary report, the Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission team found that Poland's nuclear regulator, Panstwowa Agencja Atomistyki (PAA), has a clear commitment to safety, a high level of transparency, competent staff and leadership, and a good recognition of challenges ahead related to Poland's efforts to develop nuclear power. ''Poland's regulatory framework and the work of PAA give high confidence of strong radiation protection for the Polish people. Further, there has been significant progress in the development of Poland's regulatory framework in preparation for the challenge of regulating nuclear power,'' said team leader Robert Lewis, a senior executive in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The mission was conducted at the request of the Government of Poland from 15-25 April. The team was made up of 11 regulatory experts from Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as five IAEA staff members. The IRRS review team was very thorough in its review, and we welcome its advice on how to continue to improve our programmes to protect people and the environment , said Janusz Wlodarski, President of PAA. The team interviewed members of PAA and officials from various ministries, as well as key players in the Polish safety framework. Such IRRS missions are peer reviews based on IAEA Safety Standards, not inspections or audits. Among its main observations the IRRS review team identified the following good practices: Applying the considerable experience of PAA's senior management to regulatory issues; The introduction of changes to Poland's laws and regulations following broad public consultation at an early stage in

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Flicker, Sarah; Nixon, Stephanie A

    2018-02-01

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

  6. GRASS GIS: a peer-reviewed scientific platform and future research repository

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chemin, Yann; Petras, Vaclav; Petrasova, Anna; Landa, Martin; Gebbert, Sören; Zambelli, Pietro; Neteler, Markus; Löwe, Peter; Di Leo, Margherita

    2015-04-01

    Geographical Information System (GIS) is known for its capacity to spatially enhance the management of natural resources. While being often used as an analytical tool, it also represents a collaborative scientific platform to develop new algorithms. Thus, it is critical that GIS software as well as the algorithms are open and accessible to anybody [18]. We present how GRASS GIS, a free and open source GIS, is used by many scientists to implement and perform geoprocessing tasks. We will show how integrating scientific algorithms into GRASS GIS helps to preserve reproducibility of scientific results over time [15]. Moreover, subsequent improvements are tracked in the source code version control system and are immediately available to the public. GRASS GIS therefore acts as a repository of scientific peer-reviewed code, algorithm library, and knowledge hub for future generation of scientists. In the field of hydrology, with the various types of actual evapotranspiration (ET) models being developed in the last 20 years, it becomes necessary to inter-compare methods. Most of already published ETa models comparisons address few number of models, and small to medium areas [3, 6, 7, 22, 23]. With the large amount of remote sensing data covering the Earth, and the daily information available for the past ten years (i.e. Aqua/Terra-MODIS) for each pixel location, it becomes paramount to have a more complete comparison, in space and time. To address this new experimental requirement, a distributed computing framework was designed, and created [3, 4]. The design architecture was built from original satellite datasets to various levels of processing until reaching the requirement of various ETa models input dataset. Each input product is computed once and reused in all ETa models requiring such input. This permits standardization of inputs as much as possible to zero-in variations of models to the models internals/specificities. All of the ET models are available in the new

  7. Review the 'peer review'.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-12-01

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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...

  10. Peer Review

    OpenAIRE

    Rosdiana Natzir, Rosdiana Natzir

    2017-01-01

    Judul: Effects of ethanolic extract of Miana (Coleus scutellariodes [L] Benth) leaf on IgM profile in Balb/c mice with systemic of vulvovaginalcandidiasis Jumlah Penulis: 7 Orang Jurnal: Der Pharmacia Lettre ISSN: 0975-5071 Vol. 9,No. 14, Tahun 2017 Penerbit: Scholars Research Library Alamat Web: http://scholarresearchlibrary.com/archive.html

  11. Incentivizing Peer Review

    OpenAIRE

    Kennedy, Ann Blair

    2017-01-01

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

  12. 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.

  13. 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...

  14. 7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  15. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  16. Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-06-01

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

  17. Japan's Siting Process for the Geological Disposal of High-level Radioactive Waste - An International Peer Review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Brassinnes, Stephane; Fabbri, Olivier; Rubenstone, James; Seppaelae, Timo; Siemann, Michael; ); Kwong, Gloria; )

    2016-01-01

    The Nuclear Energy Agency carried out an independent peer review of Japan's siting process and criteria for the geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste in May 2016. The review concluded that Japan's site screening process is generally in accordance with international practices. As the goal of the siting process is to locate a site - that is both appropriate and accepted by the community - to host a geological disposal facility for high-level radioactive waste, the international review team emphasises in this report the importance of maintaining an open dialogue and interaction between the regulator, the implementer and the public. Dialogue should begin in the early phases and continue throughout the siting process. The international review team also underlines the importance of taking into account feasibility aspects when selecting a site for preliminary investigations, but suggests that it would be inappropriate to set detailed scientific criteria for nationwide screening at this stage. The team has provided extensive advisory remarks in the report as opportunities for improvement, including the recommendation to use clear and consistent terminology in defining the site screening criteria as it is a critical factor in a successful siting process. (authors)

  18. 75 FR 18205 - Notice of Peer Review Meeting for the External Peer Review Drafts of Two Documents on Using...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-04-09

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

  19. The SKI SITE-94 Project: An International Peer Review Carried out by an OECD/NEA Team of Experts

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Sagar, Budhi; Devillers, C.; Smith, Paul; Laliuex, P.; Pescatore, C.

    1997-10-01

    The recently completed SITE-94 project is an SKI effort directed at building competence and capacity in the assessment of safety of a spent-fuel geologic repository. Emphasis is given to the assimilation of site-specific data, with its associated uncertainties, into the performance assessment. Specific attention is also given to improving the understanding of mechanisms that might compromise canister integrity. This report represents the common views of an International Review Team (IRT) established by the NEA Secretariat, at the request of SKI, to perform a peer review of SITE-94. The basis for the report is the understanding of SITE-94 and its background obtained by IRT in the course of several months of study of SITE-94 documentation, internal discussions and a meeting with SKI in Stockholm. The report is limited to the main findings of IRT. The intended audience of the report is the staff of SKI and, accordingly, the style of the report is suited to a technical audience familiar with the contents of the SITE-94 project

  20. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  1. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    Statistics and Medical Students. Int J Health Res, September 2009; 2(3): 231. Reprinted from. International Journal of. Health Research. Peer-reviewed Online Journal http://www.ijhr.org. Abstracting/Indexing. Embase, Index Corpenicus, Chemical Abstracts, Socolar, EBSCO, African Journal Online,. African Index Medicus ...

  2. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    2008-12-31

    Dec 31, 2008 ... Int J Health Res, December 2008; 1(4): e147p69. Reprinted from. International Journal of. Health Research. Peer-reviewed Online Journal http://www.ijhr.org. Abstracting/Indexing. African Index Medicus, Open-J-Gate, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Socolar. (China's largest online database) ...

  3. Uranium Production Safety Assessment Team. UPSAT. An international peer review service for uranium production facilities

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1996-01-01

    The IAEA Uranium Production Safety Assessment Team (UPSAT) programme is designed to assist Member States to improve the safe operation of uranium production facilities. This programme facilitates the exchange of knowledge and experience between team members and industry personnel. An UPSAT mission is an international expert review, conducted outside of any regulatory framework. The programme is implemented in the spirit of voluntary co-operation to contribute to the enhancement of operational safety and practices where it is most effective, at the facility itself. An UPSAT review supplements other facility and regulatory efforts which may have the same objective

  4. International Peer Review of Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company's SR-Can interim report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Sagar, Budhi; Bailey, Lucy; Bennett, David G.; Egan, Mike; Roehlig, Klaus

    2004-12-01

    SKB has produced an interim safety assessment report as part of its work to develop a licence application for the construction of a spent nuclear fuel encapsulation plant. The purpose of the interim report is to set out and demonstrate SKB's proposed methodology for long-term safety assessment. The aim of producing an interim report is to allow the Swedish regulatory authorities (SKI and SSI) to review and comment on SKB's proposed methodology before it is used in support of a formal licence application. To help inform their review of SKB's proposed methodology, the authorities appointed an international review team (IRT) to carry out a review of SKB's interim safety assessment report. Comments from the IRT are presented in this document and will be considered by the regulatory authorities in developing their own view of SKB's proposed methodology. The IRT's review included examination of SKB's documentation (the 'Interim Main Report of the Safety Assessment SR-Can' and four supporting documents) and hearings with SKB staff and contractors. The hearings provided an opportunity for the IRT to discuss the SR-Can safety assessment with the authors and contributors to SKB's work. As directed by SKI and SSI, the IRT's review focused on methodological aspects and sought to determine whether SKB's proposed safety assessment methodology: (i) is fit for the purpose of supporting a licence application; (ii) has a reasonable prospect of leading to a safety assessment that is sufficiently comprehensive, reproducible, traceable and transparent; (iii) is compatible with the authorities' regulations and guidance. No evaluation of long term safety or site acceptability was attempted by the IRT. At the request of SKI and SSI, the IRT's review considered and made recommendations on the following issues: Description of the initial state of the repository and its components; Description of features, events and processes (FEPs) relevant to repository evolution; Strategy for safety

  5. Evaluation for citation metrics and peer reviewer acknowledgments.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Green, Bart N

    2016-10-01

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

  6. Constellations of Support and Impediment: Understanding Early Implementation Dynamics in the Research and Development of an Online Multimodal Writing and Peer Review Environment

    Science.gov (United States)

    Olmanson, Justin; Abrams, Sandra Schamroth

    2013-01-01

    In this article, the authors trace teachers' experiences while participating in an educational technology development and research project focused on the creation and use of an online writing and peer review environment. They follow teachers from their initial expectations of the program, to their response to professional development training…

  7. Research Ethics II: Mentoring, Collaboration, Peer Review, and Data Management and Ownership

    Science.gov (United States)

    Horner, Jennifer; Minifie, Fred D.

    2011-01-01

    Purpose: In this series of articles--"Research Ethics I", "Research Ethics II", and "Research Ethics III"--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In "Research Ethics II", the authors review the RCR domains of mentoring,…

  8. Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Seeber, Marco; Bacchelli, A.

    2017-01-01

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

  9. 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…

  10. An international peer review of the programme for evaluating sites for near surface disposal of radioactive waste in Lithuania. Report of the IAEA International Review Team

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2006-12-01

    Lithuania's national Radioactive Waste Management Agency (RATA) is mandated by national legislation to find a disposal solution for radioactive waste arising mainly from the operation and decommissioning of the Ignalina nuclear power plant. A key step in the process of obtaining a disposal solution is to identify potential sites for detailed consideration. The RATA has completed this first step and is now directing a programme for detailed investigation of these sites. In this context, the RATA requested that the IAEA, on the basis of its statutory mandate to establish safety standards and provide for their application, conduct a peer review of the safety of the proposed disposal concept. The objective of the peer review, carried out in December 2005, was to provide an independent assessment of the safety related aspects of the sites under consideration on the basis of international safety standards and applicable national standards. The review also considered the feasibility of the proposed reference design and its suitability for the local conditions. The peer review provides an independent opinion as to whether the RATA's siting and site characterization programme is consistent with international standards and agrees with good practice in other national disposal programmes. Peer reviews are increasingly being acknowledged as an important component in building broader stakeholder confidence in the safety of facilities. For this reason, an increase in their number and frequency is anticipated. The coming into force of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management has also focused attention on the demonstration of the safety of waste management facilities. This report presents the consensus view of the international group of experts convened by the IAEA to carry out the review. The findings and recommendations of the Review Team were grouped under six topics considered to be of fundamental importance

  11. Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gallo, Stephen A; Lemaster, Michael; Glisson, Scott R

    2016-02-01

    Despite the presumed frequency of conflicts of interest in scientific peer review, there is a paucity of data in the literature reporting on the frequency and type of conflicts that occur, particularly with regard to the peer review of basic science applications. To address this gap, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) conducted a retrospective analysis of conflict of interest data from the peer review of 282 biomedical research applications via several onsite review panels. The overall conflicted-ness of these panels was significantly lower than that reported for regulatory review. In addition, the majority of identified conflicts were institutional or collaborative in nature. No direct financial conflicts were identified, although this is likely due to the relatively basic science nature of the research. It was also found that 65 % of identified conflicts were manually detected by AIBS staff searching reviewer CVs and application documents, with the remaining 35 % resulting from self-reporting. The lack of self-reporting may be in part attributed to a lack of perceived risk of the conflict. This result indicates that many potential conflicts go unreported in peer review, underscoring the importance of improving detection methods and standardizing the reporting of reviewer and applicant conflict of interest information.

  12. Examining the impact of health research facilitated by small peer-reviewed research operating grants in a women's and children's health centre

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    Background There has been limited research on the impact of research funding for small, institutional grants. The IWK Health Centre, a children and women's hospital in Maritime Canada, provides small amounts (up to $15,000) of research funding for staff and trainees at all levels of experience through its Research Operating Grants. These grants are rigorously peer-reviewed. To evaluate the impact of these grants, an assessment was completed of several different areas of impact. Findings An online questionnaire was sent to 64 Principal Investigators and Co-Investigators from Research Operating Grants awarded from 2004 to 2006. The questionnaire was designed to assess five areas of potential impact: (1) research, (2) policy, (3) practice, (4) society and (5) personal. Research impact reported by participants included publications (72%), presentations (82%) and knowledge transfer beyond the traditional formats (51%). Practice impact was reported by 67% of participants, policy impact by 15% and societal impact by 18%. All participants reported personal impact. Conclusions Small research grants yield similar impacts to relatively large research grants. Regardless of the total amount of research funds awarded, rigorously peer-reviewed research projects have the potential for significant impact at the level of knowledge transfer and changes in clinical practice and policy. Additional findings in the present research indicate that small awards have the potential to have significant impact on the individual grant holder across a variety of capacity building variables. These personal impacts are particularly noteworthy in the context of developing the research programs of novice researchers. PMID:20406468

  13. Online Archives for Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications

    OpenAIRE

    Harnad, Stevan

    2003-01-01

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

  14. 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.

  15. 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...

  16. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

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

  17. From Dissertation to Publication: Converting Doctoral Research into a Peer-Reviewed Journal Article

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rodriquez-Kiino, Diane

    2012-01-01

    "The Journal of Applied Research in the Community College" (JARCC) actively seeks scholarly submissions on community colleges that originate from doctoral dissertations. Understanding the scope and complexity of community and junior colleges nationally requires multiple vantage points. Newly minted doctorates and doctoral candidates can provide a…

  18. An international peer review of the biosphere modelling programme of the US Department of Energy's Yucca mountain site characterization project. Report of the IAEA International Review Team

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2001-04-01

    The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has a project for characterizing the site of a facility for disposing of radioactive waste located at Yucca Mountain Nevada, USA (the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project). This Project has developed an approach for assessing the future potential impact of any releases of radionuclides to the biosphere from a potential disposal facility sited at Yucca Mountain The DOE requested the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to organize an independent international expert review of the assessment methodology being used in its biosphere modelling programme. The IAEA accepted the request in the context of its statutory obligation to provide for the application of its established international standards of safety for the protection of health, at the request of a State, to any of that State's activities in the field of atomic energy. The terms of reference of the peer review were to review the biosphere assessment methodology being used for the total system performance assessment of the potential disposal facility. The main purpose was to analyze critically the proposed rationale and methodology and to identify consistencies and inconsistencies between methods being used in the frame of the Project and those established in international standards or in international programmes such as the IAEA's Biosphere Modelling and Assessment Programme (BIOMASS). This report presents the consensus view of the international experts convened by the IAEA for carrying out the review

  19. The post-closure radiological safety case for a spent fuel repository in Sweden - An international peer review of the SKB license-application study of March 2011

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2012-01-01

    Sweden is at the forefront among countries developing plans for a deep geological repository of highly radioactive waste. There is no such repository in operation yet worldwide, but Sweden, Finland and France are approaching the licensing stage. At the request of the Swedish government, the NEA organised an international peer review of the post-closure radiological safety case produced by the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) in support of the application for a general licence to construct and operate a spent nuclear fuel geological repository in the municipality of Oesthammar. The purpose of the review was to help the Swedish government, the public and relevant organisations by providing an international reference regarding the maturity of SKB's spent fuel disposal programme vis-a-vis best practices in long-term disposal safety and radiological protection. The International Review Team (IRT) consisted of ten international specialists, who were free of conflict of interest with the SKB and brought complementary expertise to the review. This report provides the background and findings of the international peer review. The review's findings are presented at several levels of detail in order to be accessible to both specialist and non-specialist readers

  20. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2003-01-01

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

  2. "Why Not Give Us the Full Story?": Functions of Referees' Comments in Peer Reviews of Scientific Research Papers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gosden, Hugh

    2003-01-01

    Presents the description and analysis of referees' comments contained in a corpus of 40 peer reviews of short scientific papers written by nonnative speakers of English and known as letters. Results highlight the strongly interpersonal orientation of referees' concerns, with two-thirds of all comments in the corpus focusing on interactional…

  3. 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.

  4. An open science peer review oath

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  5. International Journal of Herbs and Pharmacological Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    International Journal of Herbs and Pharmacological Research (IJHPR) [ISSN: 2315-537X; E- ISSN: 2384-6836] is a peer reviewed journal publication of Anthonio Research Center. The Journal is intended to serve as a medium for the publication of research findings in the field of Herbal medication in developing countries ...

  6. Examining the impact of health research facilitated by small peer-reviewed research operating grants in a women's and children's health centre

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    McGrath Patrick J

    2010-04-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background There has been limited research on the impact of research funding for small, institutional grants. The IWK Health Centre, a children and women's hospital in Maritime Canada, provides small amounts (up to $15,000 of research funding for staff and trainees at all levels of experience through its Research Operating Grants. These grants are rigorously peer-reviewed. To evaluate the impact of these grants, an assessment was completed of several different areas of impact. Findings An online questionnaire was sent to 64 Principal Investigators and Co-Investigators from Research Operating Grants awarded from 2004 to 2006. The questionnaire was designed to assess five areas of potential impact: (1 research, (2 policy, (3 practice, (4 society and (5 personal. Research impact reported by participants included publications (72%, presentations (82% and knowledge transfer beyond the traditional formats (51%. Practice impact was reported by 67% of participants, policy impact by 15% and societal impact by 18%. All participants reported personal impact. Conclusions Small research grants yield similar impacts to relatively large research grants. Regardless of the total amount of research funds awarded, rigorously peer-reviewed research projects have the potential for significant impact at the level of knowledge transfer and changes in clinical practice and policy. Additional findings in the present research indicate that small awards have the potential to have significant impact on the individual grant holder across a variety of capacity building variables. These personal impacts are particularly noteworthy in the context of developing the research programs of novice researchers.

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-01-01

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

  10. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Rafael D'Andrea

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

  11. International Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    The International Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Research (IJMBR) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal by Michael Joanna Publications. It publishes data and information, useful to researchers in all aspects of Clinical and Basic Medical Sciences including Anatomical Sciences, Biochemistry, Dentistry, Genetics, ...

  12. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2018-01-01

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

  13. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2014-12-01

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

  14. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2018-03-01

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

  15. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2018-02-01

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

  16. Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK's national research assessment exercise.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Kushwanth Koya

    Full Text Available There is a general inquisition regarding the monetary value of a research output, as a substantial amount of funding in modern academia is essentially awarded to good research presented in the form of journal articles, conferences papers, performances, compositions, exhibitions, books and book chapters etc., which, eventually leads to another question if the value varies across different disciplines. Answers to these questions will not only assist academics and researchers, but will also help higher education institutions (HEIs make informed decisions in their administrative and research policies.To examine both the questions, we applied the United Kingdom's recently concluded national research assessment exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF 2014 as a case study. All the data for this study is sourced from the openly available publications which arose from the digital repositories of REF's results and HEFCE's funding allocations.A world leading output earns between £7504 and £14,639 per year within the REF cycle, whereas an internationally excellent output earns between £1876 and £3659, varying according to their area of research. Secondly, an investigation into the impact rating of 25315 journal articles submitted in five areas of research by UK HEIs and their awarded funding revealed a linear relationship between the percentage of quartile-one journal publications and percentage of 4* outputs in Clinical Medicine, Physics and Psychology/Psychiatry/Neuroscience UoAs, and no relationship was found in the Classics and Anthropology/Development Studies UoAs, due to the fact that most publications in the latter two disciplines are not journal articles.The findings provide an indication of the monetary value of a research output, from the perspectives of government funding for research, and also what makes a good output, i.e. whether a relationship exists between good quality output and the source of its publication. The

  17. Metric-based vs peer-reviewed evaluation of a research output: Lesson learnt from UK's national research assessment exercise.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Koya, Kushwanth; Chowdhury, Gobinda

    2017-01-01

    There is a general inquisition regarding the monetary value of a research output, as a substantial amount of funding in modern academia is essentially awarded to good research presented in the form of journal articles, conferences papers, performances, compositions, exhibitions, books and book chapters etc., which, eventually leads to another question if the value varies across different disciplines. Answers to these questions will not only assist academics and researchers, but will also help higher education institutions (HEIs) make informed decisions in their administrative and research policies. To examine both the questions, we applied the United Kingdom's recently concluded national research assessment exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 as a case study. All the data for this study is sourced from the openly available publications which arose from the digital repositories of REF's results and HEFCE's funding allocations. A world leading output earns between £7504 and £14,639 per year within the REF cycle, whereas an internationally excellent output earns between £1876 and £3659, varying according to their area of research. Secondly, an investigation into the impact rating of 25315 journal articles submitted in five areas of research by UK HEIs and their awarded funding revealed a linear relationship between the percentage of quartile-one journal publications and percentage of 4* outputs in Clinical Medicine, Physics and Psychology/Psychiatry/Neuroscience UoAs, and no relationship was found in the Classics and Anthropology/Development Studies UoAs, due to the fact that most publications in the latter two disciplines are not journal articles. The findings provide an indication of the monetary value of a research output, from the perspectives of government funding for research, and also what makes a good output, i.e. whether a relationship exists between good quality output and the source of its publication. The findings may also

  18. 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

  19. MELCOR Peer Review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    1992-03-01

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

  20. 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

  1. 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…

  2. Report of the IPERS (International Peer Review Service) pre-review mission for the Cernavoda nuclear power plant probabilistic safety evaluation (CPSE - PHASE B) in Romania 31 October to 3 November 1994

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1994-01-01

    This report presents the results of the IAEA international peer review services pre-review mission which reviewed the status of the present version of the Cernavoda probabilistic safety evaluation, a Level 1 internal events Probabilistic Safety Assessment for the Cernavoda, Unit 1, nuclear power plant. 2 refs

  3. Report of the IPERS (International Peer Review Service) review mission for the Cernavoda nuclear power plant probabilistic safety evaluation (CPSE -PHASE B) in Romania 3 to 14 July 1995

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1995-01-01

    This report presents the results of the IAEA International Peer Review Services review of the internal events Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) for the Cernavoda, Unit 1 NPP. The review was based on the PSA documentation available and on intensive communications with the analysis team and representatives from the utility and the plant operator. 7 refs, figs, tabs

  4. Report of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Buildings and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) on the topical peer review aging management in nuclear power plants and research reactors; Bericht des Bundesministeriums fuer Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB) zum Topical Peer Review Alterungsmanagement in Kernkraftwerken und Forschungsreaktoren

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    2017-12-28

    The report of the Federal Environmental Ministry (BMUB) on the topical peer review aging management in nuclear power plants and research reactors covers the following issues: comprehensive requirements for aging management and its implementation, electric cables, non accessible pipes, reactor pressure vessel, calandria/pressure tubes (CANDU), concrete containment, pre-stressed concrete reactor pressure vessel (AGR).

  5. International Journal of Basic, Applied and Innovative Research ...

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Focus and Scope. International Journal of Basic, Applied and Innovative Research (IJBAIR) [ISSN: 2315-5388; E-ISSN: 2384 - 681X] is a peer reviewed Journal Publication of Anthonio Research Center and the International Society of Science Researchers (ISSCIR). IJBAIR accepts research articles, review articles, short ...

  6. International Journal of Basic, Applied and Innovative Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    International Journal of Basic, Applied and Innovative Research (IJBAIR) [ISSN: 2315-5388; E-ISSN: 2384 - 681X] is a peer reviewed Journal Publication of Anthonio Research Center and the International Society of Science Researchers (ISSCIR). IJBAIR accepts research articles, review articles, short reports, and ...

  7. 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.

  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. Report of the IPERS (International Peer Review Service) pre-review workshop for the Zaporozhye, Unit 5 nuclear power plant probabilistic safety assessment in Vienna, Austria 12 to 16 June 1995

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1995-01-01

    This report presents the results of the IAEA international peer review services pre-review workshop held in Vienna, 12 to 16 June 1995, which reviewed the status of the present version of the Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) for the Zaporozhye, Unit 5, nuclear power plant. 3 refs, 1 fig., 1 tab

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Benson, P J

    2015-10-01

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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. Do the print media "hype" genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bubela, Tania M; Caulfield, Timothy A

    2004-04-27

    The public gets most of its information about genetic research from the media. It has been suggested that media representations may involve exaggeration, called "genohype." To examine the accuracy and nature of media coverage of genetic research, we reviewed the reporting of single-gene discoveries and associated technologies in major daily newspapers in Canada, the United States, Great Britain and Australia. We used neutral search terms to identify articles about gene discoveries and associated technologies hosted on the Dow Jones Interactive and Canadian NewsDisk databases from January 1995 to June 2001. We compared the contents, claims and conclusions of the scientific journal article with those of the associated newspaper article. Coders subjectively assigned the newspaper articles to 1 of 3 categories: moderately to highly exaggerated claims, slightly exaggerated claims or no exaggerated claims. We used classification tree software to identify the variables that contributed to the assignment of each newspaper article to 1 of the 3 categories: attention structure (positioning in the newspaper and length of the article), authorship, research topic, source of information other than the scientific paper, type and likelihood of risks and benefits, discussion of controversy, valuation tone (positive or negative), framing (e.g., description of research, celebration of progress, report of economic prospects or ethical perspective), technical accuracy (either omissions or errors that changed the description of the methods or interpretation of the results) and use of metaphors. We examined 627 newspaper articles reporting on 111 papers published in 24 scientific and medical journals. Only 11% of the newspaper articles were categorized as having moderately to highly exaggerated claims; the majority were categorized as having no claims (63%) or slightly exaggerated claims (26%). The classification analysis ranked the reporting of risks as the most important variable in

  16. Do the print media “hype” genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bubela, Tania M.; Caulfield, Timothy A.

    2004-01-01

    Background The public gets most of its information about genetic research from the media. It has been suggested that media representations may involve exaggeration, called “genohype.” To examine the accuracy and nature of media coverage of genetic research, we reviewed the reporting of single-gene discoveries and associated technologies in major daily newspapers in Canada, the United States, Great Britain and Australia. Methods We used neutral search terms to identify articles about gene discoveries and associated technologies hosted on the Dow Jones Interactive and Canadian NewsDisk databases from January 1995 to June 2001. We compared the contents, claims and conclusions of the scientific journal article with those of the associated newspaper article. Coders subjectively assigned the newspaper articles to 1 of 3 categories: moderately to highly exaggerated claims, slightly exaggerated claims or no exaggerated claims. We used classification tree software to identify the variables that contributed to the assignment of each newspaper article to 1 of the 3 categories: attention structure (positioning in the newspaper and length of the article), authorship, research topic, source of information other than the scientific paper, type and likelihood of risks and benefits, discussion of controversy, valuation tone (positive or negative), framing (e.g., description of research, celebration of progress, report of economic prospects or ethical perspective), technical accuracy (either omissions or errors that changed the description of the methods or interpretation of the results) and use of metaphors. Results We examined 627 newspaper articles reporting on 111 papers published in 24 scientific and medical journals. Only 11% of the newspaper articles were categorized as having moderately to highly exaggerated claims; the majority were categorized as having no claims (63%) or slightly exaggerated claims (26%). The classification analysis ranked the reporting of risks as

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Larson, Bradley P; Chung, Kevin C

    2012-03-01

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

  18. 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.

  19. Sources and Information in Academic Research: Avoiding Mistakes in Assessing Sources for Research and during Peer Review

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Tom Quiggin

    2013-03-01

    Full Text Available The credibility of academic publications has come under attack in a variety of circumstances.  Newspaper headlines such as “Scientific fraud is rife” and “McGill University finds scientists published ‘falsified’ images” are not helpful in maintaining the credibility of the academic community.  Additionally, a cottage industry appears to be growing in websites that specialize in identifying papers which publishers have been forced to retract.  The website Retraction Watch has identified one case in which a publisher has retracted 172 papers from one author and may eventually retract 183 papers in total.  The website Copy Shake and Paste makes a series of references to PhD dissertations and professorial habilitations which have been questioned or rescinded due to plagiarism. One of the PhDs in question was written by a German Minister of Education and Research.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rosenberg, Jacob

    2014-01-20

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

  1. Kaiser Engineers Hanford internal position paper -- Project W-236A, Multi-function Waste Tank Facility -- Peer reviews of selected activities

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Stine, M.D.

    1995-01-01

    The purpose of this paper is to develop and document a proposed position on the performance of independent peer reviews on selected design and analysis components of the Title 1 [Preliminary] and Title 2 [Final] design phases of the Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility [MWTF] project. An independent, third-party peer review is defined as a documented critical review of documents, data, designs, design inputs, tests, calculations, or related materials. The peer review should be conducted by persons independent of those who performed the work, but who are technically qualified to perform the original work. The peer review is used to assess the validity of assumptions and functional requirements, to assess the appropriateness and logic of selected methodologies and design inputs, and to verify calculations, analyses and computer software. The peer review can be conducted at the end of the design activity, at specific stages of the design process, or continuously and concurrently with the design activity. This latter method is often referred to as ''Continuous Peer Review.''

  2. Peer Review: The CHAMPUS Program.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Stricker, George

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

  3. International Journal of Community Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    : 2384 - 6828] is a peer reviewed journal publication of Anthonio Research Center. IJCR publishes research articles, review articles, short reports and commentaries that are community-based or inter and intra-cultural based. IJCR also accepts ...

  4. The long-term radiological safety of a surface disposal facility for low-level waste in Belgium - An international Peer review of key aspects of ONDRAF/NIRAS' safety report of November 2011 in preparation for the license

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2012-01-01

    An important activity of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) in the field of radioactive waste management is the organisation of independent, international peer reviews of national studies and projects. This report provides an international peer review of the long-term safety strategy and assessment being developed by the Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials, ONDRAF/NIRAS, as part of the licence application for the construction and operation of a surface disposal facility for short-lived, low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste in the municipality of Dessel, Belgium. The review was carried out by an International Review Team comprised of seven international specialists, all of whom were free of conflict of interest and chosen to bring complementary expertise to the review. To be accessible to both specialist and non-specialist readers, the review findings are provided at several levels of detail

  5. Learning from nuclear regulatory self-assessment. International peer review of the CSN report on lessons learnt from the essential service water system degradation event at the Vandellos nuclear power plant

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2006-01-01

    Nuclear regulatory self-assessment together with the benchmarking of regulatory practices against those of other countries operating nuclear power plants are key elements in maintaining a high level of nuclear safety. In that light, the Spanish Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN) formally asked the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) to establish an international peer review team to assess the CSN report on the lessons learnt as a result of the 2004 Vandellos II event involving essential service water system degradation. The International Review Team considers the CSN report prepared in follow-up to the Vandellos event to be a commendable effort in regulatory self-assessment. The report, complemented by this international peer review, should enable the CSN to take appropriate action to ensure that its regulatory supervision is in line with best international practice. (authors)

  6. 7 CFR 3406.23 - Access to peer review information.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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…

  10. 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.

  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. Turnitin and Peer Review in ESL Academic Writing Classrooms

    Science.gov (United States)

    Li, Jinrong; Li, Mimi

    2018-01-01

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

  13. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara; Adeli, Khosrow

    2014-10-01

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

  15. An International Peer Review of the Programme for the Deep Geological Disposal of High Level Radioactive Waste from Pyro-Processing in the Republic of Korea. Report of an IAEA International Review Team

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2013-09-01

    The development of a radioactive waste disposal system is indispensable in maintaining the sustainability of nuclear energy. The Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) has studied the direct geological disposal of spent nuclear fuel since 1997. KAERI has also focused on the development of processes suitable for reducing the volume of spent nuclear fuel and the recycling of valuable fissile material. One of the most promising technologies investigated by KAERI is the pyro-processing of spent nuclear fuel followed by the geological disposal of the generated high level waste (HLW). Since 2007, KAERI has been running a research programme focusing on the recycling of spent nuclear fuel, as well as studies aimed at the development of a relevant geological disposal system able to accept the resulting HLW. The core aims of the KAERI study were to characterize the geological media, design a repository system and assess the overall safety of the disposal system. The development of pyro-processing technology is ongoing and has not yet been demonstrated at the commercial level. Thus, the government of the Republic of Korea requested an assessment of the technical feasibility of this technology. The assessment also included the appraisal of a disposal solution for waste generated by pyro-processing. With regard to the latter, KAERI requested that the IAEA review the status of the disposal project within the Waste Management Assessment and Technical Review Programme (WATRP). Peer reviews are increasingly being acknowledged as an important element in building broader stakeholder confidence in the safety and viability of related facilities. This report presents the consensus view of the international group of experts convened by the IAEA to perform the review

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 7 CFR 3415.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  19. 42 CFR 52h.3 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

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

  20. 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…

  1. Report of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Buildings and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) on the topical peer review aging management in nuclear power plants and research reactors

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2017-01-01

    The report of the Federal Environmental Ministry (BMUB) on the topical peer review aging management in nuclear power plants and research reactors covers the following issues: comprehensive requirements for aging management and its implementation, electric cables, non accessible pipes, reactor pressure vessel, calandria/pressure tubes (CANDU), concrete containment, pre-stressed concrete reactor pressure vessel (AGR).

  2. 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.

  3. Understanding the state of health policy and systems research in West Africa and capacity strengthening needs: scoping of peer-reviewed publications trends and patterns 1990-2015.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Defor, Selina; Kwamie, Aku; Agyepong, Irene Akua

    2017-07-12

    The need for locally-driven, locally-generated evidence to guide health policy and systems decision-making and implementation in West Africa remains urgent. Thus, health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a field with great potential for addressing many of the sub-region's intransigent health challenges. This paper presents an analysis of trends and patterns of peer-reviewed HPSR publications across the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), to help understand trends and patterns of HPSR publication and the degree of involvement of West African researchers in HPSR evidence generation in the sub-region. Our goal was to use the findings to inform the development of a sub-regional strategy to strengthen HPSR and its use to inform development and improvement of health outcomes. A scoping review was conducted over a 25-year period from January 1990 to September 2015. Literature searches were conducted in English and French using Google Scholar, PubMed Central and Cairn.info. A total of 258 articles were retrieved. Of these, 246 were statistically analysed, with 54% having West African lead authors. Two thirds of the papers originated from three out of the 15 countries of the ECOWAS, specifically Nigeria (28.86%), Burkina Faso (21.54%) and Ghana (17.07%). Most authors were based in academic institutions and participation of authors from ministries of health, hospitals and non-governmental organisations was limited. English was the predominant language for publication even for papers originating from Francophone West African countries. There has been a progressive increase in publications over the studied period. Despite progressive improvements over time, West Africa remains a weak sub-region in terms of peer-reviewed HPSR publications. Within the overall weakness, there is country-to-country variation. The fact that only a handful of countries accounted for nearly 70% of the total volume of publications in West Africa attests to the great disparities in

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

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

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

    2014-01-01

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

  5. 7 CFR 3411.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  6. 7 CFR 3401.12 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  8. 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…

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

    OpenAIRE

    Walters, W. Patrick; Bajorath, J?rgen

    2015-01-01

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

  10. 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.

  11. 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…

  12. An open science peer review oath.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-01-01

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

  13. Report of the IPERS (International Peer Review Service) phase 1 review mission for the Temelin nuclear power plant Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment in the Czech Republic 24 April to 5 May 1995

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1995-01-01

    This report presents the results of the IAEA International Peer Review Services Phase 1 review of the internal events, Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) for the Temelin Unit 1 and 2 NPP. The review was based on the PSA documentation available and on intensive communications with the analysis team and representatives from the utility and future plant operator. The results presented herein reflect the views of the international experts carrying out the review. They are provided for consideration by the responsible authorities of the Czech Republic. 2 refs, 1 fig., 5 tabs

  14. Current and Evolving Models of Peer Review

    OpenAIRE

    Fresco Santalla, Ana; Hernández Pérez, Antonio

    2014-01-01

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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. An International Peer Review of the Safety Options Dossier of the Project for Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Deep Geological Formations (Cigéo). Final Report of the IAEA International Review Team November 2016

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2017-07-01

    The French Nuclear Safety Authority (Autorité de sûreté nucléaire, ASN) is preparing the evaluation of a licence application for the creation of a deep geological disposal facility in 2018, called Cigéo, for intermediate level, high level and long lived radioactive waste. This licence is preceded by the submission of a Safety Options Dossier to ASN, which provides the French National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (Agence nationale pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs, Andra) the possibility to receive advice from ASN on the preparation of the licence application on the safety principles and approach. The Safety Options Dossier sets out the chosen objectives, concepts and principles for ensuring the safety of the facility. ASN requested the IAEA to organize an international peer review of the Safety Options Dossier. This publication presents the consensus view of the international group of experts convened by the IAEA to conduct the review against the relevant IAEA safety standards and proven international practice and experience. The experts acted in a personal capacity and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the IAEA, the governments of the nominating Member States or the nominating organizations. The basis of this peer review is the set of documents provided by Andra, as the agency responsible for the development of the Cigéo project and for its safety. Consequently, the findings of the reviews are addressed directly to Andra. This publication, however, is primarily submitted to ASN to review the outcomes of the Andra project.

  1. Trends in malaria research in 11 Asian Pacific countries: an analysis of peer-reviewed publications over two decades

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Taleo George

    2011-05-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Quantitative data are lacking on published malaria research. The purpose of the study is to characterize trends in malaria-related literature from 1990 to 2009 in 11 Asian-Pacific countries that are committed to malaria elimination as a national goal. Methods A systematic search was conducted for articles published from January 1990 to December 2009 in PubMed/MEDLINE using terms for malaria and 11 target countries (Bhutan, China, North Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vanuatu. The references were collated and categorized according to subject, Plasmodium species, and whether they contained original or derivative data. Results 2,700 articles published between 1990 and 2009 related to malaria in the target countries. The annual output of malaria-related papers increased linearly whereas the overall biomedical output from these countries grew exponentially. The percentage of malaria-related publications was nearly 3% (111/3741 of all biomedical publications in 1992 and decreased to less than 1% (118/12171; p Conclusions The proportion of malaria-related publications out of the overall biomedical output from the 11 target Asian-Pacific countries is decreasing. The discovery and evaluation of new, safe and effective drugs and vaccines is paramount. In addition the elimination of malaria will require operational research to implement and scale up interventions.

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

    OpenAIRE

    Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara; Adeli, Khosrow

    2014-01-01

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

  3. Trends in malaria research in 11 Asian Pacific countries: an analysis of peer-reviewed publications over two decades.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Andersen, Finn; Douglas, Nick M; Bustos, Dorina; Galappaththy, Gawrie; Qi, Gao; Hsiang, Michelle S; Kusriastuti, Rita; Mendis, Kamini; Taleo, George; Whittaker, Maxine; Price, Ric N; von Seidlein, Lorenz

    2011-05-18

    Quantitative data are lacking on published malaria research. The purpose of the study is to characterize trends in malaria-related literature from 1990 to 2009 in 11 Asian-Pacific countries that are committed to malaria elimination as a national goal. A systematic search was conducted for articles published from January 1990 to December 2009 in PubMed/MEDLINE using terms for malaria and 11 target countries (Bhutan, China, North Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vanuatu). The references were collated and categorized according to subject, Plasmodium species, and whether they contained original or derivative data. 2,700 articles published between 1990 and 2009 related to malaria in the target countries. The annual output of malaria-related papers increased linearly whereas the overall biomedical output from these countries grew exponentially. The percentage of malaria-related publications was nearly 3% (111/3741) of all biomedical publications in 1992 and decreased to less than 1% (118/12171; p < 0.001) in 2009. Thailand had the highest absolute output of malaria-related papers (n = 1211), followed by China (n = 609) and Indonesia (n = 346). Solomon Islands and Vanuatu had lower absolute numbers of publications, but both countries had the highest number of publications per capita (1.3 and 2.5 papers/1,000 population). The largest percentage of papers concerned the epidemiology and control of malaria (53%) followed by studies of drugs and drug resistance (47%). There was an increase in the proportion of articles relating to epidemiology, entomology, biology, molecular biology, pathophysiology and diagnostics from the first to the second decade, whereas the percentage of papers on drugs, clinical aspects of malaria, immunology, and social sciences decreased. The proportion of malaria-related publications out of the overall biomedical output from the 11 target Asian-Pacific countries is decreasing. The

  4. Peer-Reviewed Research and the IEP: Implications of "Ridley School District v. M.R. and J.R. ex rel. E.R." (2012)

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yell, Mitchell L.; Katsiyannis, Antonis; Losinski, Mickey; Marshall, Kelsey

    2016-01-01

    This article examines a case out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: "Ridley School District v. M.R and J.R. ex rel. E.R." (2012). The case is the first circuit court case in which the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act requirement that special education services be based on peer-reviewed research…

  5. Peer review and the publication process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ali, Parveen Azam; Watson, Roger

    2016-10-01

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

  6. 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...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2006-12-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Irene Hames

    2014-02-01

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

  9. 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

  10. AJOL Recommended Peer-Reviewer Guidelines

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

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

  11. 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…

  12. Peer review audit of occupational health reports--process and outcomes.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lalloo, D; Ghafur, I; Macdonald, E B

    2012-01-01

    Peer review is widely used in the selection and publication of scientific research. Its application in clinical practice is emerging, particularly with increased emphasis on clinical governance and the imminent introduction of revalidation. To formalize our peer review process of occupational health (OH) reports and formally assess the outcomes of this process. A prospective internal audit was carried out of all peer reviewed OH reports between June and August 2010. An abbreviated assessment form, based on Questions 4-12 of the Sheffield Assessment Instrument for Letters (SAIL) was utilized. The report was assessed using the abbreviated SAIL, with one of four possible outcome options-no action, no changes made to report following discussion with author, changes made without discussion with author and changes made following discussion with author. The audit identified that 27% of OH reports required modifications. Eighteen per cent were related to typographical errors, spelling, grammar and administrative fields being incomplete. Nine per cent were related to more complex reasons, most commonly, all the manager's questions not being addressed, review arrangements not being clear and the report not being clear and understandable to the intended readership. Peer review can be a useful tool in improving the standard of OH reports, specifically picking up minor errors and potentially more significant areas of concern. It can also be a valuable educational tool in terms of personal feedback, benchmarking and exposure to different styles of report writing.

  13. 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.

  14. 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).

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-11-28

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

  16. 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

  17. 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.)

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-02-01

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

  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. 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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Joanna Richardson

    2014-02-01

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

  2. 15th International Symposium of Robotic Research

    CERN Document Server

    Khatib, Oussama

    2017-01-01

    This volume presents a collection of papers presented at the 15th International Symposium of Robotic Research (ISRR). ISRR is the biennial meeting of the International Foundation of Robotic Research (IFRR) and its 15th edition took place in Flagstaff, Arizona on December 9 to December 12, 2011. As for the previous symposia, ISRR 2011 followed up on the successful concept of a mixture of invited contributions and open submissions. Therefore approximately half of the 37 contributions were invited contributions from outstanding researchers selected by the IFRR officers and the program committee, and the other half were chosen among the open submissions after peer review. This selection process resulted in a truly excellent technical program which featured some of the very best of robotic research. The program was organized around oral presentation in a single-track format and included for the first time a small number of interactive presentations. The symposium contributions contained in this volume report on a ...

  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. NEW WAYS OF PEER REVIEWING IN JOURNALS: OPEN REVIEW

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Andrea Mora-Campos

    2015-07-01

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

  5. 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…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2016-09-01

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

  8. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

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

  9. 2009 Water Power Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    2011-04-01

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

  10. 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…

  11. Evaluating the impact of accreditation and external peer review

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  12. 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…

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Walker, Richard; Rocha da Silva, Pascal

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Erik eSandewall

    2012-02-01

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

  17. 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.

  18. 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/.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. Selected Peer-Reviewed Articles from The International Meeting on Developments in Materials, Processes and Applications of Nanotechnology (MPA 2008), UK

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Ali, Nasar; De Hosson, Jeff. Th. M.; Ahmed, W.

    The International Meeting on Developments in Materials, Processes and Applications of Nanotechnology (MPA 2008) held at Robinson College, University of Cambridge, UK was the second event of the MPA conference series. The first MPA-2007, held at the University of Ulster, UK officially launched the

  2. 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

  3. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    BLOOMQUIST,DOUGLAS D.

    2000-12-01

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

  4. 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

  5. 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

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    1997-02-01

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

  7. 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…

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. [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.

  12. Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Byrne, Jennifer A

    2016-01-01

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

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  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. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. International Journal of Community Research: Editorial Policies

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    ARP publishes peer review journals containing research reports in several fields. It was conceived to: Provide a medium for the publication of world-class papers, articles and findings. Serve as a portal for knowledge sharing as well as provide communication networks amongst folks, academics and research communities.

  1. International Conference on Emerging Research in Electronics, Computer Science and Technology

    CERN Document Server

    Sheshadri, Holalu; Padma, M

    2014-01-01

    PES College of Engineering is organizing an International Conference on Emerging Research in Electronics, Computer Science and Technology (ICERECT-12) in Mandya and merging the event with Golden Jubilee of the Institute. The Proceedings of the Conference presents high quality, peer reviewed articles from the field of Electronics, Computer Science and Technology. The book is a compilation of research papers from the cutting-edge technologies and it is targeted towards the scientific community actively involved in research activities.

  2. Bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed literature in transgender health (1900 - 2017).

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sweileh, Waleed M

    2018-03-21

    Transgender community is marginalized and under-researched. Analysis of peer-reviewed literature in transgender health is needed to better understand health needs and human rights of transgender people. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze global research activity in transgender health published in peer-reviewed journals. Peer-reviewed documents in transgender health were retrieved using Scopus database. VOSviewer was used to map frequently encountered author keywords while ArcGIS 10.1 was used to map the geographical distribution of the retrieved documents. Most active countries, institutions, and authors were presented. The study period was set from 1900 to 2017. In total, 5772 peer-reviewed documents were obtained. English (5008; 86.8%) was the most frequently encountered language. A dramatic increase in the number of publications was seen in the last decade. The retrieved documents had an average of 12.1 citations per document and h-index of 92. Most frequently encountered author keywords were Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), mental health, and discrimination. Authors from 80 different countries contributed to publishing the retrieved documents. Publications originated mainly from Northern America, certain European countries, Australia, and Brazil. Professor Gooren, L.J.G. was the most active author in this field with 104 (1.88%) publications. Top active authors were in the fields of endocrinology, plastic surgery, psychiatry/psychology, public health, and sexology. Five of the top ten active authors were from the USA, three were from the Netherlands, and two were from Belgium. The most active institution was the VU University Medical Center (Netherlands) (184; 3.2%) followed by the University of California, San Francisco (USA) (157; 2.7%). The International Journal of Transgenderism was most active (284; 4.9%) in publishing articles in transgender health. However, documents published in the

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Science and Technology Peer Review: GPRA

    Science.gov (United States)

    2003-11-30

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

  6. 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

  7. Factors in the Peer Review of Reviews.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Murray, Frank B.; Raths, James

    1996-01-01

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

  8. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Snell, Richard R

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Richard R Snell

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

  11. 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....

  12. 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....

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2010-11-16

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

  14. Think Tank Initiative | IDRC - International Development Research ...

    International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Digital Library (Canada)

    As such, core funding is combined with dedicated capacity development support by program officers and external experts in three broad areas: research methods and skills, policy engagement and communication, and general organizational effectiveness. TTI also supports peer-to-peer review, learning and exchange.

  15. IAEA International Peer Review Mission on Mid-and-Long-Term Roadmap Towards the Decommissioning of TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Units 1-4, Tokyo and Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, 15-22 April 2013. Mission Report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2013-01-01

    Following the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (NPS) on 11 March 2011, the ''Mid-and-Long-Term Roadmap towards the Decommissioning of TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Units 1-4'' was adopted by the Government of Japan and TEPCO Council on Mid-to-Long-Term Response for Decommissioning in December 2011 and revised in July 2012. The Roadmap, which is scheduled for an additional update in June 2013, describes the main steps and activities to be implemented for the decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS through the combined efforts of the Government of Japan and TEPCO. Within the framework of the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety, the Government of Japan invited the IAEA to conduct an independent peer review of the Roadmap with two main objectives: - To improve the decommissioning planning and the implementation of pre-decommissioning activities at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi NPS; and - To share with the international community the good practices and lessons learned by the review. The review has been organized in two steps, and the IAEA conducted the first part in Japan from 15 to 22 April 2013. The objective of the first mission was to undertake an initial review of the Roadmap, including assessments of decommissioning strategy, planning and timing of decommissioning phases and a review of several specific short-term issues and recent challenges. Specifically, it covered the assessment of current reactor conditions, assessment of management of radioactive releases and associated doses, control of radioactive exposure of employees and decontamination within the site for improvement of working environment, structural integrity of reactor buildings and other constructions. The incidents recently experienced at the site, related with failures of the power supply and leakages of water from the underground reservoirs, were also included in the review of the specific short-term issues. The Government of Japan and TEPCO have

  16. Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Walker, Richard; Barros, Beatriz; Conejo, Ricardo; Neumann, Konrad; Telefont, Martin

    2015-01-01

    Peer review is the "gold standard" for evaluating journal and conference papers, research proposals, on-going projects and university departments. However, it is widely believed that current systems are expensive, conservative and prone to various forms of bias. One form of bias identified in the literature is "social bias" linked to the personal attributes of authors and reviewers. To quantify the importance of this form of bias in modern peer review, we analyze three datasets providing information on the attributes of authors and reviewers and review outcomes: one from Frontiers - an open access publishing house with a novel interactive review process, and two from Spanish and international computer science conferences, which use traditional peer review. We use a random intercept model in which review outcome is the dependent variable, author and reviewer attributes are the independent variables and bias is defined by the interaction between author and reviewer attributes. We find no evidence of bias in terms of gender, or the language or prestige of author and reviewer institutions in any of the three datasets, but some weak evidence of regional bias in all three. Reviewer gender and the language and prestige of reviewer institutions appear to have little effect on review outcomes, but author gender, and the characteristics of author institutions have moderate to large effects. The methodology used cannot determine whether these are due to objective differences in scientific merit or entrenched biases shared by all reviewers.

  17. 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...

  18. Peer review: from recognition to improved practices.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cintas, Pedro

    2016-06-01

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

  19. Thank you to our 2016 peer reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-02-01

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

  20. 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.

  1. 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

  2. Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Ayvazyan, Lilit; Akazhanov, Nurbek A.; Kitas, George D.

    2013-01-01

    This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs. PMID:24382859

  3. Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Ayvazyan, Lilit; Akazhanov, Nurbek A; Kitas, George D

    2013-12-01

    This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs.

  4. Introducing a New International Society of Aeolian Research

    Science.gov (United States)

    Zobeck, T. M.; Lee, J.; Lancaster, N.; Bullard, J. E.

    2008-12-01

    Aeolian research is a long-standing and rapidly growing area of geological study where scientists of many disciplines meet to investigate the effects of wind on the surface of the Earth and other planetary bodies such as Mars and Titan. Fields of study in aeolian research cover a broad spectrum ranging from developing a basic scientific understanding of the fundamental physical processes of grain motion to the effects of soil erosion on landscape health and environmental sustainability. Aeolian research also includes studies of the effects of aeolian particles on global climate, air quality, and human health, coastal sand transport processes, land degradation, dune migration, the formation of sand seas, and much more. A growing number of international conferences have been organized to focus specifically on aeolian phenomena and a vast number of scholarly publications have been produced to support the science. One popular bibliography includes over 30,000 citations and hundreds of peer-reviewed papers are published each year. Until very recently, no scientific society specifically dealing with aeolian research has been available. The new International Society of Aeolian Research (ISAR) that has been organized to bring together aeolian scientists from around the world. The new society was created to promote contacts among researchers in aeolian processes and related subjects for discussion and comparison of research, to initiate conferences (such as the International Conference on Aeolian Research), to organize excursions, and support the publication of a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The International Society of Aeolian Research sponsors the new Elsevier journal Aeolian Research in support of these activities. This paper will provide further details about the new society and the journal. Please see www.aeolianresearch.org for details.

  5. Research in International Education

    Science.gov (United States)

    Dolby, Nadine; Rahman, Aliya

    2008-01-01

    Until recently, international education has existed at the margins of educational research. However, in the current context of globalization, international education has moved closer to the center of educational research throughout the world. In this article, the authors identify, describe, and analyze six distinct research approaches to…

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    1998-04-01

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

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

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2014-01-01

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

  8. What has Science’s open-access sting taught us about the quality of peer review?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mićo Tatalović

    2013-11-01

    recent study by the same centre found what is calls”a citation cartel created for manipulative purposes by two predatory journals” published by a publisher based in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but where many Serbian researchers regularly publish, in what the study called a cartel (i.e. scientists know they are doing a bad thing, paying public money to publish in their friends’ journals, and citing other studies in those journals to artificially boost their impact factors [12]. What these examples highlight is that by no means has the publishing misconduct - or at least suspect practices - bypassed our region. In fact, small scientific communities, peer review in local languages, and lack of publishing and scientific expertise are all likely to exacerbate the problems in conducting proper peer review in small and local journals. Indeed, out of five journals in the former Yugoslavia, which Bohannon targeted, only one - the journal you are reading - has recognized the problems with the fake paper and decided to reject it. The other four: International Journal of Integrative Medicine (In Tech, Croatia, Journal of Plant Biology Research (International Network for Applied Sciences and Technology, B&H, Acta Facultatis Medicae Naisensis (Medical Faculty of University of Niš, Serbia, and Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences (Institute of Immunobiology and Human Genetics in Skopje, Macedonia all accepted it and if this was not a journalistic investigation they could have all be by now had published similar fake papers. When asked about this case, the editorial offices of the Journal of Plant Biology Research and Acta Facultatis Medicae Naisensis did not reply to my e-mails, which is discouraging. It shows how little transparency some journals are prepared to have in their work, and to what extent they can simply ignore such exposes by even the venerable Science magazine. The answers I received from the other three journals’ editorial offices shine some light on the issues

  9. 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.

  10. Archives: Animal Research International

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Items 1 - 40 of 40 ... Archives: Animal Research International. Journal Home > Archives: Animal Research International. Log in or Register to get access to full text downloads. Username, Password, Remember me, or Register · Journal Home · ABOUT THIS JOURNAL · Advanced Search · Current Issue · Archives. 1 - 40 of 40 ...

  11. 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

  12. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Vivian M Nguyen

    Full Text Available Delays in peer reviewed publication may have consequences for both assessment of scientific prowess in academics as well as communication of important information to the knowledge receptor community. We present an analysis on the perspectives of authors publishing in conservation biology journals regarding their opinions on the importance of speed in peer-review as well as how to improve review times. Authors were invited to take part in an online questionnaire, of which the data was subjected to both qualitative (open coding, categorizing and quantitative analyses (generalized linear models. We received 637 responses to a total of 6,547 e-mail invitations sent. Peer-review speed was generally perceived as slow, with authors experiencing a typical turnaround time of 14 weeks while their perceived optimal review time is six weeks. Male and younger respondents seem to have higher expectations of review speed than females and older respondents. Majority of participants attributed lengthy review times to the 'stress' on the peer-review system (i.e., reviewer and editor fatigue, while editor persistence and journal prestige were believed to speed up the review process. Negative consequences of lengthy review times appear to be greater for early career researchers and can also have impact on author morale (e.g. motivation or frustration. Competition among colleagues were also of concern to respondents. Incentivizing peer review was among the top suggested alterations to the system along with training graduate students in peer review, increased editorial persistence, and changes to the norms of peer-review such as opening the peer-review process to the public. It is clear that authors surveyed in this study view the peer-review system as under stress and we encourage scientists and publishers to push the envelope for new peer review models.

  13. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Nguyen, Vivian M; Haddaway, Neal R; Gutowsky, Lee F G; Wilson, Alexander D M; Gallagher, Austin J; Donaldson, Michael R; Hammerschlag, Neil; Cooke, Steven J

    2015-01-01

    Delays in peer reviewed publication may have consequences for both assessment of scientific prowess in academics as well as communication of important information to the knowledge receptor community. We present an analysis on the perspectives of authors publishing in conservation biology journals regarding their opinions on the importance of speed in peer-review as well as how to improve review times. Authors were invited to take part in an online questionnaire, of which the data was subjected to both qualitative (open coding, categorizing) and quantitative analyses (generalized linear models). We received 637 responses to a total of 6,547 e-mail invitations sent. Peer-review speed was generally perceived as slow, with authors experiencing a typical turnaround time of 14 weeks while their perceived optimal review time is six weeks. Male and younger respondents seem to have higher expectations of review speed than females and older respondents. Majority of participants attributed lengthy review times to the 'stress' on the peer-review system (i.e., reviewer and editor fatigue), while editor persistence and journal prestige were believed to speed up the review process. Negative consequences of lengthy review times appear to be greater for early career researchers and can also have impact on author morale (e.g. motivation or frustration). Competition among colleagues were also of concern to respondents. Incentivizing peer review was among the top suggested alterations to the system along with training graduate students in peer review, increased editorial persistence, and changes to the norms of peer-review such as opening the peer-review process to the public. It is clear that authors surveyed in this study view the peer-review system as under stress and we encourage scientists and publishers to push the envelope for new peer review models.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Michail Kovanis

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

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. Discussion of Comments from a Peer Review of A Technique for Human Event Anlysis (ATHEANA)

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Bley, D.C.; Cooper, S.E.; Forester, J.A.; Kolaczkowski, A.M.; Ramey-Smith, A,; Wreathall J.

    1999-01-28

    In May of 1998, a technical basis and implementation guidelines document for A Technique for Human Event Analysis (ATHEANA) was issued as a draft report for public comment (NUREG-1624). In conjunction with the release of draft NUREG- 1624, a peer review of the new human reliability analysis method its documentation and the results of an initial test of the method was held over a two-day period in June 1998 in Seattle, Washington. Four internationally known and respected experts in HK4 or probabilistic risk assessment were selected to serve as the peer reviewers. In addition, approximately 20 other individuals with an interest in HRA and ATHEANA also attended the peer and were invited to provide comments. The peer review team was asked to comment on any aspect of the method or the report in which improvements could be made and to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. They were asked to focus on two major aspects: Are the basic premises of ATHEANA on solid ground and is the conceptual basis adequate? Is the ATHEANA implementation process adequate given the description of the intended users in the documentation? The four peer reviewers asked questions and provided oral comments during the peer review meeting and provided written comments approximately two weeks after the completion of the meeting. This paper discusses their major comments.

  18. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; referees: 2 approved

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jonathan P. Tennant

    2017-11-01

    Full Text Available 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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)

  1. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Skaik, Younis

    2015-01-01

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

  3. The panacea statistical toolbox of a biomedical peer reviewer

    Science.gov (United States)

    Skaik, Younis

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Allen, Thomas Wesley

    2013-12-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Stahel, Philip F; Moore, Ernest E

    2014-09-26

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Hadiseh Esmaeeli

    2014-08-01

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

  7. External Peer Review of Assessment: An Effective Approach to Verifying Standards?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bloxham, Sue; Hudson, Jane; den Outer, Birgit; Price, Margaret

    2015-01-01

    There is growing international concern to regulate and assure standards in higher education. External peer review of assessment, often called external examining, is a well-established approach to assuring standards. Australian higher education is one of several systems without a history of external examining for undergraduate programmes that is…

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Peiling Wang

    2016-11-01

    Full Text Available Purpose: To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review (OPR, one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement. Design/methodology/approach: This research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal PeerJ over its first three years (2013-2016. Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers. Findings: PeerJ, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal's inception. Research limitations: This research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process. Practical implications: These findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles' review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of PeerJ review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves. Originality/value: This is the first study to closely examine PeerJ as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this

  12. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Resnik, David B; Elmore, Susan A

    2016-02-01

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

  14. Promoting Engagement with Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles in Adult ESL Programs

    Science.gov (United States)

    Abbott, Marilyn L.; Rossiter, Marian J.; Hatami, Sarvenaz

    2015-01-01

    Engagement with current research is essential for the implementation of evidence-informed instructional practices in adult English as a second language classrooms. We explored Canadian administrators' and instructors' engagement with peer-reviewed research articles, perceptions of their impact, and ways in which stakeholders could enhance…

  15. Peer review of human studies run amok: a break in the fiduciary relation between scientists and the public.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W; Saitz, Richard

    2015-02-01

    Peer review aims to ensure the quality and credibility of research reporting. Conducted by volunteer scientists who receive no guidance or direction, peer review widely varies from fast and facilitative, to unclear and obstructive. Poor quality is an issue because most science research is publicly funded, whereby scientists must make an effort to quickly disseminate their findings back to the public. An unfortunately not uncommon barrier in this process is ineffective peer review. Most scientists agree that when done well, editors and reviewers drive and maintain the high standards of science. At the same time, ineffective peer review can cause great delay with no introduced improvement in final product. These delays and requests interfere with the path of communication between scientist and public, at a great cost to editors, reviewers, authors and those who stand to benefit from application of the results of the studies. We offer a series of concrete recommendations to improve this process.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Faulkes, Zen

    2014-04-16

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

  17. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  18. 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…

  19. 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…

  20. 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)

  1. 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…

  2. 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.

  3. Proposals for the writing of peer reviews in lexicography

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Bergenholtz, Henning; Gouws, Rufus

    2015-01-01

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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jelte M Wicherts

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

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

    OpenAIRE

    Fisher, Daniel; Parisis, Nikolaos

    2015-01-01

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

  11. 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

  12. International fusion research

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Pease, R.S.

    1983-01-01

    Nuclear energy of the light elements deuterium and lithium can be released if the 100 MK degree temperature required for deuterium-tritium thermonuclear fusion reactions can be achieved together with sufficient thermal insulation for a net energy yield. Progress of world-wide research shows good prospect for these physical conditions being achieved by the use of magnetic field confinement and of rapidly developing heating methods. Tokamak systems, alternative magnetic systems and inertial confinement progress are described. International co-operation features a number of bilateral agreements between countries: the Euratom collaboration which includes the Joint European Torus, a joint undertaking of eleven Western European nations of Euratom, established to build and operate a major confinement experiment; the development of co-operative projects within the OECD/IEA framework; the INTOR workshop, a world-wide study under IAEA auspices of the next major step in fusion research which might be built co-operatively; and assessments of the potential of nuclear fusion by the IAEA and the International Fusion Research Council. The INTOR (International Tokamak Reactor) studies have outlined a major plant of the tokamak type to study the engineering and technology of fusion reactor systems, which might be constructed on a world-wide basis to tackle and share the investment risks of the developments which lie ahead. This paper summarizes the recent progress of research on controlled nuclear fusion, featuring those areas where international co-operation has played an important part, and describes the various arrangements by which this international co-operation is facilitated. (author)

  13. From SSWR to Peer-Reviewed Publication: How Many Live and How Many Die?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Perron, Brian E.; Taylor, Harry Owen; Vaughn, Michael G.; Grogan-Kaylor, Andrew; Ruffolo, Mary C.; Spencer, Michael

    2011-01-01

    The purpose of this study was to estimate how many presentations at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) are subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. A 30% random sample of abstracts presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of SSWR was reviewed. To determine publication status of the presentations, the authors…

  14. Adding Value to the Learning Process by Online Peer Review Activities: Towards the Elaboration of a Methodology to Promote Critical Thinking in Future Engineers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Dominguez, Caroline; Nascimento, Maria M.; Payan-Carreira, Rita; Cruz, Gonçalo; Silva, Helena; Lopes, José; Morais, Maria da Felicidade A.; Morais, Eva

    2015-01-01

    Considering the results of research on the benefits and difficulties of peer review, this paper describes how teaching faculty, interested in endorsing the acquisition of communication and critical thinking (CT) skills among engineering students, has been implementing a learning methodology throughout online peer review activities. While…

  15. The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Giordan, Marco; Csikasz-Nagy, Attila; Collings, Andrew M; Vaggi, Federico

    2016-01-01

    Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications. Methods Here we examine an element of the editorial process at eLife , in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions to eLife since June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail.   Results The Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates. Conclusions An important aspect of eLife 's peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lindner, Mark D; Nakamura, Richard K

    2015-01-01

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

  17. How Environmental "Merchants of Doubt" Use Peer-Reviewed Publication as a Means to Commandeer Scientific Debate: A Case Study of a Publishing Problem.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Siegel, D. I.

    2015-12-01

    This year, the USEPA reported no systemic problem with respect to pollution of potable waters by solutes or natural gas resulting from unconventional drilling for oil and gas, despite attempts by anti-fracking opponents to frighten the public about water pollution from rare circumstances (much as those who have cherry- picked climate data to suggest burning fossil fuels does not affect climate). Scientific "merchants of doubt" have figured out how to use peer-reviewed papers to advocate their bias, regardless of the side for which they advocate. I present a personal example. Prior to the EPA report, authors of a highly-cited peer-reviewed paper argued that more dissolved methane than usual should be expected in ground water located close to unconventional gas wells. This paper figured prominently in the New York State's recent ban on fracking. To test the reproducibility of this conclusion, colleagues and I redid the study but by sampling ~13,000 NE Pennsylvania domestic wells, densely arrayed near ~800 gas wells. Not surprising, we found no systemic relationship between methane in drinking water and proximity to gas wells; failed gas wells actually are rare. The peer reviewed system of publication has been broken for years, because of continual pressure to publish more to achieve academic success coupled to a flood of international submissions. Editors routinely have a difficult time finding senior scientists to agree to review papers, and so they wind up relying more on reviewers suggested by authors, who can and have gamed the peer review system through it. To resolve this problem, I suggest that journal editors be more far more draconian before releasing papers for review and that they enforce clear rubrics to insure that reviewers address reviews properly. Finally, conflict of interest disclosure needs to be clearer, since common assumption that bias inherently evolves from funded research outside of Federal and non-profit organizations, appears to be, at

  18. 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.

  19. The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ferreira, Catarina; Bastille-Rousseau, Guillaume; Bennett, Amanda M; Ellington, E Hance; Terwissen, Christine; Austin, Cayla; Borlestean, Adrian; Boudreau, Melanie R; Chan, Kevin; Forsythe, Adrian; Hossie, Thomas J; Landolt, Kristen; Longhi, Jessica; Otis, Josée-Anne; Peers, Michael J L; Rae, Jason; Seguin, Jacob; Watt, Cristen; Wehtje, Morgan; Murray, Dennis L

    2016-08-01

    Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer-review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer-review system are merely sticking-plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for. © 2015 Cambridge Philosophical Society.

  20. 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.

  1. 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

  2. TEACHER AND GUIDED MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWERS IN ENHANCING EFL STUDENTS’ WRITING: A PROPOSED STRATEGY

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Renita Donasari

    2016-11-01

    Full Text Available Feedback is needed in writing since feedback informs learners about their actual state of learning performance through offering guidance on the knowledge that they seize (Narciss, 2008 and Bijami et.al, 2013. Traditionally, feedback performs the role of teacher to help students improving their writing. Since, it takes time and class size constraint into consideration and alters the writing approach from product into process; peer feedback takes an essential part in writing. This study proposes ‘Teacher and Guided Multiple Peer Reviewers in Enhancing EFL Students’ Writing as there were some researches complaining that peer review may fail to identify some of the mistakes. Therefore, I propose multiple peer reviewers that will work in each stage. The frst stage (1st reviewer will deal with unifed, well-developed, and coherent paragraph. Next, the second stage (2nd reviewer will deal with sentences problem and pictures use and the third stage (3rd reviewer will concern on the pattern of paragraph. The students will obtain teacher feedback after they have seen three peer reviewers. The feedback given focus on two sides; criterion-based and reader-based feedbacks to reduce students’ anxiety since both of criteria support each other. The feedbacks clarify how well students’ work meets the criteria on scoring rubric while they also will get a sense of how well their writing achieves the intended communicative purpose to the reader.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jeffrey L Jackson

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

  9. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chop, Ines; Eberlein-Gonska, Maria

    2012-01-01

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

  11. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2018-02-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2010-03-01

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

  13. The role of peer review on the improvement of the articles published in the Journal of Birjand University of Medical Sciences

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Hossein Beydokhti

    2014-11-01

    Conclusion: Peer review improved the quality of articles, particularly in the titles, editing and findings. Since accurate medical research reports in the correct information transfer to professionals and researchers, what JBUMS has done can be useful and valuable.

  14. 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…

  15. 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…

  16. 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.

  17. International Research Chairs Initiative | IDRC - International ...

    International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Digital Library (Canada)

    The International Research Chairs Initiative (IRCI) is a seven-year, CA$8 million research program that pairs top research talent from universities in Canada with their counterparts in developing countries to address key development challenges. These specialists share their advanced skills and knowledge to confront issues ...

  18. 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

  19. Snappy answers to stupid questions: an evidence-based framework for responding to peer-review feedback

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rosenfield, Daniel; Hoffman, Steven J.

    2009-01-01

    Background Authors are inundated with feedback from peer reviewers. Although this feedback is usually helpful, it can also be incomprehensible, rude or plain silly. Inspired by Al Jaffe’s classic comic from Mad Magazine, we sought to develop an evidenced-based framework for providing “snappy answers to stupid questions,” in the hope of aiding emerging academics in responding appropriately to feedback from peer review. Methods We solicited, categorized and analyzed examples of silly feedback from peer reviewers using the grounded theory qualitative research paradigm from 50 key informants. The informants represented 15 different professions, 33 institutions and 11 countries (i.e., Australia, Barbados, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA). Results We developed a Scale of Silliness (SOS) and a Scale of Belligerence (SOB) to facilitate the assessment of inadequate peer-review feedback and guide users in preparing suitable responses to it. The SOB score is tempered by users’ current mood, as captured by the Mood Reflective Index (MRI), and dictates the Appropriate Degree of Response (ADR) for the particular situation. Conclusion Designed using the highest quality of (most easily accessible anecdotal) evidence available, this framework may fill a significant gap in the research literature by helping emerging academics respond to silly feedback from peer reviewers. Although use of the framework to its full extent may have negative consequences (e.g., loss of promotion), its therapeutic value cannot be understated. PMID:19969574

  20. Holiday review. Snappy answers to stupid questions: an evidence-based framework for responding to peer-review feedback.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rosenfield, Daniel; Hoffman, Steven J

    2009-12-08

    Authors are inundated with feedback from peer reviewers. Although this feedback is usually helpful, it can also be incomprehensible, rude or plain silly. Inspired by Al Jaffe's classic comic from Mad Magazine, we sought to develop an evidenced-based framework for providing "snappy answers to stupid questions," in the hope of aiding emerging academics in responding appropriately to feedback from peer review. We solicited, categorized and analyzed examples of silly feedback from peer reviewers using the grounded theory qualitative research paradigm from 50 key informants. The informants represented 15 different professions, 33 institutions and 11 countries (i.e., Australia, Barbados, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA). We developed a Scale of Silliness (SOS) and a Scale of Belligerence (SOB) to facilitate the assessment of inadequate peer-review feedback and guide users in preparing suitable responses to it. The SOB score is tempered by users' current mood, as captured by the Mood Reflective Index (MRI), and dictates the Appropriate Degree of Response (ADR) for the particular situation. Designed using the highest quality of (most easily accessible anecdotal) evidence available, this framework may fill a significant gap in the research literature by helping emerging academics respond to silly feedback from peer reviewers. Although use of the framework to its full extent may have negative consequences (e.g., loss of promotion), its therapeutic value cannot be understated.

  1. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  3. 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

  4. 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

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

    OpenAIRE

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

    2016-01-01

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

  6. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Ayvazyan, Lilit; Blackmore, Heather; Kitas, George D

    2011-11-01

    Review articles comprehensively covering a specific topic are crucial for successful research and academic projects. Most editors consider review articles for special and regular issues of journals. Writing a review requires deep knowledge and understanding of a field. The aim of this review is to analyze the main steps in writing a narrative biomedical review and to consider points that may increase the chances of success. We performed a comprehensive search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science using the following keywords: review of the literature, narrative review, title, abstract, authorship, ethics, peer review, research methods, medical writing, scientific writing, and writing standards. Opinions expressed in the review are also based on personal experience as authors, peer reviewers, and editors.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    HP

    Neonatal Jaundice in Warri. Int J Health Res, September 2011; 4(3): 122. International Journal of Health Research. The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and full-text of published articles. The journal is devoted to the promotion of health ...

  10. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    Characterisitcs of Shea butter and Theobroma fats in Emusions. Int J Health Res, December 2010; 3(4): 222. International Journal of Health Research. The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and full-text of published articles. The journal is ...

  11. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract ... Submission of Manuscript: The International Journal of Health Research uses a journal management software to ..... Table 1: Some antihypertensive chronotherapeutically-designed market medications.

  12. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    2009-12-24

    Dec 24, 2009 ... International Journal of Health Research. The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and full-text of published .... [14] and free energy change temperature diagram. The former distinguishes between monotropic and enantiotropic ...

  13. Characterization of the Peer Review Network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health

    OpenAIRE

    Boyack, Kevin W.; Chen, Mei-Ching; Chacko, George

    2014-01-01

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. This funding is largely effected through a competitive grants process. Each year the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) at NIH manages the evaluation, by peer review, of more than 55,000 grant applications. A relevant management question is how this scientific evaluation system, supported by finite resources, could be continuously evaluated and improved for maximal benefit to the sci...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2018-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Giunta, R E; Prommersberger, K-J

    2012-08-01

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

  16. 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

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1990-01-01

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

  18. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Woodcock, Barry G; Harder, Sebastian

    2017-08-01

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

  20. National Peer Reviews. Self-assessment programs of German nuclear power plants

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Grauf, E.

    2000-01-01

    Preliminary experience seems to indicate that the concept of national peer reviews is a useful tool capable of improving and harmonizing the standards of operation in German plants. However, a final evaluation is possible only after completion of the program, i.e. probably by the end 2000. The internal national peer reviews do not replace existing reviews, such as the WANO peer reviews or the IAEA OSART missions, but rather supplement them. As a major element of self-assessment, they mainly serve to exchange effectively among German plants know-how and experience, to harmonize standards of plant operation, eliminate any weak spots identified, and generally counteract blindness to one's own faults. Whether the envisaged objective of standardized plant operations will be achieved in the end depends very much on the way in which the results of the reviews will be handled. In particular, it will be interesting to see to what extent there is willingness to take on board any recommendations and proposals made and/or introduce what is called good operating practice. (orig.) [de

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Richard L Kravitz

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

  2. The peer review process: a primer forJNISreaders.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-07-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Ulysses Paulino de Albuquerque

    2011-03-01

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

  6. 2013 Building Technologies Office Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2013-11-01

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

  7. Characterization of the peer review network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Kevin W Boyack

    Full Text Available The National Institutes of Health (NIH is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. This funding is largely effected through a competitive grants process. Each year the Center for Scientific Review (CSR at NIH manages the evaluation, by peer review, of more than 55,000 grant applications. A relevant management question is how this scientific evaluation system, supported by finite resources, could be continuously evaluated and improved for maximal benefit to the scientific community and the taxpaying public. Towards this purpose, we have created the first system-level description of peer review at CSR by applying text analysis, bibliometric, and graph visualization techniques to administrative records. We identify otherwise latent relationships across scientific clusters, which in turn suggest opportunities for structural reorganization of the system based on expert evaluation. Such studies support the creation of monitoring tools and provide transparency and knowledge to stakeholders.

  8. Characterization of the peer review network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Boyack, Kevin W; Chen, Mei-Ching; Chacko, George

    2014-01-01

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. This funding is largely effected through a competitive grants process. Each year the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) at NIH manages the evaluation, by peer review, of more than 55,000 grant applications. A relevant management question is how this scientific evaluation system, supported by finite resources, could be continuously evaluated and improved for maximal benefit to the scientific community and the taxpaying public. Towards this purpose, we have created the first system-level description of peer review at CSR by applying text analysis, bibliometric, and graph visualization techniques to administrative records. We identify otherwise latent relationships across scientific clusters, which in turn suggest opportunities for structural reorganization of the system based on expert evaluation. Such studies support the creation of monitoring tools and provide transparency and knowledge to stakeholders.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. International Dimension of research collaboration

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Pankowska, P.K.P.; McGrath- Hoareau, C.; Horvath, V.; Baruch, B.; Gunashekar, S.; Culbertson, S.; Chataway, J.

    2014-01-01

    Grand challenges, such as global warming or chronic and infectious diseases, are increasingly global and complex. Solving these challenges often requires international research collaboration. The European Commission is playing an increasing role in supporting research and innovation through Horizon

  12. 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…

  13. Peer Collaboration: Improving Teaching through Comprehensive Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Smith, Shelley L.

    2014-01-01

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

  14. 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.

  15. Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game

    Science.gov (United States)

    Goldstone, Robert L.; Helbing, Dirk

    2016-01-01

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

  16. 75 FR 4062 - Peer Review Best Practices Workshop

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-26

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

  17. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

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

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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…

  1. 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 ...

  2. 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.

  3. 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 ...

  4. 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.

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

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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 ...

  8. 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 ...

  9. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Park, In-Uck; Peacey, Mike W; Munafò, Marcus R

    2014-02-06

    The objective of science is to advance knowledge, primarily in two interlinked ways: circulating ideas, and defending or criticizing the ideas of others. Peer review acts as the gatekeeper to these mechanisms. Given the increasing concern surrounding the reproducibility of much published research, it is critical to understand whether peer review is intrinsically susceptible to failure, or whether other extrinsic factors are responsible that distort scientists' decisions. Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers' behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions. This phenomenon, known as herding, subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting. We further demonstrate that exercising some subjectivity in reviewer decisions, which serves to curb the herding process, can be beneficial for the scientific community in processing available information to estimate truth more accurately. By examining the impact of different models of reviewer decisions on the dynamic process of publication, and thereby on eventual aggregation of knowledge, we provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved.

  10. Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Paolucci, Mario; Grimaldo, Francisco

    2014-01-01

    Peer review works as the hinge of the scientific process, mediating between research and the awareness/acceptance of its results. While it might seem obvious that science would regulate itself scientifically, the consensus on peer review is eroding; a deeper understanding of its workings and potential alternatives is sorely needed. Employing a theoretical approach supported by agent-based simulation, we examined computational models of peer review, performing what we propose to call redesign , that is, the replication of simulations using different mechanisms . Here, we show that we are able to obtain the high sensitivity to rational cheating that is present in literature. In addition, we also show how this result appears to be fragile against small variations in mechanisms. Therefore, we argue that exploration of the parameter space is not enough if we want to support theoretical statements with simulation, and that exploration at the level of mechanisms is needed. These findings also support prudence in the application of simulation results based on single mechanisms, and endorse the use of complex agent platforms that encourage experimentation of diverse mechanisms.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2016-12-01

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

  12. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    2009-12-15

    Dec 15, 2009 ... The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and ... research articles, 3,000 for technical notes, case reports, commentaries and short communications. Submission of ... making the assessment of salicylate a good parameter for.

  13. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and full-text ... disciplines. The journal welcomes original research papers, reviews and case reports on current topics of special ... schistosomiasis in Apojula, a neglected community located around Oyan ...

  14. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    2009-12-10

    Dec 10, 2009 ... The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and full-text of ... research articles, 3,000 for technical notes, case reports, commentaries and short communications. ... College of Education (FCE) and presumptive typhoid fever patients ...

  15. Second International Research Conference on the History of Arms and Armor in Kyiv, Ukraine

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Denys Toichkin

    2016-12-01

    Full Text Available The present report provides a short description of a conference titled “Second International Research Conference on the History of Arms and Armor in Kyiv, Ukraine”. It was the second scientific conference dedicated to the study of historical weapons in Ukraine. A number of international experts in the field of historical arms and armor were invited to the conference. Each researcher had been asked to provide a short and a long article on a specific research subject. The short articles had already been published in a peer-review booklet that was handed out before the start of the conference. The long articles will be published together as a large collection of paper in future.

  16. Exploration and practice of methods and processes of evidence-based rapid review on peer review of WHO EML application.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Li, Youping; Yu, Jiajie; Du, Liang; Sun, Xin; Kwong, Joey S W; Wu, Bin; Hu, Zhiqiang; Lu, Jing; Xu, Ting; Zhang, Lingli

    2015-11-01

    After 38 years of development, the procedure of selection and evaluation of the World Health Organization Essential Medicine List (WHO EML) is increasingly scientific and formal. However, peer review for the applications of World Health Organization Essential Medicine List is always required in a short period. It is necessary to build up a set of methods and processes for rapid review. We identified the process of evidenced-based rapid review on WHO EML application for peer reviews according to 11 items which were required during reporting of the peer review results of the proposals. The most important items for the rapid review of World Health Organization Essential Medicine List peer reviewers are (1) to confirm the requirements and identify the purposes; (2) to establish the research questions and translate the questions into the 'Participants, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Study design' (PICOS) format; (3) to search and screen available evidence, for which high-level evidence is preferred, such as systematic reviews or meta-analyses, health technology assessment, clinical guidelines; (4) to extract data, where we extract primary information based on the purposes; (5) to synthesize data by qualitative methods, assess the quality of evidence, and compare the results; (6) to provide the answers to the applications, quality of evidences and strength of recommendations. Our study established a set of methods and processes for the rapid review of World Health Organization Essential Medicine List peer review, and our findings were used to guide the reviewers to fulfill the 19(th) World Health Organization Essential Medicine List peer review. The methods and processes were feasible and met the necessary requirements in terms of time and quality. Continuous improvement and evaluation in practice are warranted. © 2015 Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mandala, Mahender Arjun

    criteria, roles, expectations, and increased team reflection. These results provide insight into how to improve the review process for instructors and researchers, and forms a basis for future research work in this area. With respect to facilitating peer review process in design based classrooms, we also present recommendations for creating effective review system design and implementation in classroom supported by research and practical experience.

  18. Compassion: a critical review of peer-reviewed nursing literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    McCaffrey, Graham; McConnell, Shelagh

    2015-10-01

    To provide a critical review of nursing literature about compassion, identifying major themes, questions arising and directions for future investigation of the topic. Compassion has emerged as a topic of broad social concern in recent years and is particularly pertinent to nurses. Critical review was selected as the most appropriate way of analysing literature from both qualitative research studies and conceptual articles. An electronic database search was conducted, discovering articles published between 1952 and 2013. The search was then limited to publications since 2000 to capture recent development of the concept. The search was limited to peer-reviewed literature, excluding a large body of editorial material, resulting in 20 relevant articles. Two books were also added that contributed important perspective to the analysis. Critical analysis of the resulting material was undertaken to identify themes, tensions and implications in the literature. Major themes were compassion as practice and compassion as a moral virtue, holding implications for how nurses can demonstrate compassion in relation to contemporary healthcare values. A third major theme was the influence of institutional environments in facilitating or limiting the expression of compassion. Compassion is a human experience of deep significance to nursing and needs understanding in the context of healthcare environments dominated by discourses of efficiency and rationalisation. There is an emergent literature about how compassion may be understood, taught and sustained among nurses but it is a topic that requires continued attention. More precise understanding of compassion will support nurses in advocating for compassionate care, participating in interdisciplinary dialogue, and contributing to the design of healthcare environments that are conducive to compassionate care. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  19. Animal Research International: Submissions

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Author Guidelines. Original research papers, short communications and review articles are published. Original papers should not normally exceed 15 double spaced typewritten pages including tables and figures. Short communications should not normally exceed six double spaced typewritten pages including tables and ...

  20. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2014

    Science.gov (United States)

    Montanari, Alberto; Bahr, Jean; Blöschl, Günter; Cai, Ximing; Mackay, D. Scott; Michalak, Anna; Rajaram, Harihar; Sander, Graham

    2015-08-01

    During 2014 Water Resources Research benefited from the voluntary effort of 2103 reviewers. Their constructive and professional effort was instrumental for publishing high-quality contributions thereby supporting the development of our knowledge of water resources. The contribution of the reviewers is instrumental to science for reaching the target of benefiting humanity. Editors and Associate Editors of Water Resources Research are grateful to the reviewers for their talented, unselfish, and continuous support to the journal.

  1. Investigating Peer Review as a Systemic Pedagogy for Developing the Design Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions of Novice Instructional Design Students

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brill, Jennifer M.

    2016-01-01

    This research investigated peer review as a contemporary instructional pedagogy for fostering the design knowledge, skills, and dispositions of novice Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) professionals. Participants were graduate students enrolled in an introductory instructional design (ID) course. Survey, artifact, and observation data were…

  2. 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.

  3. PREFACE: MRS International Materials Research Conference (IMRC-2008)

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wang, Zhanguo; Qiu, Yong; Li, Yongxiang

    2009-03-01

    This volume contains selected papers presented at the MRS International Materials Research Conference (IMRC-2008) held in Chongqing, China, 9-12 June 2008. IMRC-2008 included 9 symposia of A. Eco/Environmental Materials, B. Sustainable Energy Materials, C. Electronic Packaging Materials, D. Electronic Materials, E. Materials and Processes for Flat-panel Displays, F. Functional Ceramics, G. Transportation Materials, H. Magnesium and I. Biomaterials for Medical Applications. Nearly 1200 participants from 33 countries attended the conference, and the conference organizers received more than 700 papers. After the peer review processes, 555 papers were selected to be published in 9 Journals or proceedings, including J. of Materials Research (JMR), Rare Metal Materials and Engineering, J. of Univ. Science and Technology Beijing, Biomedical Materials: Materials for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, Materials Science Forum, and Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Among the 555 selected papers, 91 papers are published in this volume, and the topics mainly cover electronic matrials, processes for flat-panel displays and functional ceramics. The editors would like to give special thanks to the graduate students Liwu Jiang, Ming Li and Di He from Beihang University for their hard work compiling and typesetting each paper in this volume. Zhanguo Wang, Yong Qiu and Yongxiang Li Editors

  4. Dynamics of International Business Research

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Kunz, Werner; Manning, Stephan; Pedersen, Torben

    2013-01-01

    entry mode and culture have served as important integrating themes. At the same time, theory debates in IB have expanded from a narrow focus on explaining international expansion, to a rather heterogeneous conglomerate of approaches which have assisted increasingly differentiated empirical research. Our......This study examines the evolution of the field of international business (IB) research based on a relational cluster analysis of co-citations in the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) from 1982 to 2011. Particularly, we examine the changing role of theory in relation to empirical IB...... findings have important implications for evaluating the present state and potential future of IB as a research field....

  5. International Occupational Therapy Research Priorities.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mackenzie, Lynette; Coppola, Susan; Alvarez, Liliana; Cibule, Lolita; Maltsev, Sergey; Loh, Siew Yim; Mlambo, Tecla; Ikiugu, Moses N; Pihlar, Zdenka; Sriphetcharawut, Sarinya; Baptiste, Sue; Ledgerd, Richard

    2017-04-01

    Occupational therapy is a global profession represented by the World Federation of Occupational Therapists (WFOT). International research priorities are needed for strategic guidance on global occupational therapy practice. The objective of this study was to develop international research priorities to reflect global occupational therapy practice. A Delphi study using three rounds of electronic surveys, distributed to WFOT member organizations and WFOT accredited universities, was conducted. Data were analyzed after each round, and priorities were presented for rating and ranking in order of importance. Forty-six (53%) out of 87 WFOT member countries participated in the Delphi process. Eight research priorities were confirmed by the final electronic survey round. Differences were observed in rankings given by member organizations and university respondents. Despite attrition at Round 3, the final research priorities will help to focus research efforts in occupational therapy globally. Follow-up research is needed to determine how the research priorities are being adopted internationally.

  6. Peer Reviewed Publications From Class Projects

    OpenAIRE

    Copenheaver, Carolyn A

    2010-01-01

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

  7. Introduction: international research ethics education.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Millum, Joseph; Sina, Barbara

    2014-04-01

    NIH's Fogarty International Center has provided grants for the development of training programs in international research ethics for low- and middle-income (LMIC) professionals since 2000. Drawing on 12 years of research ethics training experience, a group of Fogarty grantees, trainees, and other ethics experts sought to map the current capacity and need for research ethics in LMICs, analyze the lessons learned about teaching bioethics, and chart a way forward for research ethics training in a rapidly changing health research landscape. This collection of papers is the result.

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

    OpenAIRE

    Barroga, Edward F.

    2014-01-01

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

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Li Songbai; Xu Yuhu

    2007-01-01

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

  11. 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

  12. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and full-text of published ... uses a journal management software to allow authors track the changes to their submission. ... application of the co-administration of doxycycline, gentamicin, streptomycin ...

  13. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    2008-12-30

    Dec 30, 2008 ... The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and full-text of ... a journal management software to allow authors track the changes to their submission. ... PURPOSE: To investigate the binder effect of aqueous dispersions of acrylate ...

  14. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    2009-12-12

    Dec 12, 2009 ... The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and full-text of ... not significantly modify the normal behavioral repertoire of licking, grooming and sniffing. ... As much as 80% of people in developing world are said to depend on.

  15. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    2008-12-29

    Dec 29, 2008 ... The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and full-text ... forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and findings in health sciences and related disciplines. .... incubated aerobically or chocolate agar which was ...

  16. International Research and Studies Program

    Science.gov (United States)

    Office of Postsecondary Education, US Department of Education, 2012

    2012-01-01

    The International Research and Studies Program supports surveys, studies, and instructional materials development to improve and strengthen instruction in modern foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields. The purpose of the program is to improve and strengthen instruction in modern foreign languages, area studies and other…

  17. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    The International Journal of Health Research is an online international journal allowing free unlimited access to abstract and full-text of published articles. The journal is devoted to the promotion of health ... despair, hopelessness and low energy. Treatment of depression by safe and effective antidepressants like SSRIs is a.

  18. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hu, Guangwei; Lam, Sandra Tsui Eu

    2010-01-01

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

  20. 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…

  1. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

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

  2. Archives of Medical and Biomedical Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Archives of Medical and Biomedical Research is the official journal of the International Association of Medical and Biomedical Researchers (IAMBR) and the Society for Free Radical Research Africa (SFRR-Africa). It is an internationally peer reviewed, open access and multidisciplinary journal aimed at publishing original ...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-07-03

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

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

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2013-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bowman, John D

    2014-12-15

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2015-01-01

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

  10. 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)

  11. Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Abdoul, Hendy; Perrey, Christophe; Amiel, Philippe; Tubach, Florence; Gottot, Serge; Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle; Alberti, Corinne

    2012-01-01

    Peer review of grant applications has been criticized as lacking reliability. Studies showing poor agreement among reviewers supported this possibility but usually focused on reviewers' scores and failed to investigate reasons for disagreement. Here, our goal was to determine how reviewers rate applications, by investigating reviewer practices and grant assessment criteria. We first collected and analyzed a convenience sample of French and international calls for proposals and assessment guidelines, from which we created an overall typology of assessment criteria comprising nine domains relevance to the call for proposals, usefulness, originality, innovativeness, methodology, feasibility, funding, ethical aspects, and writing of the grant application. We then performed a qualitative study of reviewer practices, particularly regarding the use of assessment criteria, among reviewers of the French Academic Hospital Research Grant Agencies (Programmes Hospitaliers de Recherche Clinique, PHRCs). Semi-structured interviews and observation sessions were conducted. Both the time spent assessing each grant application and the assessment methods varied across reviewers. The assessment criteria recommended by the PHRCs were listed by all reviewers as frequently evaluated and useful. However, use of the PHRC criteria was subjective and varied across reviewers. Some reviewers gave the same weight to each assessment criterion, whereas others considered originality to be the most important criterion (12/34), followed by methodology (10/34) and feasibility (4/34). Conceivably, this variability might adversely affect the reliability of the review process, and studies evaluating this hypothesis would be of interest. Variability across reviewers may result in mistrust among grant applicants about the review process. Consequently, ensuring transparency is of the utmost importance. Consistency in the review process could also be improved by providing common definitions for each

  12. The Impact of the Photocopier on Peer Review and Nursing Theory.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Nicoll, Leslie H

    Two influential publications in nursing, Nursing Research and Perspectives on Nursing Theory, are used to illustrate how a specific technology change-the invention and marketing of the photocopier-influenced knowledge dissemination and information utilization in nursing, perhaps in ways not immediately apparent. Content analysis and historical comparison, using editorials from Nursing Research, historical reports on technology development, and personal reflections on the genesis of Perspectives on Nursing Theory are used to create an argument for the role of technology in peer review, information utilization, and knowledge development in nursing. Multiple forces influence nursing science. Scholars should be alert to data inputs from many sources and respond accordingly.

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

    OpenAIRE

    Stahel, Philip F; Moore, Ernest E

    2014-01-01

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

  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. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2012-01-01

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

  19. "Are you gonna publish that?" Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Evans, Spencer C; Amaro, Christina M; Herbert, Robyn; Blossom, Jennifer B; Roberts, Michael C

    2018-01-01

    If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one's field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0-7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2-3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in psychology

  20. "Are you gonna publish that?" Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Spencer C Evans

    Full Text Available If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one's field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0-7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4] of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%. Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive. When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90] and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]. Publication typically occurred within 2-3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training

  1. "Are you gonna publish that?" Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology

    Science.gov (United States)

    Amaro, Christina M.; Herbert, Robyn; Blossom, Jennifer B.; Roberts, Michael C.

    2018-01-01

    If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one’s field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0–7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2–3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in

  2. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    It seeks particularly (but not exclusively) to encourage multidisciplinary research and collaboration ... Submission of Manuscript: The International Journal of Health Research uses a journal management software to allow authors ... access to medicine, infrastructural decay, quality of health professional, poor adherence to ...

  3. Animal Research International: Editorial Policies

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Focus and Scope. Animal Research International is an online Journal inaugurated in University of Nigeria to meet the growing need for an indigenous and authoritative organ for the dissemination of the results of scientific research into the fauna of Africa and the world at large. Concise contributions on investigations on ...

  4. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    2008-12-19

    Dec 19, 2008 ... research articles, 3,000 for technical notes, case reports, commentaries and short communications. Submission of Manuscript: The International Journal of Health Research uses a .... brushed and provide the unique aroma and taste.7 Previously, ellagitannins, galloylge- ranin, lignoseric acid and β-carotein ...

  5. Peer Review of the Radioactive Waste Management Activities of COVRA, Netherlands, November-December 2009, Borssele, Netherlands

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2012-01-01

    In the Netherlands, the management of radioactive waste is entrusted to the Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval (COVRA), a State owned organization. COVRA is responsible for the predisposal management of all types of radioactive waste, as well as the siting and design of the planned deep geological disposal facility. As COVRA is a vital entity in the management of radioactive waste, an understanding was reached in the country on the necessity of a peer review of COVRA activities in an effort to improve public confidence and acceptability for the management of radioactive waste in the Netherlands. Against this backdrop, the Government of the Netherlands, through the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (the Ministry), requested the IAEA to conduct a peer review of the activities of COVRA. Accordingly, on the basis of its statutory mandate to establish safety standards and to provide for their application, the IAEA organized an independent peer review team and performed an extensive review of the waste management activities performed by COVRA. All the waste management activities of COVRA, in particular those relating to the predisposal management of radioactive waste and the planning of geological disposal in accordance with national policy, were evaluated against the relevant IAEA safety standards. Peer reviews are increasingly being acknowledged as an important component in building broader stakeholder confidence in the safety of facilities. The coming into force of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management has also focused attention on the demonstration of the safety of waste management facilities. This report presents the consensus view of the international group of experts convened by the IAEA to carry out the peer review. It will be of interest to organizations responsible for the development and operation of facilities for the disposal of

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-01-01

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

  7. AFRREV STECH: An International Journal of Science and Technology

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    STECH: An International Journal of Science and Technology is a peer-reviewed journal of interdisciplinary scientific research, theories, and observations. STECH is a semi-annual publication of International Association of African Researchers and Reviewers (IAARR). The mission of this journal is to provide a platform for ...

  8. University of Mauritius Research Journal

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    The University of Mauritius Research Journal is an international, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal, dedicated to make accessible the latest results of researchers from a broad sweep of subject areas. The UOM Research Journal accepts original articles, reviews of existing knowledge, short communications which have not ...

  9. Discussion of comments from a peer review of a technique for human event analysis (ATHEANA)

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Forester, J.A.; Ramey-Smith, A.; Bley, D.C.; Kolaczkowski, A.M.; Cooper, S.E.; Wreathall, J.

    1998-01-01

    In May of 1998, a technical basis and implementation guidelines document for A Technique for Human Event Analysis (ATHEANA) was issued as a draft report for public comment (NUREG-1624). In conjunction with the release of the draft NUREG, a paper review of the method, its documentation, and the results of an initial test of the method was held over a two-day period in Seattle, Washington, in June of 1998. Four internationally-known and respected experts in human reliability analysis (HRA) were selected to serve as the peer reviewers and were paid for their services. In addition, approximately 20 other individuals with an interest in HRA and ATHEANA also attended the peer review meeting and were invited to provide comments. The peer review team was asked to comment on any aspect of the method or the report in which improvements could be made and to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. All of the reviewers thought the ATEANA method had made significant contributions to the field of PRA/HRA, in particular by addressing the most important open questions and issues in HRA, by attempting to develop an integrated approach, and by developing a framework capable of identifying types of unsafe actions that generally have not been considered using existing methods. The reviewers had many concerns about specific aspects of the methodology and made many recommendations for ways to improve and extend the method, and to make its application more cost effective and useful to PRA in general. Details of the reviewers' comments and the ATHEANA team's responses to specific criticisms will be discussed

  10. International Relations Research Methodology: Realism

    OpenAIRE

    Andrey Vladimirovich Shabaga

    2015-01-01

    The article examines the origins and conceptual analysis capabilities of international relations in the framework of a realistic paradigm. We research political conditions and preconditions of the creation of realism’s theory and axiological features of realism’s practice in international relations. We also analyze the basic concepts and schools of realism: Realpolitik, political realism, neorealism, neoclassical realism. It is shown that based on the balance of power in the Realpolitik Pruss...

  11. Improving the reliability of peer-reviewed publications: We are all in it together

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Stephen A. Bustin

    2016-03-01

    Full Text Available The current, and welcome, focus on standardization of techniques and transparency of reporting in the biomedical, peer-reviewed literature is commendable. However, that focus has been intermittent as well as lacklustre and so failed to tackle the alarming lack of reliability and reproducibly of biomedical research. Authors have access to numerous recommendations, ranging from simple standards dealing with technical issues to those regulating clinical trials, suggesting that improved reporting guidelines are not the solution. The elemental solution is for editors to require meticulous implementation of their journals’ instructions for authors and reviewers and stipulate that no paper is published without a transparent, complete and accurate materials and methods section.

  12. Chronic wound management and research

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Romanelli M

    2014-03-01

    Full Text Available Marco Romanelli Wound Healing Research Unit, Division of Dermatology, University of Pisa, Pisa, ItalyI would like to share with you a new open access peer-reviewed journal – Chronic Wound Care Management and Research, published by Dove Medical Press. Chronic Wound Care Management and Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access online journal publishing original research, case reports, reviews, editorials, and commentaries on the management of chronic wounds and major issues related to chronic wound management.

  13. 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.

  14. Workplace accommodations for persons with physical disabilities: evidence synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Padkapayeva, Kathy; Posen, Andrew; Yazdani, Amin; Buettgen, Alexis; Mahood, Quenby; Tompa, Emile

    2017-10-01

    To identify and synthesize research evidence on workplace accommodations used by employers to recruit, hire, retain, and promote persons with physical disabilities. A structured search of six electronic journal databases was undertaken to identify peer-reviewed literature on the topic published from January 1990 to March 2016. Articles describing or evaluating workplace disability accommodation policies and practices were given a full-text review. Topic experts were contacted to identify additional studies. Details on specific accommodations described in 117 articles were synthesized and organized into three groups comprised of a total of 12 categories. The majority of studies did not rigorously evaluate effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the accommodations under study. This evidence synthesis provides an overview of the peer-reviewed literature of value to occupational rehabilitation professionals and employers seeking guidance on workplace accommodation policies and practices for persons with physical disabilities. A wide range of accommodation options is available for addressing physical, social, and attitudinal barriers to successful employment. Besides physical/technological modifications, accommodations to enhance workplace flexibility and worker autonomy and strategies to promote workplace inclusion and integration are important. More comprehensive reporting and evaluations of the effectiveness of accommodations in research literature are needed to develop best practices for accommodating persons with disabilities. Implications for rehabilitation There is a substantial peer-reviewed literature that provides insights into the barriers for persons with physical disabilities and the workplace accommodation practices to address them, though rigorous evaluations of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are uncommon. Attitudinal and social barriers stemming from stereotypes, ignorance and lack of knowledge are as important as physical barriers to employment for

  15. Increasing the evidence base in journalology: creating an international best practice journal research network.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Moher, David; Ravaud, Philippe

    2016-10-10

    Biomedical journals continue to be the single most important conduit for disseminating biomedical knowledge. Unlike clinical medicine, where evidence is considered fundamental to practice, journals still operate largely in a 'black box' mode without sufficient evidence to drive their practice. We believe there is an immediate need to substantially increase the amount and quality of research by journals to ensure their practice is as evidence based as possible. To achieve this goal, we are proposing the development of an international 'best practice journal research network'. We invite journals and others to join the network. Such a network is likely to improve the quality of journals. It is also likely to address many unanswered questions in publication science, including peer review, which can provide robust and generalizable answers.

  16. 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.

  17. The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Marco Giordan

    2016-04-01

    Full Text Available Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.   Methods Here we examine an element of the editorial process at eLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions to eLife since June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis.   Results The Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405 and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099. There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers.   Conclusions An important aspect of eLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

  18. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    HP

    Submission of Manuscript: The International Journal of Health Research uses a journal management software to allow authors track the changes to their submission. All manuscripts must be in ... ingredients (API) with excellent physicochemical stability in comparison to some other dosage forms, and also provide means of ...

  19. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    2008-09-19

    Sep 19, 2008 ... Submission of Manuscript: The International Journal of Health Research uses a journal management software to ..... biochemical studies. ... The elevated levels of marker enzymes (SGOT, SGPT), TP in carbon tetrachloride treated rats in the present study corresponded to the extensive liver damage.

  20. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and findings in health sciences and related ... communications. Submission of Manuscript: The International Journal of Health Research uses a journal management software to allow authors track the changes to their ... occupying external auditory canal and.

  1. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    DOAJ) databases. Page 2. Ventakesh et al. Hepatoprotective Activity of A. carnosus. Int J Health Res, September 2010; 3(3): 178. International Journal of Health Research ..... B.Jyothi, Asst.Professor, for her help pertaining to publish this work.

  2. International Journal of Health Research

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Erah

    2009-12-25

    Dec 25, 2009 ... Submission of Manuscript: The International Journal of Health Research uses a journal management software to allow authors track the ... pharmacists about asthma and its management. Methods: Seventy-six registered ..... Saini B, Smith L, Armour C, Krass I. An educational intervention to train community ...

  3. International Collaboration: Challenges for Researchers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Martin, David S.; Craft, Anna R.; Tillema, Harm

    2002-01-01

    Reseachers collaborating with international colleagues should consider cultural, structural, and interpersonal/interprofessional factors that impinge on the process. Before embarking on collaboration, researchers should understand each other's interests, seek funding for face-to-face meetings, and learn about each other's culture. (SK)

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Animal Production Research Advances

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Animal Production Research Advances is a peer-review journal established expressly to promote the production of all animal species utilized as food. The journal has an international scope and is intended for professionals in animal production and related sciences. We solicit contributions from animal production and ...

  8. International research networks in pharmaceuticals

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Cantner, Uwe; Rake, Bastian

    2014-01-01

    of scientific publications related to pharmaceutical research and applying social network analysis, we find that both the number of countries and their connectivity increase in almost all disease group specific networks. The cores of the networks consist of high income OECD countries and remain rather stable......Knowledge production and scientific research have become increasingly more collaborative and international, particularly in pharmaceuticals. We analyze this tendency in general and tie formation in international research networks on the country level in particular. Based on a unique dataset...... over time. Using network regression techniques to analyze the network dynamics our results indicate that accumulative advantages based on connectedness and multi-connectivity are positively related to changes in the countries' collaboration intensity whereas various indicators on similarity between...

  9. International Journal of Educational Research: Contact

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    International Journal of Educational Research: Contact. Journal Home > About the Journal > International Journal of Educational Research: Contact. Log in or Register to get access to full text downloads.

  10. Relating patenting and peer-review publications: an extended perspective on the vascular health and risk management literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mucke, Hermann A M

    2011-01-01

    This investigation identifies patent applications published under the international Patent Convention Treaty between July 2010 and January 2011 in three significant fields of vascular risk management (arterial hypertension, atherosclerosis, and aneurysms) and investigates whether the inventors have also published peer reviewed papers directly describing their claimed invention. Out of only 48 patent documents that specifically addressed at least one of the above-mentioned fields, 15 had immediate companion papers of which 13 were published earlier than the corresponding patent applications; the majority of these papers were published by noncorporate patentees. Although the majority of patent applications (30 documents) had at least one corporate assignee, 18 came from academic environments. As expected, medical devices dominated in the aneurysm segment while pharmacology dominated hypertension and atherosclerosis. Although information related to hypertension, atherosclerosis, or aneurysms that was claimed in international patent applications reached the public quicker through the corresponding peer review document if one was published, more than two-thirds of the patent applications had no such companion paper in a scientific journal. The patent literature, which is freely available online as full text, offers information to scientists and developers in the fields of vascular risk management that is not available from the peer reviewed literature.

  11. 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

  12. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Praharaj, Samir Kumar; Ameen, Shahul

    2017-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2010-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Andrade-Navarro Miguel A

    2012-09-01

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

  16. 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.

  17. International Conference on Mobile and Wireless Technology

    CERN Document Server

    Wattanapongsakorn, Naruemon; Joukov, Nikolai

    2016-01-01

    This book presents the peer-reviewed contributions of ICMWT2016, an international conference devoted to mobile and wireless technology. Researchers and professionals from academia and industry met to discuss the cutting-edge developments in the field. The book includes papers on mobile and wireless networks, the increasingly important security issues, data management, as well as the latest developments in mobile software development.

  18. International Journal of Medicine and Health Development ...

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Author Guidelines. International Journal of Medicine and Health Development is a peer reviewed journal with the following purposes: To publish contributions in clinical and basic science research, in all field of medicine. To publish contributions in the prevention, care and treatment of diseases, and on the promotion of ...

  19. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    journal is an international peer-reviewed, electronic, online journal published by MultiCraft. The aim and scope of the journal is to provide an academic medium and an important reference for the advancement and dissemination of research ...

  20. CCAA Working papers | IDRC - International Development ...

    International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Digital Library (Canada)

    Working papers are published by CCAA staff, consultants, advisers, or interns, and are not part of partner-funded research activities. Each paper is peer reviewed by CCAA staff. They are published and distributed primarily in electronic format via the CCAA site, though hardcopies are available upon request. Working papers ...

  1. AFRREV LALIGENS: An International Journal of Language ...

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    LALIGENS is a peer-reviewed journal by International Association of African Researchers and Reviewers (IAARR). It is published three times a year. Three topical issues are to be addressed by this journal – language, literature and gender with the following sub-headings among others: the relationship between language ...

  2. 'Your comments are meaner than your score': score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pier, Elizabeth L; Raclaw, Joshua; Kaatz, Anna; Brauer, Markus; Carnes, Molly; Nathan, Mitchell J; Ford, Cecilia E

    2017-01-01

    In scientific grant peer review, groups of expert scientists meet to engage in the collaborative decision-making task of evaluating and scoring grant applications. Prior research on grant peer review has established that inter-reviewer reliability is typically poor. In the current study, experienced reviewers for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were recruited to participate in one of four constructed peer review panel meetings. Each panel discussed and scored the same pool of recently reviewed NIH grant applications. We examined the degree of intra-panel variability in panels' scores of the applications before versus after collaborative discussion, and the degree of inter-panel variability. We also analyzed videotapes of reviewers' interactions for instances of one particular form of discourse- Score Calibration Talk -as one factor influencing the variability we observe. Results suggest that although reviewers within a single panel agree more following collaborative discussion, different panels agree less after discussion, and Score Calibration Talk plays a pivotal role in scoring variability during peer review. We discuss implications of this variability for the scientific peer review process.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Barroga, Edward F

    2014-11-01

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

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. Resumen y conclusiones del seminario Nuevos sistemas para la evaluación científica, peer-review y acceso abierto

    OpenAIRE

    Oficina Técnica de Digital.CSIC

    2014-01-01

    Account and outcomes of the seminar New systems for scientific evaluation, peer-review and open access organised by DIGITAL.CSIC on October 22, 2014 within the framework of the International Open Access Week 2014. More details at http://proyectos.bibliotecas.csic.es/digitalcsic/workshop_oa_2014/index_eng.html.

  7. 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

    In the British educational system, students specialise early. Often geoscience undergraduates have not taken a class that requires extended writing since they were sixteen years old. This can make it difficult for students to develop the written skills necessary for a geoscience degree, which often has assessments in the form of essays and reports. To improve both the writing and editing skills of our undergraduates we have introduced a peer review system, in which seniors review the work of first year students. At Imperial College London we set written coursework in every year of the degree. Communication is taught and assessed in many courses. There are two major modules with substantial written components that bookend the undergraduate degree at Imperial; the freshmen all write an assessed essay, while all seniors take 'Science Communication', a course that aims to prepare them for a range of possible careers. In the 2015-16 academic year we linked these courses by introducing a modified form of peer marking and instruction. Seniors had to complete reviews of draft first year essays for credit in Science Communication. These reviews are completed for the department 'journal' and introduce the first and fourth years to the nature of peer review. Seniors learn how to critically, but kindly, evaluate the work of other students, and are also prepared for potentially submitting their senior theses to journals. Reviews were managed by volunteer seniors, who acted as associate editors. They allocated anonymous reviewers and wrote decision letters, which were sent to the freshmen before their final assessed essay submission. Ultimately the fourth year reviews were formally assessed and graded by members of staff, as were the revised and resubmitted first year essays. Feedback for both courses has improved since the introduction of student reviews of essays. The markers of the freshman essay have also commented on the improvement in the standard of the writing and a

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

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

  9. International strategy for Nanotechnology Research

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Roco, M.C.

    2001-01-01

    The worldwide nanotechnology research and development (R and D) investment reported by government organizations has increased by a factor of 3.5 between 1997 and 2001, and the highest rate of 90% is in 2001. At least 30 countries have initiated or are beginning national activities in this field. Scientists have opened a broad net of discoveries that does not leave any major research area untouched in physical, biological, and engineering sciences. Industry has gained confidence that nanotechnology will bring competitive advantages. The worldwide annual industrial production is estimated to exceed $1 trillion in 10-15 years from now, which would require about 2 million nanotechnology workers. U.S. has initiated a multidisciplinary strategy for development of science and engineering fundamentals through the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Japan and Europe have broad programs, and their current plans look ahead to four to five years. Other countries have encouraged their own areas of strength, several of them focusing on fields of the potential markets. Differences among countries are observed in the research domain they are aiming for, the level of program integration into various industrial sectors, and in the time scale of their R and D targets. Nanotechnology is growing in an environment where international interactions accelerate in science, education and industrial R and D. A global strategy of mutual interest is envisioned by connecting individual programs of contributing countries, professional communities, and international organizations

  10. Canada Research Chairs | IDRC - International Development ...

    International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Digital Library (Canada)

    aspx. International Research Chairs Initiative. The International Research Chairs Initiative pairs top research talent from universities in Canada with their counterparts in developing countries to address key development challenges. View more

  11. Physician peer review surveys: a management tool for improving quality of patient care.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gombeski, W R; Day, J R; Fay, G W; Lowery, M C

    1992-06-01

    An increasing number of patients are presenting multiple medical problems requiring the collaboration of two or more physician specialists or subspecialists for effective treatment. The quality of care delivered to multiple-problem patients depends greatly on how well the physician specialists interact with one another. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) has developed and implemented a physician peer review survey that enables physicians to receive anonymous feedback on the service they provide to their colleagues. The survey has been implemented in both medical and surgical departments. Colleagues have identified areas for improvement to increase collaboration and enhance effectiveness in treating multiproblem patients. The data have led to a variety of specific service-related improvements and changes in physician behavior. Though originally conceived as a quality improvement technique, the physician review survey has become an internal marketing and management tool for physician managers.

  12. International Relations Research Methodology: Realism

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Andrey Vladimirovich Shabaga

    2015-12-01

    Full Text Available The article examines the origins and conceptual analysis capabilities of international relations in the framework of a realistic paradigm. We research political conditions and preconditions of the creation of realism’s theory and axiological features of realism’s practice in international relations. We also analyze the basic concepts and schools of realism: Realpolitik, political realism, neorealism, neoclassical realism. It is shown that based on the balance of power in the Realpolitik Prussian and Austrian cases, this understanding of politics within the systematics of the XIX century; the adaptation of the bourgeois liberal and national ideas to the foreign-policy specifics Germany middle of the XIX century. It is shown that political realism is targeting an international actor on the desire to subjugate the greatest possible political space. In the case of political weakness (absolute or relative political realism indicates a way of adapting to circumstances in order to achieve the most desirable of the possible. The article discusses the concept A. Rochau, H. Morgenthau, H. Kissinger, K. Waltz, showing differences and instrumentality realistic theories and concludes that the main provisions of the concept as a whole.

  13. [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.

  14. The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Marco Giordan

    2016-10-01

    Full Text Available Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.   Methods Here we examine an element of the editorial process at eLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions to eLife since June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail.     Results The Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405 and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099. Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant effect on citation rates.   Conclusions An important aspect of eLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

  15. 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

  16. Person-Centered Learning using Peer Review Method – An Evaluation and a Concept for Student-Centered Classrooms

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Dominik Dolezal

    2018-02-01

    Full Text Available Using peer assessment in the classroom to increase student engagement by actively involving the pupils in the assessment process has been practiced and researched for decades. In general, the literature suggests using peer review for project-based exercises. This paper analyzes the applicability of peer assessment to smaller exercises at secondary school level and makes recommendations for its use in computer science courses. Furthermore, a school pilot project introducing student-centered classrooms, called “learning office”, is described. Additionally, a concept for the implementation of peer assessment in such student-centered classrooms is outlined. We introduced two traditional secondary school classes consisting of a total of 57 students to the peer assessment method within the scope of the same software engineering course. The peer students assessed two of 13 exercises using the Moodle workshop activity. The students evaluated these two exercises using an anonymous online questionnaire. At the end of the course, they rated each of the 13 exercises regarding their learning motivation. Overall, the anonymous feedback on the peer review exercises was very positive. The students not only obtained more feedback, but also received it in a timelier manner compared to regular teacher assessment. The results of the overall rating of all 13 exercises revealed that the two peer reviewed exercises have been rated significantly better than the other eleven exercises assessed by the teacher. Evidence therefore suggests that peer review is a viable option for small- and medium-sized exercises in the context of computer science education at secondary school level under certain conditions, which we discuss in this paper.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sims, Gerald K.

    1989-01-01

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

  18. 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.…

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

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

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

    2009-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kim, Soo Hyon

    2015-01-01

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