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

Science.gov (United States)

Mann, Cindy; Delgado, Debbie; Horwood, Jeremy

2014-04-01

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1995-10-01

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

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

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.

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…

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 ...

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…

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

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

Demystifying the peer-review process - workshop

Science.gov (United States)

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

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.

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Andrea C Tricco

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

The Potential of Dual-Language Cross-Cultural Peer Review

Science.gov (United States)

Ruecker, Todd

2011-01-01

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

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

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...

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).

The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies

Science.gov (United States)

Gallo, Stephen A.; Carpenter, Afton S.; Irwin, David; McPartland, Caitlin D.; Travis, Joseph; Reynders, Sofie; Thompson, Lisa A.; Glisson, Scott R.

2014-01-01

There is a paucity of data in the literature concerning the validation of the grant application peer review process, which is used to help direct billions of dollars in research funds. Ultimately, this validation will hinge upon empirical data relating the output of funded projects to the predictions implicit in the overall scientific merit scores from the peer review of submitted applications. In an effort to address this need, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) conducted a retrospective analysis of peer review data of 2,063 applications submitted to a particular research program and the bibliometric output of the resultant 227 funded projects over an 8-year period. Peer review scores associated with applications were found to be moderately correlated with the total time-adjusted citation output of funded projects, although a high degree of variability existed in the data. Analysis over time revealed that as average annual scores of all applications (both funded and unfunded) submitted to this program improved with time, the average annual citation output per application increased. Citation impact did not correlate with the amount of funds awarded per application or with the total annual programmatic budget. However, the number of funded applications per year was found to correlate well with total annual citation impact, suggesting that improving funding success rates by reducing the size of awards may be an efficient strategy to optimize the scientific impact of research program portfolios. This strategy must be weighed against the need for a balanced research portfolio and the inherent high costs of some areas of research. The relationship observed between peer review scores and bibliometric output lays the groundwork for establishing a model system for future prospective testing of the validity of peer review formats and procedures. PMID:25184367

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.

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.

International Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Research

African Journals Online (AJOL)

The International Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Research (IJMBR) is a peer-reviewed ... useful to researchers in all aspects of Clinical and Basic Medical Sciences including Anatomical Sciences, Biochemistry, Dentistry, Genetics, ...

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-01-01

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

Daily peer review of abnormal cervical smears in the assessment of individual practice as an additional method of internal quality control.

Science.gov (United States)

Confortini, M; Di Stefano, C; Biggeri, A; Bulgaresi, P; Di Claudio, G; Grisotto, L; Maddau, C; Matucci, M; Petreschi, C; Troni, G M; Turco, P; Foxi, P

2016-02-01

An important internal quality control system used in the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute cytopathology laboratory in Florence is the peer review procedure, based on the review of all abnormal cytological smears which routinely emerge. Peer review is an important training opportunity for all cytologists, especially for those with less experience. This article shows the results of the peer review procedure. Of the 63 754 Papanicolaou (Pap) smears screened in 2011, 1086 were considered to be abnormal [at least atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US+)] on primary screening (selected by a single cytologist) and were subjected to the peer review procedure. The overall performance of the laboratory's cytologists was evaluated using a multiple rater analysis and the comparison of each cytologist with the final diagnosis. Further, the agreement was assessed by means of Cohen's kappa and weighted kappa statistics. In general, a moderate/substantial level of agreement between the ten cytologists and the final diagnoses was evident. Kappa values for each reader compared with the final diagnosis ranged from 0.54 to 0.69. The overall kappa value was 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.58-0.66] and overall weighted kappa value was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79). The category-specific agreement showed the lowest values for atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H). In summary, peer review represents an important internal quality control in the evaluation and improvement of inter-observer agreement and of the functioning of the laboratory as a whole. Multi-head microscope sessions may improve particularly the reproducibility of borderline diagnoses and, above all, can be an important training contribution for cytologists. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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.

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

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Calabrese, Edward J

2018-06-06

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

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

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.

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.

Adolescent Peer Relations and Socioemotional Development in Latin America: Translating International Theory into Local Research.

Science.gov (United States)

Berger, Christian; Lisboa, Carolina; Cuadros, Olga; de Tezanos-Pinto, Pablo

2016-06-01

Peer relations constitute a main developmental context for adolescents. Peers offer an instance for identity definition and set the norms of acceptable and valued characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes, representing a societal model that allows and restrains avenues for adolescents' socioemotional development. The present article departs from these considerations to review research on adolescents' peer relations in Latin America from a socioemotional perspective. First, approaches to adolescence are discussed, with a main focus on attachment and identity theories, based on a bioecological framework. Then, a review of research in Latin America on friendships, school climate, and intergroup relations is presented. The discussion addresses the tension between theories and evidence generated in developed societies and highlights the particularities of Latin American youth, stressing the need for collecting local data. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

2010-02-15

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

7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2007-05-01

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

The mechanisms underpinning peer support: a literature review.

Science.gov (United States)

Watson, Emma

2017-12-20

The employment of Peer Support Workers, who themselves have experience of significant emotional distress, can promote recovery at an individual and organisational level. While research examining the benefits of peer support within mental health services continues to grow, an understanding of how, and through what processes, these benefits are reached remains under-developed. To review the published research literature relating to the process of peer support and its underpinning mechanisms to better understand how and why it works. A scoping review of published literature identified studies relating to peer support mechanisms, processes and relationships. Studies were summarised and findings analysed. Five mechanisms were found to underpin peer support relationships (lived experience, love labour, the liminal position of the peer worker, strengths-focussed social and practical support, and the helper role). The identified mechanisms can underpin both the success and difficulties associated with peer support relationships. Further research should review a broader range of literature and clarify how these mechanisms contribute to peer support in different contexts.

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.

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...

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…

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

Science.gov (United States)

Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara

2014-01-01

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

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…

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)

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.

A Peer-Reviewed Research Assignment for Large Classes.

Science.gov (United States)

Henderson, LaRhee; Buising, Charisse

2000-01-01

Introduces a writing exercise students work on in collaborative groups. Aims to enhance students' scientific research paper writing skills and provide experience working in collaborative groups. Presents evaluation criteria for peer-group evaluation of a poster presentation, intra-group evaluation of peer performance, and peer-group evaluation of…

Changing the Peer Review or Changing the Peers--Recent Development in Assessment of Large Research Collaborations

Science.gov (United States)

Hansson, Finn; Monsted, Mette

2012-01-01

Peer review of research programmes is changing. The problem is discussed through detailed study of a selection process to a call for collaborations in the energy sector for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. The authors were involved in the application for a Knowledge Innovation Community. Through the analysis of the case the…

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 ...

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2012-12-01

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

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...

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2018-05-10

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

NASA Product Peer Review Process

Science.gov (United States)

Jenks, Ken

2009-01-01

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

Partnering with insiders: A review of peer models across community-engaged research, education and social care.

Science.gov (United States)

Vaughn, Lisa M; Whetstone, Crystal; Boards, Alicia; Busch, Melida D; Magnusson, Maria; Määttä, Sylvia

2018-03-07

Within community-engaged research, education and social care, peer models that partner with local "insiders" are increasingly common. Peer models are composed of insider "lay" community members who often share similarities or background with a project's target population. Peers are not academically trained, but work alongside researchers and professionals to carry out specific tasks within a project, or in the truest sense of partnership, peers collaborate throughout the project from start to finish as an equal member of the team. Although peer models are used widely, the literature lacks consistency and clarity. This systematic review of literature used a qualitative thematic synthesis to examine and report how, where and why peer models have been used in research, education and social care. We examined the language and titles used to describe the peers, details of their involvement in community-engaged projects, the setting, content/topic of study, level of engagement and related benefits/outcomes of such models. Focusing on the last 10 years, we conducted a comprehensive literature search twice between September 2016 and June 2017. The search resulted in 814 articles which were assessed for eligibility. Overall, 251 articles met our inclusion criteria and were categorised into three categories: empirical (n = 115); process/descriptive (n = 93); and "about" peers (n = 43). Findings suggest that there is a wide variety of peers, titles and terminology associated with peer models. There is inconsistency in how these models are used and implemented in research studies and projects. The majority of articles used an employment peer model, while only a handful involved peers in all phases of the project. The results of this literature review contribute to understanding the use, development and evolution of peer models. We highlight potential benefits of peer models for peers, their communities and community-engaged work, and we offer recommendations for future

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section... PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PROJECTS § 52h.4 Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members of...

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…

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

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

Challenges in the Selection, Design and Implementation of an Online Submission and Peer Review System for STM Journals

OpenAIRE

J. Best; R. Akerman

2007-01-01

Two international scientific publishers collaborated to develop an Online Submission and Peer Review System (OSPREY) for their journals. Our goals were to meet market demand, increase editorial efficiency and streamline the transition from peer review to publishing. One of the publishers (National Research Council (NRC) Research Press, Canada) had previously purchased a third-party system that was subsequently discontinued by the vendor. Because of this experience and its complex requirements...

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

Ford, Emily

2015-01-01

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

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Schwegler, Andria F.; Altman, Barbara W.

2015-01-01

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

Pre-university Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

NARCIS (Netherlands)

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

2014-01-01

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

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

2004-06-01

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

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.

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…

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…

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…

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.)

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...

International Survey of Peer Leadership (ISPL: An Emerging Snapshot of the Status of Peer Leadership in South Africa

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Frade Nelia

2017-12-01

Full Text Available The power and importance of peer influence in educational settings has been well documented (Cuseo, 2010; Ender & Kay, 2001; Keup, 2010. In South Africa, research supports international trends that student involvement in peer-led activities contributes to student success and ultimate throughput (Layton & McKenna, 2015; Loots, 2009; Underhill & McDonald, 2010. A plethora of research exists attesting to the benefits for students who are the recipients of peer-led activities. In South Africa, however, knowledge gaps exist pertaining to a national perspective on the experiences and, to some extent, on the benefits of peer leadership activities for peer leaders themselves. The purpose of this study is to provide an initial national snapshot of the development and experiences of peer leaders at six South African institutions of higher education, using the International Survey of Peer Leaders (ISPL. The research design adopted was a non-probability purposive sampling technique, with a sample size of N=466. Data were analysed using descriptive analyses. Findings validate previous findings and provide a more comprehensive picture of the types of peer leadership positions held, the training and support peer leaders receive, levels of engagement, and the benefits of being involved in peer-led activities.

QA REVIEWS: HOW THEY DIFFER FROM PEER REVIEWS

Science.gov (United States)

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

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

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

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

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…

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.

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

Of International Actors, Nodal Governance and the African Peer ...

African Journals Online (AJOL)

Based on the recent political unrest in Kenya, I argue that one way in which the. African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) can improve governance in Africa and indeed see through the implementation of its review recommendations is to form networks with other international actors. These networks will be constituted by ...

Publication rates of public health theses in international and national peer-review journals in Turkey.

Science.gov (United States)

Sipahi, H; Durusoy, R; Ergin, I; Hassoy, H; Davas, A; Karababa, Ao

2012-01-01

Thesis is an important part of specialisation and doctorate education and requires intense work. The aim of this study was to investigate the publication rates of Turkish Public Health Doctorate Theses (PHDT) and Public Health Specialization (PHST) theses in international and Turkish national peer-review journals and to analyze the distribution of research areas. List of all theses upto 30 September 2009 were retrieved from theses database of the Council of Higher Education of the Republic of Turkey. The publication rates of these theses were found by searching PubMed, Science Citation Index-Expanded, Turkish Academic Network and Information Center (ULAKBIM) Turkish Medical Database, and Turkish Medline databases for the names of thesis author and mentor. The theses which were published in journals indexed either in PubMed or SCI-E were considered as international publications. Our search yielded a total of 538 theses (243 PHDT, 295 PHST). It was found that the overall publication rate in Turkish national journals was 18%. The overall publication rate in international journals was 11.9%. Overall the most common research area was occupational health. Publication rates of Turkish PHDT and PHST are low. A better understanding of factors affecting this publication rate is important for public health issues where national data is vital for better intervention programs and develop better public health policies.

Publications and the peer review system

Science.gov (United States)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Peer Rejection and Internalizing Behavior: The Mediating Role of Peer Victimization in Preschool.

Science.gov (United States)

Metin Aslan, Özge

2018-05-23

The author examined the relationship among peer rejection, peer victimization, and internalizing behaviors. The author hypothesized that physical and relational victimization would have a different indirect effect on the relationship between peer rejection and internalizing behaviors. Participants were 94 preschool children (37 girls; average age 49.97 months) from two university preschools located in the northern part of the United States. The results indicated that internalizing behaviors predicted the mediating variables only regarding relational victimization. Relational victimization indirectly affected the association between peer rejection and internalizing behaviors. The study provides evidence of the mediating effect of victimization behaviors on the relationship among peer rejection, victimization, and internalizing behaviors.

A Peer Review of the RPII Environmental Monitoring Programme

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Mitchell, P.; Hunt, J.; Ledgerwood, K.; Nielsen, S.; O'Donnell, C

2009-12-01

The RPII has since the early 1980s carried out an environmental monitoring programme covering radioactivity in air, food and water. The primary focus of this programme has been the assessment of human exposure and the protection of human health. The programme aims to meet Irish and European Union legal requirements, other national and international commitments and to support the RPII's advisory and information provision functions. In 2009 the RPII had the scope and effectiveness of its monitoring programme reviewed by an international peer group. This report provides the background to the review; an overview of the documents provided to the peer group for conduction of the review; and the comments and recommendations by the peer group. The key objectives of the review was to consider whether the RPII environmental monitoring programme is meeting the stated aims and objectives and to provide recommendations for improvement if required. This exercise is part of a continual process of review and improvement of the RPII's monitoring programme. It addresses both continuous monitoring and project based elements of the programme. It was designed to be conducted at a strategic rather than an operational level

Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback.

Science.gov (United States)

Strickland, N H

2015-11-01

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

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

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.

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.

Mentored peer reviewing for PhD faculty and students.

Science.gov (United States)

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

2016-02-01

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

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…

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.

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.

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…

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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.

French R and D on the partitioning and transmutation of long-lived radionuclides. An international peer review of the 2005 Cea report

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

2006-01-01

For many politicians and members of the public, the very long life of some of the radio-nuclides in radioactive waste is an issue of particular importance in terms of its ultimate disposal. The developing techniques of partitioning (isolating specific radioactive elements) and transmutation (re-irradiating them in order to convert them to shorter-lived or stable elements) hold the promise of eliminating or greatly reducing the long-lived radioactivity, bringing with it other technical benefits. In France, the 1991 Waste Act required inter alia a research and development programme on partitioning and transmutation, with a milestone for review in 2006. The French authorities requested the OECD/NEA to organize an independent, international peer review of the results of this extensive research and development programme, with a view to help inform the parliamentary decision-making process on the way forward for radioactive waste disposal in France. This report presents the findings from that review, which was conducted by ten of the foremost international experts in the field. (author)

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.

Peer Review

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Avital, Michel

2018-01-01

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

Peer Mentoring and Peer Tutoring among K-12 Students: A Literature Review

Science.gov (United States)

Goodrich, Andrew

2018-01-01

The purpose of this literature review is to examine research on peer mentoring among K-12 students to assist practitioners with how to incorporate these instructional techniques into their own music programs. Primary themes across the music education literature of peer mentoring include the role of music teachers, the role of students as they…

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.

East Asian International Students and Psychological Well-Being: A Systematic Review

Science.gov (United States)

Li, Jiaqi; Wang, Yanlin; Xiao, Feiya

2014-01-01

The present article reports a systematic review of the studies related to psychological well-being among East Asian international students. A total of 18 quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals from 2000 to 2011 were reviewed. Our review revealed three major results: (1) a majority of researchers (n = 13, 72.2%) tend to choose…

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.

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.

The Dedisciplining of Peer Review

Science.gov (United States)

Frodeman, Robert; Briggle, Adam

2012-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2003-01-01

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

Do peers matter? A review of peer and/or friends' influence on physical activity among American adolescents.

Science.gov (United States)

Fitzgerald, Amanda; Fitzgerald, Noelle; Aherne, Cian

2012-08-01

This systematic review investigated the relationship between peer and/or friend variables and physical activity among adolescents by synthesising cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental research conducted in the US. Seven electronic databases were searched to identify related articles published within the last 10 years and the articles reviewed included adolescents between 10 and 18 years. Studies reporting a measure of physical activity for adolescents and at least one potential peer and/or friend variable were included. Research demonstrated that peers and friends have an important role to play in the physical activity behavior of adolescents. Six processes were identified through which peers and/or friends may have an influence on physical activity including: peer and/or friend support, presence of peers and friends, peer norms, friendship quality and acceptance, peer crowds, and peer victimization. The theoretical significance of these results is assessed and the development of peer-related physical activity programs for adolescents is discussed. Copyright © 2012 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Pre-university Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

Science.gov (United States)

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

2014-10-01

Peer review is a significant component in scientific research. Introducing peer review into inquiry processes may be regarded as an aim to develop student understanding regarding quality in inquiries. This study examines student understanding in inquiry peer reviews among pre-university chemistry students, aged 16-17, when they enact a design of a mimicked scholarly peer review. This design is based on a model of a human activity system. Twenty-five different schools in Brazil, Germany, Poland and The Netherlands participated. The students (n = 880) conducted in small groups (n = 428) open inquiries on fermentation. All groups prepared an inquiry report for peer review. These reports were published on a website. Groups were randomly paired in an internet symposium, where they posted review comments to their peers. These responses were qualitatively analyzed on small groups' level of understanding regarding seven categories: inquiry question, hypothesis, management of control variables, accurate measurement, presenting results, reliability of results, discussion and conclusion. The mimicked scholarly review prompted a collective practice. Student understanding was significantly well on presenting results, discussion and conclusion, and significantly less on inquiry question and reliability of results. An enacted design, based on a model of a human activity system, created student understanding of quality in inquiries as well as an insight in a peer-reviewing practice. To what extent this model can be applied in a broader context of design research in science education needs further study.

Proposals for the writing of peer reviews in lexicography

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Bergenholtz, Henning; Gouws, Rufus

2015-01-01

In lexicography a good review is important for the dictionary maker(s), the publishing house and the whole lexicographical community. It is also important for the reviewers because it can expand their research record. Up to a few years ago reviews were still acknowledged in research databases...... regarding ethical aspects. But there are essential differences. These issues are discussed in this paper and some methodological and ethical proposals for peer reviews are made. One of the proposals could create a debate because it argues for an open peer review process and not for the so-called double...

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....

APPLICATION OF PEER-TO-PEER ASSESSMENT OF WRITTEN WORKS OF STUDENTS IN STREAM INTERNAL COURSES

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Д А Королев

2016-12-01

Full Text Available At reduction of contact time in subject matters the instruments of preservation of active forms of studying for students assuming independent research work are required. One of such forms is peer-to- peer evaluation of works (peer assessment allowing to go beyond a narrow framework of automaticallychecked tests for the level of small research works. In article results of a two-year experiment on use of a piring on a stream course are given in MIEM Higher School of Economics National Research University taking into account specifics of audience rather mass online of courses.The received results and conclusions have formed a basis for modeling of ways of estimation of written works at peer-to-peer check without participation of the teacher. In an experiment schemes of estimation and motivation for management of a ratio of number of authors and reviewers have been fulfilled, and also the general questions of use of the offered system of assessment it is aware.

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

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.

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

A Review of Peer Social Development in Early Childhood.

Science.gov (United States)

Goin, Robin P.

1998-01-01

Reviews the literature on young children's peer social development. Addresses implications of social learning theory and empirical research. Discusses recurring themes, including child/peer versus child/adult interactions, incorporation of toys and games, influence of mothers, and gender peer preferences. Considers areas lacking empirical support…

40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

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

The Potential of Peer Review

Science.gov (United States)

Johnson, Susan Moore; Fiarman, Sarah E.

2012-01-01

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

Peer Review: Has It a Future?

Science.gov (United States)

Soh, Kay Cheng

2013-01-01

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

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers.

Science.gov (United States)

Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando

2018-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2018-01-01

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

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…

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1999-06-01

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

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.

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.

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.

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Fernandez-Llimos F

2018-03-01

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

NCI Consumers Guide to Peer Review

Science.gov (United States)

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Grimaldo, Francisco; Marušić, Ana

2018-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Reiner, Bruce I

2017-12-01

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

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

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Papadopoulos, Pantelis M.; Lagkas, Thomas D.; Demetriadis, Stavros N.

2017-01-01

This study analyses the impact of self and peer feedback in technology-enhanced peer review settings. The impact of receiving peer comments (“receiver” perspective) is compared to that of reaching own insights by reviewing others’ work (“giver” perspective). In this study, 38 sophomore students...... were randomly assigned in two conditions and engaged in peer review activity facilitated by a web-based learning environment asking them to provide multiple reviews. In the Peer Reviewed (PR) condition students both reviewed peer work and received peer comments for their own work. By contrast......, in the Self Reviewed (SR) condition students provided peer reviews, but did not receive any. Instead, they were asked to perform self reviewing, before proceeding to any revisions of their work. Result showed that the two groups were comparable in all aspects, suggesting that the lack of getting peer reviews...

The Association between Four Citation Metrics and Peer Rankings of Research Influence of Australian Researchers in Six Fields of Public Health

Science.gov (United States)

Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth; Haynes, Abby; Chapman, Simon; Hall, Wayne D.

2011-01-01

Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to correspond with the assessment of peers. This paper evaluates the relationship between researchers' influence as evaluated by their peers and various citation metrics representing different aspects of research output in 6 fields of public health in Australia. For four fields, the results showed a modest positive correlation between different research metrics and peer assessments of research influence. However, for two fields, tobacco and injury, negative or no correlations were found. This suggests a peer understanding of research influence within these fields differed from visibility in the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature. This research therefore recommends the use of both peer review and metrics in a combined approach in assessing research influence. Future research evaluation frameworks intent on incorporating metrics should first analyse each field closely to determine what measures of research influence are valued highly by members of that research community. This will aid the development of comprehensive and relevant frameworks with which to fairly and transparently distribute research funds or approve promotion applications. PMID:21494691

The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Gemma Elizabeth Derrick

Full Text Available Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to correspond with the assessment of peers. This paper evaluates the relationship between researchers' influence as evaluated by their peers and various citation metrics representing different aspects of research output in 6 fields of public health in Australia. For four fields, the results showed a modest positive correlation between different research metrics and peer assessments of research influence. However, for two fields, tobacco and injury, negative or no correlations were found. This suggests a peer understanding of research influence within these fields differed from visibility in the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature. This research therefore recommends the use of both peer review and metrics in a combined approach in assessing research influence. Future research evaluation frameworks intent on incorporating metrics should first analyse each field closely to determine what measures of research influence are valued highly by members of that research community. This will aid the development of comprehensive and relevant frameworks with which to fairly and transparently distribute research funds or approve promotion applications.

The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.

Science.gov (United States)

Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth; Haynes, Abby; Chapman, Simon; Hall, Wayne D

2011-04-06

Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to correspond with the assessment of peers. This paper evaluates the relationship between researchers' influence as evaluated by their peers and various citation metrics representing different aspects of research output in 6 fields of public health in Australia. For four fields, the results showed a modest positive correlation between different research metrics and peer assessments of research influence. However, for two fields, tobacco and injury, negative or no correlations were found. This suggests a peer understanding of research influence within these fields differed from visibility in the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature. This research therefore recommends the use of both peer review and metrics in a combined approach in assessing research influence. Future research evaluation frameworks intent on incorporating metrics should first analyse each field closely to determine what measures of research influence are valued highly by members of that research community. This will aid the development of comprehensive and relevant frameworks with which to fairly and transparently distribute research funds or approve promotion applications.

Feedback from community pharmacy users on the contribution of community pharmacy to improving the public's health: a systematic review of the peer reviewed and non‐peer reviewed literature 1990–2002

Science.gov (United States)

Anderson, Claire; Blenkinsopp, Alison; Armstrong, Miriam

2004-01-01

Abstract Objective  To systematically review feedback from pharmacy users on their perceptions and experiences of health‐related advice and services provided from community pharmacies. Methods  The focus of the review was community pharmacy activities in relation to promoting health and well‐being, preventing ill‐health and maintaining health. Searches were conducted for peer‐reviewed (international) and non‐peer‐reviewed (UK) research. Electronic databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; hand searches of key journals and conference abstracts, key informants. Key informants in the UK were contacted to identify unpublished studies. The inclusion period was 1990 onwards. Data extraction and synthesis  Data were abstracted into a matrix by one author with a sample checked by a second. The Health Development Agency's Evidence Base 2000 standards and the evidence categories used by the Department of Health in the National Service Frameworks were applied to each item. Main results  Seven peer reviewed papers and 13 non‐peer reviewed reports were identified for inclusion in the review. Consumer usage of pharmacies is almost universal with prescription supplies and purchase of over the counter medicines predominating. Evidence shows that not only is usage low for general health advice, but that pharmacists are perceived as ‘drugs experts’ rather than experts on health and illness. Emergency hormonal contraception and head lice management schemes have been well received. There is a need to consider privacy and confidentiality surrounding advice giving. Conclusions  Users of community pharmacy‐based health development initiatives express a high level of satisfaction. If community pharmacies are to be used to their full extent, then actions to extending the public's awareness and acceptance of the pharmacist's role in giving advice will be crucial. Further research will be needed to

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

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…

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

OpenAIRE

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

2016-01-01

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

Peer Review of Teaching

OpenAIRE

Fernandez, Charles E.; Yu, Jenny

2007-01-01

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

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

Advancing Kinesiology through Improved Peer Review

Science.gov (United States)

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

2014-01-01

Peer review of scholarship is essential to journal quality, evidence, knowledge advancement, and application of that knowledge in any field. This commentary summarizes recent literature on issues related to peer-review quality and current review practice in kinesiology and provides recommendations to improve peer review in kinesiology journals. We…

Looking for attitudes related to amphibian species decline: how are peer-reviewed publications of education activities compared to ecological research?

Science.gov (United States)

Mormul, Roger P; Mormul, Tayla D S; Santos, Gustavo M B; Santana, Ana R A

2017-05-01

Biodiversity decline has been the focus of discussions in the last decade, especially on the amphibian species decline. After a scientometric analysis using international databases, we found that the number of peer-reviewed articles considering education practices related to the theme increased along with the number of ecological researches. However, the increase in ecological researches is much higher than the increase in publications of education practices. Studies suggest that conservation attitudes are important and that education practices are an important tool for improving human perceptions on this subject. In this sense, increase the publication of projects and programs results related to local education practices in international journals could help the dissemination of efficient methods for conservation, as well as facilitating access to information internationally, since species decline, especially for amphibians, is a global concern. Then, we suggest that educational practices, at least when related to conservation, should follow a more standardized protocol, and be published in international journals, as the efficiency of such practices should be evaluated and methods once published could help other nations to improve their ecological literacy.

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

On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics.

Science.gov (United States)

Andersen, Line Edslev

2017-01-01

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

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

Educational Leaders and Emotions: An International Review of Empirical Evidence 1992-2012

Science.gov (United States)

Berkovich, Izhak; Eyal, Ori

2015-01-01

The aim of the present article is to review the international evidence about emotional aspects related to educational leaders. The review focuses on empirical studies published in peer-refereed educational journals between 1992 and 2012. First, we address the importance of researching emotions for understanding educational leaders. Next, we…

Transformation of Adolescent Peer Relations in the Social Media Context: Part 2-Application to Peer Group Processes and Future Directions for Research.

Science.gov (United States)

Nesi, Jacqueline; Choukas-Bradley, Sophia; Prinstein, Mitchell J

2018-04-07

As social media use becomes increasingly widespread among adolescents, research in this area has accumulated rapidly. Researchers have shown a growing interest in the impact of social media on adolescents' peer experiences, including the ways that the social media context shapes a variety of peer relations constructs. This paper represents Part 2 of a two-part theoretical review. In this review, we offer a new model for understanding the transformative role of social media in adolescents' peer experiences, with the goal of stimulating future empirical work that is grounded in theory. The transformation framework suggests that the features of the social media context transform adolescents' peer experiences by changing their frequency or immediacy, amplifying demands, altering their qualitative nature, and/or offering new opportunities for compensatory or novel behaviors. In the current paper, we consider the ways that social media may transform peer relations constructs that often occur at the group level. Our review focuses on three key constructs: peer victimization, peer status, and peer influence. We selectively review and highlight existing evidence for the transformation of these domains through social media. In addition, we discuss methodological considerations and key conceptual principles for future work. The current framework offers a new theoretical perspective through which peer relations researchers may consider adolescent social media use.

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)

Online Peer-to-Peer Support for Young People With Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review.

Science.gov (United States)

Ali, Kathina; Farrer, Louise; Gulliver, Amelia; Griffiths, Kathleen M

2015-01-01

Adolescence and early adulthood are critical periods for the development of mental disorders. Online peer-to-peer communication is popular among young people and may improve mental health by providing social support. Previous systematic reviews have targeted Internet support groups for adults with mental health problems, including depression. However, there have been no systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of online peer-to-peer support in improving the mental health of adolescents and young adults. The aim of this review was to systematically identify available evidence for the effectiveness of online peer-to peer support for young people with mental health problems. The PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane databases were searched using keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Retrieved abstracts (n=3934) were double screened and coded. Studies were included if they (1) investigated an online peer-to-peer interaction, (2) the interaction discussed topics related to mental health, (3) the age range of the sample was between 12 to 25 years, and (4) the study evaluated the effectiveness of the peer-to-peer interaction. Six studies satisfied the inclusion criteria for the current review. The studies targeted a range of mental health problems including depression and anxiety (n=2), general psychological problems (n=1), eating disorders (n=1), and substance use (tobacco) (n=2). The majority of studies investigated Internet support groups (n=4), and the remaining studies focused on virtual reality chat sessions (n=2). In almost all studies (n=5), the peer support intervention was moderated by health professionals, researchers or consumers. Studies employed a range of study designs including randomized controlled trials (n=3), pre-post studies (n=2) and one randomized trial. Overall, two of the randomized controlled trials were associated with a significant positive outcome in comparison to the control group at post-intervention. In the remaining four

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).

Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review

Science.gov (United States)

Sandewall, Erik

2011-01-01

Open peer review has been proposed for a number of reasons, in particular, for increasing the transparency of the article selection process for a journal, and for obtaining a broader basis for feedback to the authors and for the acceptance decision. The review discussion may also in itself have a value for the research community. These goals rely on the existence of a lively review discussion, but several experiments with open-process peer review in recent years have encountered the problem of faltering review discussions. The present article addresses the question of how lively review discussion may be fostered by relating the experience of the journal Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI) which was an early experiment with open peer review. Factors influencing the discussion activity are identified. It is observed that it is more difficult to obtain lively discussion when the number of contributed articles increases, which implies difficulties for scaling up the open peer review model. Suggestions are made for how this difficulty may be overcome. PMID:22363282

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

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

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

The changing face of peer review

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Irene Hames

2014-02-01

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

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

Gender bias in scholarly peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

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

2017-03-21

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

IAU astroEDU: an open-access platform for peer-reviewed astronomy education activities

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-08-01

astroEDU is an open access platform for peer-reviewed astronomy education activities. It addresses key problems in educational repositories such as variability in quality, not maintained or updated regularly, limited content review, and more. This is achieved through a peer-review process similar to what scholarly articles are based on. Activities submitted are peer-reviewed by an educator and a professional astronomer which gives the credibility to the activities. astroEDU activities are open-access in order to make the activities accessible to educators around the world while letting them discover, review, distribute and remix the activities. The activity submission process allows authors to learn how to apply enquiry-based learning into the activity, identify the process skills required, how to develop core goals and objectives, and how to evaluate the activity to determine the outcome. astroEDU is endorsed by the International Astronomical Union meaning each activity is given an official stamp by the international organisation for professional astronomers.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-01-01

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

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.

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.

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Erin B. Jensen

2016-11-01

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

7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

White, Kiri; Boehm, Emilia; Chester, Andrea

2014-01-01

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

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.

Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Meho, Lokman I.; Sonnenwald, Diane H.

2000-01-01

The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional...... indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? Citation data, book reviews, and peer ranking were compiled and examined for faculty members specializing in Kurdish studies. Analysis shows that normalized citation ranking and citation content analysis data yield identical ranking results....... Analysis also shows that normalized citation ranking and citation content analysis, book reviews, and peer ranking perform similarly (i.e., are highly correlated) for high-ranked and low-ranked senior scholars. Additional evaluation methods and measures that take into account the context and content...

Looking for attitudes related to amphibian species decline: how are peer-reviewed publications of education activities compared to ecological research?

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

ROGER P. MORMUL

Full Text Available ABSTRACT Biodiversity decline has been the focus of discussions in the last decade, especially on the amphibian species decline. After a scientometric analysis using international databases, we found that the number of peer-reviewed articles considering education practices related to the theme increased along with the number of ecological researches. However, the increase in ecological researches is much higher than the increase in publications of education practices. Studies suggest that conservation attitudes are important and that education practices are an important tool for improving human perceptions on this subject. In this sense, increase the publication of projects and programs results related to local education practices in international journals could help the dissemination of efficient methods for conservation, as well as facilitating access to information internationally, since species decline, especially for amphibians, is a global concern. Then, we suggest that educational practices, at least when related to conservation, should follow a more standardized protocol, and be published in international journals, as the efficiency of such practices should be evaluated and methods once published could help other nations to improve their ecological literacy.

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

Peer Reviewer

OpenAIRE

Baru Mansjur, Mansjur

2016-01-01

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

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

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)

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…

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 ...

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.

45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

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

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)

Report of the IPERS (International Peer Review Service) review mission for the Bohunice-V2 nuclear power plant Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment in the Slovak Republic 17 to 28 January 1995

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1995-01-01

This report presents the results of the IAEA International Peer Review Services (IPERS) review of the probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) for the Bohunice-V2 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. 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 Slovak Republic. 12 refs, 4 tabs

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…

How are we assessing near-peer teaching in undergraduate health professional education? A systematic review.

Science.gov (United States)

Irvine, Susan; Williams, Brett; McKenna, Lisa

2017-03-01

Near Peer teaching (NPT) is reported as an effective pedagogical approach to student learning and performance. Studies in medicine, nursing and health sciences have relied mainly on self-reports to describe its benefits, focusing on psychomotor and cognitive aspects of learning. Despite increasing research reports on peer teaching internationally, little is known about the various domains of learning used in assessment of performance and objective learning outcomes of NPT. To determine the domains of learning and assessment outcomes used in NPT in undergraduate health professional education. Quantitative systematic review was conducted in accord with the PRISMA protocol and the Joanna Briggs Institute processes. A wide literature search was conducted for the period 1990-November 2015 of fourteen databases. Grey literature was undertaken from all key research articles. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were eligible for consideration, including measured learning outcomes of near-peer teaching in undergraduate education in nursing, medicine and health sciences. Set limitations included publications after 1990 (2015 inclusive), English language and objective learning outcomes. A quality appraisal process involving two independent reviewers was used to analyse the data. Of 212 selected articles, 26 were included in the review. Terminology was confusing and found to be a barrier to the review process. Although some studies demonstrated effective learning outcomes resulting from near-peer teaching, others were inconclusive. Studies focused on cognitive and psychomotor abilities of learners with none assessing metacognition, affective behaviours or learning outcomes from quality of understanding. The studies reviewed focused on cognitive and psychomotor abilities of learners. Even though evidence clearly indicates that metacognition and affective behaviours have direct influence on learning and performance, indicating more research around this topic is warranted

28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

Music research with children and youth with disabilities and typically developing peers: a systematic review.

Science.gov (United States)

Brown, Laura S; Jellison, Judith A

2012-01-01

Systematic reviews of research provide pertinent information to both practitioners and researchers. While there are several recent reviews of music research and children with specific disabilities (primarily autism), there is no current review of music research with children with a wide variety of disabilities. The aim of the current study is to identify and systematically review music research with children and youth published in peer reviewed journals for the years 1999 through 2009. Research questions focused on participant characteristics; research purposes, methodologies, and findings; as well as the presence of ideas from special education policies, and practices. We also asked how results have changed from those from an earlier review (Jellison, 2000). Using computer and hand-searches, we identified 45 articles that met our criteria for inclusion. Once identified, through a process of consensus we analyzed articles based on criteria, categories, and codes used in the earlier review. Additionally we analyzed measurement instruments and effectiveness of interventions as reported by the authors. Primary findings show a large majority of studies were experimental with most reporting effective or partially effective interventions, particularly for social variables. Compared to the earlier review, increases were found for participants with autism and for reports including ideas from special education. Percentages of articles measuring generalization and examining high-incident disability populations (specific learning disabilities) were low. The findings from this review and comparisons to the earlier review reveal important implications for practices with children with autism and preparation of researchers to design and conduct studies in inclusive music settings.

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

2012-09-24

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

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.

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.

Medical students-as-teachers: a systematic review of peer-assisted teaching during medical school

Science.gov (United States)

Yu, Tzu-Chieh; Wilson, Nichola C; Singh, Primal P; Lemanu, Daniel P; Hawken, Susan J; Hill, Andrew G

2011-01-01

Introduction International interest in peer-teaching and peer-assisted learning (PAL) during undergraduate medical programs has grown in recent years, reflected both in literature and in practice. There, remains however, a distinct lack of objective clarity and consensus on the true effectiveness of peer-teaching and its short- and long-term impacts on learning outcomes and clinical practice. Objective To summarize and critically appraise evidence presented on peer-teaching effectiveness and its impact on objective learning outcomes of medical students. Method A literature search was conducted in four electronic databases. Titles and abstracts were screened and selection was based on strict eligibility criteria after examining full-texts. Two reviewers used a standard review and analysis framework to independently extract data from each study. Discrepancies in opinions were resolved by discussion in consultation with other reviewers. Adapted models of “Kirkpatrick’s Levels of Learning” were used to grade the impact size of study outcomes. Results From 127 potential titles, 41 were obtained as full-texts, and 19 selected after close examination and group deliberation. Fifteen studies focused on student-learner outcomes and four on student-teacher learning outcomes. Ten studies utilized randomized allocation and the majority of study participants were self-selected volunteers. Written examinations and observed clinical evaluations were common study outcome assessments. Eleven studies provided student-teachers with formal teacher training. Overall, results suggest that peer-teaching, in highly selective contexts, achieves short-term learner outcomes that are comparable with those produced by faculty-based teaching. Furthermore, peer-teaching has beneficial effects on student-teacher learning outcomes. Conclusions Peer-teaching in undergraduate medical programs is comparable to conventional teaching when utilized in selected contexts. There is evidence to suggest

75 FR 4062 - Peer Review Best Practices Workshop

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-26

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

28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

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

Idaho Transportation Department : 2010 research program peer exchange.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-05-01

The objectives of the peer exchange were to: : 1. Identify strengths, challenges, and opportunities for program and project management; : 2. Understand management expectations of the ITD Research Program; : 3. Review processes for project selection a...

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.''

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…

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.

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

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…

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2012-01-01

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

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.

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.

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

International entrepreneurship research in emerging economies : A critical review and research agenda

NARCIS (Netherlands)

Kiss, A.N.; Danis, W.D.; Cavusgil, S.T.

This article systematically reviews and critically examines international entrepreneurship research in emerging economies (IEEE research), and articulates its importance, timeliness and relevance in consideration of the growing influence of emerging markets in the global economy. A systematic

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Iqbal, Isabeau A.

2014-01-01

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

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/.

[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.

ROAST: Peer Review as a Learning and Assessment Tool in Graduate Education

Science.gov (United States)

Somerville, R. C.

2003-12-01

Constructivist learning theory and inquiry-based educational practice stress the parallels between learning and research. Although peer review has long been a central feature of the working lives of research scientists, it has rarely found its way into the classroom. Motivated by this thought, an imaginary journal, Reviews of Atmospheric Science Topics (ROAST), has been integrated into a graduate-level course in atmospheric thermodynamics. The instructor acts as editor of ROAST. Students in the class are divided into teams and assigned topics on which to write survey papers and give in-class presentations, using the text, the Internet, the library, and other resources. The assigned topics range over the subject matter of the course. The submitted survey papers are sent by the ROAST editor to other members of the class, acting as anonymous reviewers. Just as in the case of real research journals, the editor asks the authors to respond to criticisms of reviewers and then sends the revised papers back to the reviewers. Each student is thus a researcher and co-author of one paper as well as an anonymous reviewer of several others. ROAST has proven to be not only a useful means of fostering learning, but also a natural and effective assessment tool. The peer review mechanism allows the student authors to address the defects in their papers, and hence in their learning, as pointed out not by an authority figure or an examination but by their own peers. As an important side benefit, the students gain experience with the peer review process itself and come to appreciate its strengths and weaknesses in evaluating scientific papers.

A Bibliometric Review on Risk Management and Building Information Modeling for International Construction

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Tsenguun Ganbat

2018-01-01

Full Text Available International construction is complicated and involves high risks. However, with the development of technological innovation, Building Information Modeling (BIM emerged and seems to be able to address certain risks. To understand BIM applications in risk management for international construction, a state-of-the-art review is required. Therefore, this paper aims to identify the research trends and opportunities for risk management in BIM-enabled international construction by reviewing 526 peer-reviewed journal articles for the years 2007–2017. Thus five steps of bibliometric analysis were conducted based on the proposed frameworks of BIM risk management in international construction (BIM-RM-INTL. The results show that the popularization of BIM not only attracts all stakeholders’ interests but also brings some risks. For example, financial factors are hard to detect and control through BIM, information loss during transmission stands out, and BIM has no unified standards and regulations for international construction. The research has mapped existing research results and their relationships for future risk management in BIM-enabled international construction.

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

Book Review: Current Issues in International Human Resource Management and Strategy Research

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Gretzinger, Susanne

2009-01-01

The article reviews the book "Current Issues in International Human Resource Management and Strategy Research," edited by Marion Festing and Susanne Royer.......The article reviews the book "Current Issues in International Human Resource Management and Strategy Research," edited by Marion Festing and Susanne Royer....

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.

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.

Peer Review: Promoting Efficient School District Operations

Science.gov (United States)

Hale, Jason S.

2010-01-01

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

An open science peer review oath

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

2015-01-01

One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing......: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal...... research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results...

Peer Review in a Social Policy Course: Lessons Learned

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Shauna P. Acquavita

2013-04-01

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

Adolescent-Peer Relationships, Separation and Detachment from Parents, and Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors: Linkages and Interactions

Science.gov (United States)

Jager, Justin; Yuen, Cynthia X.; Putnick, Diane L.; Hendricks, Charlene; Bornstein, Marc H.

2018-01-01

Most research exploring the interplay between context and adolescent separation and detachment has focused on the family; in contrast, this investigation directs its attention outside of the family to peers. Utilizing a latent variable approach for modeling interactions and incorporating reports of behavioral adjustment from 14-year-old adolescents (N = 190) and their mothers, we examine how separation and detachment relate to adolescent peer relationships, and whether peer relationships moderate how separation and detachment relate to adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Positive peer relationships were both associated with lower detachment and sharply attenuated relations between detachment and higher adolescent internalizing and externalizing. Separation from parents was unrelated to peer relationships, and regardless of whether peer relationships were positive, separation was not related to adolescent internalizing and externalizing. We integrate these findings with those from family-focused investigations and discuss their substantive and clinical implications. PMID:29527086

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 ...

DRS // CUMULUS Oslo 2013. The 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Liv Merete Nielsen

2012-08-01

Full Text Available This international conference is a springboard for sharing ideas and concepts about contemporary design education research. Contributors are invited to submit research that deals with different facets of contemporary approaches to design education research. All papers will be double-blind peer-reviewed. This conference is open to research in any aspect and discipline of design education. Conference theme:Design Learning for Tomorrow - Design Education from Kindergarten to PhD

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

Science.gov (United States)

Taylor, James W.

1999-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2018-03-27

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

Adolescents' Internalizing Symptoms as Predictors of the Content of Their Facebook Communication and Responses Received from Peers.

Science.gov (United States)

Ehrenreich, Samuel E; Underwood, Marion K

2016-09-01

This research examined how adolescents' internalizing symptoms, such as depression, anxiety, and loneliness, relate to the content of their Facebook communication and the responses they receive from peers on Facebook. Participants ( n = 125, 56 female, age 18) reported on their internalizing symptoms in the summer following 12 th grade, and downloaded an application to their Facebook account that stored the content of all of their Facebook communication to secure, online archive. Two months of participants' status updates and comments and peers' comments were coded for content. Relations between internalizing symptoms and Facebook communication differed for girls and boys. For girls, internalizing symptoms predicted several types of Facebook content: negative affect, somatic complaints and eliciting support. In contrast, internalizing symptoms were not related to boys' Facebook posts. Relations between internalizing symptoms and peers' responses on Facebook also differed by gender. For girls, internalizing symptoms positively predicted receiving more peer comments expressing negative affect, and peer responses offering support. For boys, internalizing symptoms did not predict any of the measured peer responses. These findings suggest that girls prone to internalizing symptoms use Facebook in ways that appear similar to co-rumination, by expressing problems to friends and receive possibly reinforcing feedback in return.

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

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.

Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes

Science.gov (United States)

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

2013-01-01

Teleconferencing as a setting for scientific peer review is an attractive option for funding agencies, given the substantial environmental and cost savings. Despite this, there is a paucity of published data validating teleconference-based peer review compared to the face-to-face process. Our aim was to conduct a retrospective analysis of scientific peer review data to investigate whether review setting has an effect on review process and outcome measures. We analyzed reviewer scoring data from a research program that had recently modified the review setting from face-to-face to a teleconference format with minimal changes to the overall review procedures. This analysis included approximately 1600 applications over a 4-year period: two years of face-to-face panel meetings compared to two years of teleconference meetings. The average overall scientific merit scores, score distribution, standard deviations and reviewer inter-rater reliability statistics were measured, as well as reviewer demographics and length of time discussing applications. The data indicate that few differences are evident between face-to-face and teleconference settings with regard to average overall scientific merit score, scoring distribution, standard deviation, reviewer demographics or inter-rater reliability. However, some difference was found in the discussion time. These findings suggest that most review outcome measures are unaffected by review setting, which would support the trend of using teleconference reviews rather than face-to-face meetings. However, further studies are needed to assess any correlations among discussion time, application funding and the productivity of funded research projects. PMID:23951223

International Nuclear Safety Experts Conclude IAEA Peer Review of Korea's Regulatory System

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

2011-01-01

Full text: An international team of senior nuclear safety experts concluded today a two-week mission to review the regulatory framework for nuclear safety in the Republic of Korea. The team identified good practices and gave advice on areas for future improvements. The IAEA has conveyed the team's main conclusions to the Government of Korea, while the final report will be submitted by the end of summer 2011. At the request of the Korean Government, the IAEA assembled a team of 16 senior regulatory experts from 14 nations to conduct the Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission involving the Korean Ministry for Education, Science and Technology (MEST) and the Korean Institute for Nuclear Safety (KINS). The mission is a peer-review based on the IAEA Safety Standards. ''This was the first IRRS mission organized after Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident and it included a review of the regulatory implications of that event,' explains Denis Flory, IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security. William Borchardt, Executive Director of Operations from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Team Leader of this mission commended the Korean authorities for their openness and commitment to sharing their experience with the world's nuclear safety community. ''IRRS missions such as the one that was just concluded here in the Republic of Korea are crucial to the enhancement of nuclear safety worldwide,'' he said. The IRRS team reviewed Korea's current regulatory framework while acknowledging the fact that the country's Government has already decided to establish, as of October 2011, a new independent regulatory body to be called Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC). As a consequence, KINS role will be as a regulatory expert organization reporting to the NSC, while MEST's role will be restricted to promoting the utilization of nuclear energy. The IRRS team identified particular strengths in the Korean regulatory system

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2012-04-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Moustafa, Khaled

2015-08-01

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

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

Hadjistavropoulos, T; Bieling, P J

2000-08-01

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Peer Review in Radiology: A Resident and Fellow Perspective.

Science.gov (United States)

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

2016-02-01

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

Empirical research on international environmental migration: a systematic review.

Science.gov (United States)

Obokata, Reiko; Veronis, Luisa; McLeman, Robert

2014-01-01

This paper presents the findings of a systematic review of scholarly publications that report empirical findings from studies of environmentally-related international migration. There exists a small, but growing accumulation of empirical studies that consider environmentally-linked migration that spans international borders. These studies provide useful evidence for scholars and policymakers in understanding how environmental factors interact with political, economic and social factors to influence migration behavior and outcomes that are specific to international movements of people, in highlighting promising future research directions, and in raising important considerations for international policymaking. Our review identifies countries of migrant origin and destination that have so far been the subject of empirical research, the environmental factors believed to have influenced these migrations, the interactions of environmental and non-environmental factors as well as the role of context in influencing migration behavior, and the types of methods used by researchers. In reporting our findings, we identify the strengths and challenges associated with the main empirical approaches, highlight significant gaps and future opportunities for empirical work, and contribute to advancing understanding of environmental influences on international migration more generally. Specifically, we propose an exploratory framework to take into account the role of context in shaping environmental migration across borders, including the dynamic and complex interactions between environmental and non-environmental factors at a range of scales.

Detailed prospective peer review in a community radiation oncology clinic.

Science.gov (United States)

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

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

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…

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

Technology enhanced peer learning and peer assessment

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Henriksen, Christian Bugge; Bregnhøj, Henrik; Rosthøj, Susanne

2016-01-01

This paper explores the application of learning designs featuring formalised and structured technology enhanced peer learning. These include student produced learning elements, peer review discussions and peer assessment in the BSc/MSc level summer course Restoration of European Ecosystems...... and Freshwaters (REEF), the Master thesis preparation seminars for the Master of Public Health (MPH) and the MOOC course Global Environmental Management (GEM). The application of student produced learning elements and peer review discussions is investigated by analyzing quotes from course evaluations...... and performing focus group interviews. The application of peer assessment is investigated by analyzing the agreement of peer assessment between students assessing the same assignment. Our analyses confirm previous research on the value of peer learning and peer assessment and we argue that there could also...

An integrated literature review of undergraduate peer teaching in ...

African Journals Online (AJOL)

2017-03-10

Mar 10, 2017 ... For the purpose of this literature review, planned PAL is defined as peer ... PAL can be considered to address gaps in learning after assessment, and new ... National Institutes of Health on Appraising Quantitative Research in ...

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.

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.

Peer video review and feedback improve performance in basic surgical skills.

Science.gov (United States)

Vaughn, Carolyn J; Kim, Edward; O'Sullivan, Patricia; Huang, Emily; Lin, Matthew Y C; Wyles, Susannah; Palmer, Barnard J A; Pierce, Jonathan L; Chern, Hueylan

2016-02-01

Incorporation of home-video assessments allows flexibility in feedback but requires faculty time. Peer feedback (PF) may provide additional benefits while avoiding these constraints. Twenty-four surgical interns completed a 12-week skills curriculum with home-video assignments focused on knot tying and suturing. Interns were randomized into 2 groups: PF or faculty feedback (FF). Peers and faculty provided feedback on home videos with checklists, global rating, and comments. Learners' skills were assessed at baseline, during, and at the conclusion of the curriculum. Performance of the 2 groups as rated by experts was compared. FF and PF were compared. Both groups improved from baseline, and the highest rated scores were seen on their home-video assessments. The PF group performed better at the final assessment than the FF group (effect size, .84). When using a checklist, there was no significant difference between scores given by peers and faculty. The PF group performed better at the final assessment, suggesting reviewing and analyzing another's performance may improve one's own performance. With checklists as guidance, peers can serve as raters comparable to faculty. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Online Peer-to-Peer Support for Young People With Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review

OpenAIRE

Ali, Kathina; Farrer, Louise; Gulliver, Amelia; Griffiths, Kathleen M

2015-01-01

Background Adolescence and early adulthood are critical periods for the development of mental disorders. Online peer-to-peer communication is popular among young people and may improve mental health by providing social support. Previous systematic reviews have targeted Internet support groups for adults with mental health problems, including depression. However, there have been no systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of online peer-to-peer support in improving the mental health of a...

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

Background 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. Methods and Findings 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. Conclusions 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

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

OpenAIRE

Karwan Jacksi

2015-01-01

Abstract With the aim of designing and implementing a web-based article submission management system for academic research papers several international models such as Elsevier Editorial System and ICOCI International Conference on Computing and Informatics are studied and analyzed. Through this analysis an open access web-based article submission and peer review system for Journal of University of Zakho JUOZ is employed. This kind of systems is not only capable of solving issues such as compl...

Medical students-as-teachers: a systematic review of peer-assisted teaching during medical school

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Yu TC

2011-06-01

Full Text Available Tzu-Chieh Yu¹, Nichola C Wilson², Primal P Singh¹, Daniel P Lemanu¹, Susan J Hawken³, Andrew G Hill¹¹South Auckland Clinical School, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; ²Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; ³Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New ZealandIntroduction: International interest in peer-teaching and peer-assisted learning (PAL during undergraduate medical programs has grown in recent years, reflected both in literature and in practice. There, remains however, a distinct lack of objective clarity and consensus on the true effectiveness of peer-teaching and its short- and long-term impacts on learning outcomes and clinical practice.Objective: To summarize and critically appraise evidence presented on peer-teaching effectiveness and its impact on objective learning outcomes of medical students.Method: A literature search was conducted in four electronic databases. Titles and abstracts were screened and selection was based on strict eligibility criteria after examining full-texts. Two reviewers used a standard review and analysis framework to independently extract data from each study. Discrepancies in opinions were resolved by discussion in consultation with other reviewers. Adapted models of “Kirkpatrick’s Levels of Learning” were used to grade the impact size of study outcomes.Results: From 127 potential titles, 41 were obtained as full-texts, and 19 selected after close examination and group deliberation. Fifteen studies focused on student-learner outcomes and four on student-teacher learning outcomes. Ten studies utilized randomized allocation and the majority of study participants were self-selected volunteers. Written examinations and observed clinical evaluations were common study outcome assessments. Eleven studies provided student-teachers with formal teacher training. Overall, results suggest that peer-teaching, in highly selective

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.

Russian Minatom nuclear safety research strategic plan. An international review

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Royen, J.

1999-01-01

An NEA study on safety research needs of Russian-designed reactors, carried out in 1996, strongly recommended that a strategic plan for safety research be developed with respect to Russian nuclear power plants. Such a plan was developed at the Russian International Nuclear Safety Centre (RINSC) of the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom). The Strategic Plan is designed to address high-priority safety-research needs, through a combination of domestic research, the application of appropriate foreign knowledge, and collaboration. It represents major progress toward developing a comprehensive and coherent safety-research programme for Russian nuclear power plants (NPPs). The NEA undertook its review of the Strategic Plan with the objective of providing independent verification on the scope, priority, and content of the research described in the Plan based upon the experience of the international group of experts. The principal conclusions of the review and the general comments of the NEA group are presented. (K.A.)

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

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.

A Brief Introduction on Peer Review: New Possibilities

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Sean Scanlan

2013-06-01

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

[Review of: S. Okazaki Handbook of research on international advertising

NARCIS (Netherlands)

Neijens, P.

2012-01-01

In this book review, Peter Neijens considers the Handbook of Research on International Advertising edited by Shintaro Okazki to be a seminal work, with contributions by top scholars from all over the world. It covers a wide range of topics relevant to the field of international advertising, in eight

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2014-01-01

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

Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-Regulation

Science.gov (United States)

Pöschl, Ulrich

2012-01-01

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

The 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.

Mentor experiences of international healthcare students' learning in a clinical environment: A systematic review.

Science.gov (United States)

Mikkonen, Kristina; Elo, Satu; Tuomikoski, Anna-Maria; Kääriäinen, Maria

2016-05-01

Globalisation has brought new possibilities for international growth in education and professional mobility among healthcare professionals. There has been a noticeable increase of international degree programmes in non-English speaking countries in Europe, creating clinical learning challenges for healthcare students. The aim of this systematic review was to describe mentors' experiences of international healthcare students' learning in a clinical environment. The objective of the review was to identify what influences the success or failure of mentoring international healthcare students when learning in the clinical environment, with the ultimate aim being to promote optimal mentoring practice. A systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Seven electronic databases were used to search for the published results of previous research: CINAHL, Medline Ovid, Scopus, the Web of Science, Academic Search Premiere, Eric, and the Cochrane Library. Search inclusion criteria were planned in the PICOS review format by including peer-reviewed articles published in any language between 2000 and 2014. Five peer-reviewed articles remained after the screening process. The results of the original studies were analysed using a thematic synthesis. The results indicate that a positive intercultural mentor enhanced reciprocal learning by improving the experience of international healthcare students and reducing stress in the clinical environment. Integrating international healthcare students into work with domestic students was seen to be important for reciprocal learning and the avoidance of discrimination. Many healthcare students were found to share similar experiences of mentoring and learning irrespective of their cultural background. However, the role of a positive intercultural mentor was found to make a significant difference for international students: such mentors advocated and mediated cultural differences and

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.

The Influence of Peers on Diet and Exercise Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

Science.gov (United States)

Chung, Sophia Jihey; Ersig, Anne L; McCarthy, Ann Marie

Adolescents' diet and exercise are modifiable factors contributing to high rates of adolescent obesity. Diverse contextual factors, including family, social environment, and peers, affect adolescents' diet and exercise behaviors. Because peer influence increases during adolescence, peers' contributions to adolescents' diet and exercise behaviors should be examined as potential targets for intervention to reduce the prevalence of adolescent obesity. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify research examining the contribution of peers to diet and exercise of adolescents. The electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS were searched. A total of 24 unique articles were included: seven examined diet only, fourteen studied exercise only, and three explored diet and exercise. This review provided evidence that diet and exercise of adolescents were significantly associated with those of their peers. However, these associations differed depending on gender, the type of diet and exercise, and closeness of friends. Findings from this review suggest that peers could be possible targets for interventions to promote healthier diet and exercise among adolescents; however, more studies are needed to identify specific peer influences and develop tailored interventions. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Science.gov (United States)

Pytynia, Kristen B

2017-06-01

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

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

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

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.

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.

International Nuclear and Radiation Safety Experts Conclude IAEA Peer Review of Slovenia's Regulatory System

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

2011-01-01

Full text: An international team of senior nuclear safety experts today concluded a 10-day mission to review the regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation safety in Slovenia. The team identified good practices and gave advice on areas for future improvements. The IAEA has conveyed the team's main conclusions to the Government of Slovenia and a final report will be submitted by the end of 2011. At the request of the Slovenian Government, the IAEA assembled a team of 10 senior regulatory experts from nine nations to conduct the Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission involving the Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration (SNSA). The mission is a peer review based on the IAEA Safety Standards. Andrej Stritar, Director of Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration, stressed ''how important it is for a small country like Slovenia to tightly follow international standards in the area of nuclear safety.'' He also expressed his gratitude to the IAEA, and the countries from which team members came, for their support and for their intensive work during the last ten days. Mission Team Leader Colin Patchett, Deputy Chief Inspector from the UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation commended ''the Slovenian authorities for their commitment to nuclear and radiation safety regulation and for sharing their experience.'' The IRRS team reviewed Slovenia's current regulatory framework and all SNSA-regulated facilities and activities, as well as the regulatory implications of the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi accident. The IRRS team identified particular strengths in the Slovenian regulatory system, including: Through its legal framework, the Slovenian government has appointed SNSA to regulate its nuclear safety program and SNSA has in place an effective process for carrying out this responsibility; and Slovenia's response to the accident at the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi power plant has been prompt and effective. Communications with the public, development of actions for improvement

With thanks to our 2016 peer reviewers

Science.gov (United States)

2017-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Aghaee, Naghmeh; Hansson, Henrik

2013-01-01

This paper describes a specially developed online peer-review system, the Peer Portal, and the first results of its use for quality enhancement of bachelor's and master's thesis manuscripts. The peer-review system is completely student driven and therefore saves time for supervisors and creates a direct interaction between students without…

Peer Victimization and Internalizing Symptoms in Middle School Children

OpenAIRE

Grills, Amie E.

2000-01-01

The primary purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationships among peer victimization, global self-worth, social support, and internalizing behaviors (e.g., anxiety, social anxiety, and depression). Of particular interest were the potential mediating and moderating roles of global self-worth and social support in the anticipated relationships between peer victimization and internalizing symptoms. All sixth grade children from a public middle school completed self-report measur...

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)

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…

State technical review of the HLNW program and the peer review process

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Jacob, G.R.

1986-01-01

Millions of dollars are being spent on state governments' review of the Department of Energy (DOE) high level waste (HLW) repository program. A significant portion of the review efforts focus on technical issues surrounding the development and installment of HLW disposal technologies. Some view the states' technical review efforts as part of a peer review process. However, this interpretation reveals a misunderstanding of the concept of peer review and the purposes of state technical review

Psychosocial and career outcomes of peer mentorship in medical resident education: a systematic review protocol.

Science.gov (United States)

Pethrick, Helen; Nowell, Lorelli; Oddone Paolucci, Elizabeth; Lorenzetti, Liza; Jacobsen, Michele; Clancy, Tracey; Lorenzetti, Diane L

2017-08-31

Many medical residents lack ready access to social and emotional supports that enable them to successfully cope with the challenges associated with medical residency. This absence of support has been shown to lead to high levels of burnout, decreased mental wellbeing, and difficulty mastering professional competencies in this population. While there is emerging evidence that peer mentoring can be an important source of psychosocial and career-related support for many individuals, the extent of the evidence regarding the benefits of peer mentorship in medical residency education has not yet been established. We describe a protocol for a systematic review to assess the effects of peer mentoring on medical residents' mental wellbeing, social connectedness, and professional competencies. Studies included in this review will be those that report on peer-mentoring relationships among medical residents. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies will be eligible for inclusion. No date or language limits will be applied. We will search EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, Education Research Complete, and Academic Research Complete databases to identify relevant studies. Two authors will independently assess all abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion and study quality and extract study data in duplicate. This is the first systematic review to explicitly explore the role of peer mentoring in the context of medical residency education. We anticipate that the findings from this review will raise awareness of the benefits and challenges associated with peer-mentoring relationships, further the development and implementation of formal peer-mentoring programs for medical residents, and, through identifying gaps in the existing literature, inform future research efforts. This protocol has not been registered in PROSPERO or any other publicly accessible registry.

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.

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.

Russian MINATOM nuclear safety research strategic plan. An international review

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1999-03-01

The 'Safety Research Strategic Plan for Russian Nuclear Power Plants' was published in draft form at the Russian International Nuclear Safety Centre (RINSC) by a working group of fifteen senior Russian experts. The Plan consists of 12 chapters, each addressing a specific technical area and containing a number of proposed research programmes and projects to advance the state-of-knowledge in that area. In part because a strong Recommendation to undertake such a Plan was made by the 1998 OECD/NEA study, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency was asked by the Director of RINSC and the Director of USINSC to organize an international review of the Plan when the English-language version became available in October, 1998. This report represents the results of that review. (R.P.)

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.

Physical sciences research plans for the International Space Station

Science.gov (United States)

Trinh, E. H.

2003-01-01

The restructuring of the research capabilities of the International Space Station has forced a reassessment of the Physical Sciences research plans and a re-targeting of the major scientific thrusts. The combination of already selected peer-reviewed flight investigations with the initiation of new research and technology programs will allow the maximization of the ISS scientific and technological potential. Fundamental and applied research will use a combination of ISS-based facilities, ground-based activities, and other experimental platforms to address issues impacting fundamental knowledge, industrial and medical applications on Earth, and the technology required for human space exploration. The current flight investigation research plan shows a large number of principal investigators selected to use the remaining planned research facilities. c2003 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

Science.gov (United States)

Vorobel, Oksana; Kim, Deoksoon

2014-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2012-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Vyas, Dinesh; Hozain, Ahmed E

2014-06-07

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

Adolescents’ Internalizing Symptoms as Predictors of the Content of Their Facebook Communication and Responses Received from Peers

Science.gov (United States)

Ehrenreich, Samuel E.; Underwood, Marion K.

2016-01-01

This research examined how adolescents’ internalizing symptoms, such as depression, anxiety, and loneliness, relate to the content of their Facebook communication and the responses they receive from peers on Facebook. Participants (n = 125, 56 female, age 18) reported on their internalizing symptoms in the summer following 12th grade, and downloaded an application to their Facebook account that stored the content of all of their Facebook communication to secure, online archive. Two months of participants’ status updates and comments and peers’ comments were coded for content. Relations between internalizing symptoms and Facebook communication differed for girls and boys. For girls, internalizing symptoms predicted several types of Facebook content: negative affect, somatic complaints and eliciting support. In contrast, internalizing symptoms were not related to boys’ Facebook posts. Relations between internalizing symptoms and peers’ responses on Facebook also differed by gender. For girls, internalizing symptoms positively predicted receiving more peer comments expressing negative affect, and peer responses offering support. For boys, internalizing symptoms did not predict any of the measured peer responses. These findings suggest that girls prone to internalizing symptoms use Facebook in ways that appear similar to co-rumination, by expressing problems to friends and receive possibly reinforcing feedback in return. PMID:28083544

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

The growth of peer support: an international charter.

Science.gov (United States)

Stratford, Anthony C; Halpin, Matt; Phillips, Keely; Skerritt, Frances; Beales, Anne; Cheng, Vincent; Hammond, Magdel; O'Hagan, Mary; Loreto, Catherine; Tiengtom, Kim; Kobe, Benon; Harrington, Steve; Fisher, Dan; Davidson, Larry

2017-07-06

While mental health peer support originated in its contemporary form in English-speaking countries, it is now spreading rapidly across the globe. This rapid growth presents two major challenges. The first pertains to "role integrity" and the second to the possible culture-bound nature of peer support; a concern which has attended the emergence of peer support in countries that have significantly different worldviews. Recognizing the growth of peer support and the resulting challenges, this report results from the convening of an international consortium of peer leaders from six continents (all but Antarctica). Following an environmental scan of the state of peer support globally, this group moved to develop consensus on a common, core set of guiding principles and values to ensure a robust future for the development of effective, culturally responsive forms of peer support. Key principles, values and practices considered essential to peer support are presented. Assuming that sufficient political and community support are generated, there can be considerable enthusiasm for the expansion of peer support around the globe. Peer leaders are encouraged, however, to develop and deliver peer support both with integrity to its founding values in a civil rights and social justice framework and with responsiveness to local cultural worldviews.

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.

Essential Features for a Scholarly Journal Content Management and Peer Review Software

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Fatima Sheikh Shoaie

2010-03-01

Full Text Available   The present study investigates the software used in scientific journals for content management and peer review, in order to identify the essential features. These softwares are analyzed and presented in tabular format. A questionnaire was prepared and submitted to a panel composed of 15 referees, editor in chief, software designers and researchers. The essential features for a software managing the review process were divided into three groups with populations of 10-15, 5-10 and 0-5 respectively. The majority of peer review process software features, in view of panelists, fell into a group of features with a population of 10-15. Finally it should be said that the features represented by the first group must be taken into account when designing or purchasing a peer review software. The second tier features (with population of 5-10 are recommended given journal's status and capabilities. The third tier features were altogether discounted due to low population

A workstation-integrated peer review quality assurance program: pilot study

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

O’Keeffe, Margaret M; Davis, Todd M; Siminoski, Kerry

2013-01-01

The surrogate indicator of radiological excellence that has become accepted is consistency of assessments between radiologists, and the technique that has become the standard for evaluating concordance is peer review. This study describes the results of a workstation-integrated peer review program in a busy outpatient radiology practice. Workstation-based peer review was performed using the software program Intelerad Peer Review. Cases for review were randomly chosen from those being actively reported. If an appropriate prior study was available, and if the reviewing radiologist and the original interpreting radiologist had not exceeded review targets, the case was scored using the modified RADPEER system. There were 2,241 cases randomly assigned for peer review. Of selected cases, 1,705 (76%) were interpreted. Reviewing radiologists agreed with prior reports in 99.1% of assessments. Positive feedback (score 0) was given in three cases (0.2%) and concordance (scores of 0 to 2) was assigned in 99.4%, similar to reported rates of 97.0% to 99.8%. Clinically significant discrepancies (scores of 3 or 4) were identified in 10 cases (0.6%). Eighty-eight percent of reviewed radiologists found the reviews worthwhile, 79% found scores appropriate, and 65% felt feedback was appropriate. Two-thirds of radiologists found case rounds discussing significant discrepancies to be valuable. The workstation-based computerized peer review process used in this pilot project was seamlessly incorporated into the normal workday and met most criteria for an ideal peer review system. Clinically significant discrepancies were identified in 0.6% of cases, similar to published outcomes using the RADPEER system. Reviewed radiologists felt the process was worthwhile

A workstation-integrated peer review quality assurance program: pilot study

Science.gov (United States)

2013-01-01

Background The surrogate indicator of radiological excellence that has become accepted is consistency of assessments between radiologists, and the technique that has become the standard for evaluating concordance is peer review. This study describes the results of a workstation-integrated peer review program in a busy outpatient radiology practice. Methods Workstation-based peer review was performed using the software program Intelerad Peer Review. Cases for review were randomly chosen from those being actively reported. If an appropriate prior study was available, and if the reviewing radiologist and the original interpreting radiologist had not exceeded review targets, the case was scored using the modified RADPEER system. Results There were 2,241 cases randomly assigned for peer review. Of selected cases, 1,705 (76%) were interpreted. Reviewing radiologists agreed with prior reports in 99.1% of assessments. Positive feedback (score 0) was given in three cases (0.2%) and concordance (scores of 0 to 2) was assigned in 99.4%, similar to reported rates of 97.0% to 99.8%. Clinically significant discrepancies (scores of 3 or 4) were identified in 10 cases (0.6%). Eighty-eight percent of reviewed radiologists found the reviews worthwhile, 79% found scores appropriate, and 65% felt feedback was appropriate. Two-thirds of radiologists found case rounds discussing significant discrepancies to be valuable. Conclusions The workstation-based computerized peer review process used in this pilot project was seamlessly incorporated into the normal workday and met most criteria for an ideal peer review system. Clinically significant discrepancies were identified in 0.6% of cases, similar to published outcomes using the RADPEER system. Reviewed radiologists felt the process was worthwhile. PMID:23822583

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.

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.

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.

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.

The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.

Science.gov (United States)

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

2011-01-01

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

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.

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 ...

A polythematic real-time synergistic hybrid data telecommunication system for scientific research with bidirectional fuzzy feedback peer review by expert referees