WorldWideScience

Sample records for pre peer review

  1. 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…

  2. Pre-peer review of Hungarian research and innovation system : Horizon 2020 policy support facility

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Ortega Argiles, Raquel; Ranga, Liana Marina; Anthony, Bartzokas

    2015-01-01

    This Report provides the outcome of the Pre-Peer Review of the Hungarian research and innovation system, carried out by a panel of experts under the Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility. The expert panel arrived at a first assessment of strengths and weaknesses including key bottlenecks as well as a

  3. Peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Twaij, H; Oussedik, S; Hoffmeyer, P

    2014-04-01

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

  4. Peer Review

    OpenAIRE

    Ratna Winata, Lucia

    2016-01-01

    - Peer Review Microbiological analysis of Dringking Water and Soybean Milk, Proceeding International Seminar "Strategy to manage Bio- Eco- Health System for Stabilizing animal health and Productivity to support public health, ISBN: 978-602-8967-69-3, Surabaya-Indonesia 19-20 June 2012 JW Marriot Hotel Surabaya, Faculty of Veterinary medicine- Universitas Airlangga

  5. PEER REVIEWER

    OpenAIRE

    2016-01-01

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

  6. PEER REVIEWER

    OpenAIRE

    Nur, Amin

    2015-01-01

    - PEER REVIEWER Judul: Environmental Risk Assessment of transgenic cotton in South Sulawesi, Indonesia : Impact on Soil microorganisms (Key Note Lecture) Penulis: Antonius Suwanto, Yusminah hala and Nur Amin. SPIN : Scientific Programme Indonesia Netherlands BIORIN : Biotechnology Research Indonesian Netherlands, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 25 th Februari 2003. Hal. 1-9.

  7. Peer Review

    OpenAIRE

    ANIS IRAWAN ANWAR, ANIS IRAWAN ANWAR

    2013-01-01

    - Peer Review IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICHAL ANALYSIS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF ADENOHYPOPHYSIAL CELLS IN THE PITUITARY PARS DISTALIS OF THE OSTRICH (STRUTHIO CAMELUS), Proceeding International Seminar "Strategy to manage Bio-Eco-Health system for stabilizing animal health and productivity to support public health, Surabaya- Indonesia, 19- 20 June 2012 JW Marriot Hotel Surabaya, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine- Universitas Airlangga, Centre Publishing and Printing of Airlangga University (AUP)

  8. Peer-review thoughts

    Science.gov (United States)

    Barnes, Bill; Goodman, Maurice

    2016-03-01

    In reply to the news article on challenges for peer-review by Michael Banks “Peer review under the spotlight” (February pp12-13), the editorial by Matin Durrani “Handle with care” cautioning against reforming peer review too fast (February p15) and Robert P Crease's article “Peer review's value” (February p17).

  9. Peer Review

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Dannesboe, Christian

    Peer-teknikker brugt i undervisning vinder frem mange steder. Teknikkerne er skalerbare til meget store hold af studerende, og ses derfor som et af de værktøjer, der med fordel kan introduceres som underviser, når holdstørrelserne vokser.......Peer-teknikker brugt i undervisning vinder frem mange steder. Teknikkerne er skalerbare til meget store hold af studerende, og ses derfor som et af de værktøjer, der med fordel kan introduceres som underviser, når holdstørrelserne vokser....

  10. Peer Review

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Dannesboe, Christian

    Peer-teknikker brugt i undervisning vinder frem mange steder. Teknikkerne er skalerbare til meget store hold af studerende, og ses derfor som et af de værktøjer, der med fordel kan introduceres som underviser, når holdstørrelserne vokser....

  11. The "Peer" in "Peer Review"

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  12. AQUATOX Peer Review Documents

    Science.gov (United States)

    AQUATOX Release 2 underwent an external peer review in early 2003, and Release 3 underwent an external peer review in late 2008. Reviewers stated model enhancements have made AQUATOX one of the most exciting tools in aquatic ecosystem management.

  13. Re-Viewing Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Flynn, Elizabeth A.

    2011-01-01

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

  14. 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.

  15. Peer reviewing made easy

    OpenAIRE

    Halder, Neel; Ramsay, Rosalind; Tyrer, Peter; Casey, Patricia R.

    2011-01-01

    Peer review in scientific journals has existed for over 200 years. This process is currently the accepted way of assessing scientific manuscripts prior to publication for most journals. Despite this, little has been written about the process of peer reviewing, with hardly anything specific to psychiatric journals. This article answers fundamental questions related to peer reviewing and includes practical tips to writing reviews. It will be helpful for those keen on improving their knowledge a...

  16. 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.

  17. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2016-08-01

    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.

  18. 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…

  19. Peer Reviewer Recognition 2016.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2017-03-01

    Dear CPCJ Peer Reviewers, As we start 2017, it is again time to say thank you to all the 2016 peer reviewers. Published bimonthly with a global readership, CPCJ is the official organ of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. For the six issues of Volume 53, 2016, 114 articles were published in 963 pages with 756 print pages and 207 online-only pages. Three hundred and forty-six manuscripts were received and 321 were processed by 23 Section Editors and reviewed by 355 peer reviewers. Through your collective efforts and expertise, the quality of CPCJ continues to grow. The journal website had a 0.5% increase in the number of total site visits, with 142,916 visits (as compared to 142,156 in 2015), and the AllenTrack submission site also experienced an increase in usage-new users increased 3.4% during 2016, from 1203 to 1244. Together with the entire editorial team, Dr. Stephen Conley, the Associate Editor of CPCJ, and I would like to thank all the peer reviewers for your tremendous work for the journal over the past twelve months. Because of you our journal is growing and poised to undergo a critical metamorphosis. CPCJ is our journal and it will serve the global readership even better on all matters related to craniofacial conditions by increasing in both quantity and quality in the years to come. Sincerely, Jack C. Yu, Editor, CPCJ Stephen F. Conley, Associate Editor, CPCJ.

  20. MELCOR Peer Review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    1992-03-01

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

  1. Perchlorate Peer Review Frequent Questions

    Science.gov (United States)

    EPA believes that peer review is an important component of the scientific process. EPA will ask peer reviewers to comment on products that the agency will use to derive a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for perchlorate.

  2. 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.

  3. Further thoughts on peer review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cottey, Alan; noamsoker

    2016-04-01

    In reply to the news article “Peer review under the spotlight” (February pp12-13), the editorial “Handle with care” cautioning against reforming peer review too quickly (February p15) and Robert P Crease's article “Peer review's value” (February p17, http://ow.ly/Ya9gg).

  4. Peer review online, wat werkt?

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    van der Hulst, J.; van den Berg, I.

    2008-01-01

    Bij peer review geven studenten elkaar feedback op elkaars werkstukken. Er bestaan verschillende systemen om dit online te organiseren. In deze workshop gaan we in op selectiecriteria voor peer review systemen. In het PROOF-project (Peer Review Online Opschalen en Faciliteren) is gewerkt met twee so

  5. Recommendations for pathology peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Morton, Daniel; Sellers, Rani S; Barale-Thomas, Erio; Bolon, Brad; George, Catherine; Hardisty, Jerry F; Irizarry, Armando; McKay, Jennifer S; Odin, Marielle; Teranishi, Munehiro

    2010-12-01

    Pathology peer review verifies and improves the accuracy and quality of pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Pathology peer review is recommended when important risk assessment or business decisions are based on nonclinical studies. For pathology peer review conducted before study completion, the peer-review pathologist reviews sufficient slides and pathology data to assist the study pathologist in refining pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Materials to be reviewed are selected by the peer-review pathologist. Consultations with additional experts or a formal (documented) pathology working group may be used to resolve discrepancies. The study pathologist is solely responsible for the content of the final pathology data and report, makes changes resulting from peer-review discussions, initiates the audit trail for microscopic observations after all changes resulting from peer-review have been made, and signs the final pathologist's report. The peer-review pathologist creates a signed peer-review memo describing the peer-review process and confirming that the study pathologist's report accurately and appropriately reflects the pathology data. The study pathologist also may sign a statement of consensus. It is not necessary to archive working notes created during the peer-review process.

  6. CONTAIN independent peer review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    1995-01-01

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

  7. Peer review in cardiothoracic radiology.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kanne, Jeffrey P

    2014-09-01

    A variety of peer review methods can be used as part of quality assurance and quality improvement in cardiothoracic radiology. Traditionally, peer review in radiology is a retrospective process relying primarily on review of previously interpreted studies at the time of follow-up or additional imaging. However, peer review can be enhanced with other methods such as double reads, focused practice review, practice audit, and correlation with operative and pathologic findings. Furthermore, feedback from referring physicians can be extremely useful in improving the quality of a radiology practice. This article discusses peer review in radiology with a focus on cardiothoracic imaging. Types of peer review, advantages and shortcomings, and future challenges are addressed.

  8. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Maunsell John HR

    2009-03-01

    Full Text Available Abstract As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the experiment has worked. In order to encourage dissemination of the details outlined in this Editorial, it will also be published in other journals in the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.

  9. Editorial behaviors in peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wang, Wei; Kong, Xiangjie; Zhang, Jun; Chen, Zhen; Xia, Feng; Wang, Xianwen

    2016-01-01

    Editors play a critical role in the peer review system. How do editorial behaviors affect the performance of peer review? No quantitative model to date allows us to measure the influence of editorial behaviors on different peer review stages such as, manuscript distribution and final decision making. Here, we propose an agent-based model in which the process of peer review is guided mainly by the social interactions among three kinds of agents representing authors, editors and reviewers respectively. We apply this model to analyze a number of editorial behaviors such as decision strategy, number of reviewers and editorial bias on peer review. We find out that peer review outcomes are significantly sensitive to different editorial behaviors. With a small fraction (10 %) of biased editors, the quality of accepted papers declines 11 %, which indicates that effects of editorial biased behavior is worse than that of biased reviewers (7 %). While several peer review models exist, this is the first account for the study of editorial behaviors that is validated on the basis of simulation analysis.

  10. Comparison of outcomes and other variables between conference abstracts and subsequent peer-reviewed papers involving pre-harvest or abattoir-level interventions against foodborne pathogens.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Snedeker, Kate G; Campbell, Mollie; Totton, Sarah C; Guthrie, Alessia; Sargeant, Jan M

    2010-11-01

    Accuracy in the reporting of studies in conference abstracts is important because the majority of studies in such abstracts are never further detailed in peer-reviewed publications, and data from such abstracts may be used in systematic reviews. Previous research on interventional studies in human biomedicine indicates that there is no guarantee of consistency between a conference abstract and paper in the reporting of results and other key variables. However, no research has been done to determine if this lack of reporting consistency in abstracts and papers extends to interventional studies in pre-harvest/harvest-level food safety. The goal of this study was to compare outcome results and other key variables between conference abstracts and subsequent peer-reviewed publications describing studies of pre-harvest and abattoir-level interventions against foodborne pathogens, and to determine whether the agreement in the results or key variables was associated with the time to full publication. A systematic search identified 59 conference abstracts with matching peer-reviewed papers (matches), and data on variables including outcome measures and results, pathogens, species, interventions, overall efficacy of intervention, sample size and housing were extracted from both the conference abstracts and the papers. The matching of variables between abstracts and papers was described, and logistic regression used to test for associations between variable matching and time to publication. Sample size was only provided for both abstract and paper in 24 matches; the same sample size was reported in 20 of these matches. Most other variables were reported in the majority of abstracts/papers, and with the exception of outcomes and intervention effect, the reporting of variables was relatively consistent. There was no significant difference in the numbers of authors, with the first author the same in 78.3% of matches. Of 231 outcome measures reported in both abstracts and papers

  11. 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.

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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…

  15. 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…

  16. Emerging trends in peer review - a survey

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Richard eWalker

    2015-05-01

    Full Text Available Classical peer review has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. Based on an initial literature review, we construct a sample of 81 channels of scientific communication covering all forms of review identified by the survey and analyze the review mechanisms used by each channel. We identify two major trends: the rapidly expanding role of pre-print servers (e.g. ArXiv that dispense with traditional peer review altogether and the growth of non-selective review, focusing on papers’ scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty. Other potentially important developments include forms of open review, which remove reviewer anonymity and interactive review, as well as new mechanisms for post-publication review and out-of-channel reader commentary, especially critical commentary targeting high profile papers. One of the strongest findings of the survey is the persistence of major differences between the peer review processes used by different disciplines. None of these differences is likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. The most likely scenario for the coming years is thus continued diversification, in which different review mechanisms serve different author and reader needs. Relatively little is known about the impact of these innovations on the problems they address. These are important questions for future quantitative research.

  17. Perceptions of Peer Review Using Cloud-Based Software

    Science.gov (United States)

    Andrichuk, Gjoa

    2016-01-01

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

  18. 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…

  19. 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...

  20. 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…

  1. Introduction to Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

    Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (English)

    2011-01-01

    @@ Introduction The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium is an alliance of neuroscience journals that have agreed to accept manuscript reviews from other members of the Consortium.Its goals are to support efficient and thorough peer review of original research in neuroscience, speed the publication of research reports, and reduce the burden on peer reviewers.

  2. 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…

  3. 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 ...

  4. Peer Reviewers Learn from Giving Comments

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cho, Young Hoan; Cho, Kwangsu

    2011-01-01

    Research on peer reviewing has revealed that comments received from peer reviewers are helpful when it comes to making revisions in an individual's writing, but the role of providing comments to peer writers has been little explored despite the potential value of such research. In this study, we explored how student reviewers learn by reviewing…

  5. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Peer Reviews. 215.270 Section 215.270 Federal Acquisition Regulations System DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT... of Proposals and Information 215.270 Peer Reviews. Agency officials shall conduct Peer Reviews...

  6. 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...

  7. 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.

  8. Peer Review of Launch Environments

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wilson, Timmy R.

    2011-01-01

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

  9. 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…

  10. 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…

  11. 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…

  12. [Double-blind peer review].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fenyvesi, Tamás

    2002-02-03

    The peer review process in medical sciences is much debated. The method is not yet evidence based. Who are the reviewers and how do they perform? They are "independent" experts. As such they are bound to be involved in research similar to that outlined in the manuscript. Very often they are contestant in the same race. That is why the author consider the double blind method, where the author is blinded and the reviewer masked from each other's identity, the best choice. Nevertheless in very many scientific journals of high quality and envied impact factors do not blind the identity of the authors. Science is a race for fame, self accomplishment and also a means to get grants for pursuing the scientific research. Only success is able to provide resources for expensive scientific research. There is no fail-safe method against bias in grant giving and editorial process. In the tidal wave of electronic information it is mandatory to help in differentiating between signal and noise in science. Peer review is the best method to protect readers from the trash of uncontrolled publications in medical science.

  13. CDMRP: Fostering Innovation Through Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

    objectives. Research proposals (applications) are reviewed using a two-tiered process that includes peer review panels that evaluate scientific merit...that will have an impact on the communities affected by the relevant illness, injury, or disorder. Scientific peer review is executed using a dynamic...CDMRP’s peer review processes support the organization’s mission to fund innovative, high-impact research.

  14. Evaluative Language in Peer Review Referee Reports

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fortanet, Inmaculada

    2008-01-01

    Most international journals and conferences currently use the peer review system to ensure the quality of their contributions. Among the various types of peer review, the "blind" and the "anonymous" review seem to be the most common. Reviewers, or referees, usually write reports anonymously to indicate to authors what they should change in their…

  15. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  16. 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 ‘cognition’ describes enabling conditions for flexible behavior, the practices of peer-review thus constrain knowledge-making. To pursue cognitive functions of peer-review, however, manuscripts must be seen as ‘symbolizations’, replicable patterns that use technologically enabled activity. On this bio......-cognitive view, peer-review constrains knowledge-making by writers, editors, reviewers. Authors are prompted to recursively re-aggregate symbolizations to present what are deemed acceptable knowledge claims. How, then, can recursive re-embodiment be explored? In illustration, I sketch how the paper’s own content...

  17. Writing Quality Peer Reviews of Research Manuscripts

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  18. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer Reviews.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... Procurement and Acquisition Policy, will organize teams of reviewers and facilitate Peer Reviews for... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Peer Reviews. 201.170... OF DEFENSE GENERAL FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM Purpose, Authority, Issuance 201.170...

  19. 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…

  20. Gender bias in scholarly peer review

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-01-01

    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. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718.001

  1. Censorship and the peer review system

    CERN Document Server

    Svozil, K

    2002-01-01

    In the best of all worlds, peer review amounts to benign censorship, saving trees, human efforts and money spent by attempts to cope with erroneous or badly written papers. In the worst case, ``peer review'' amounts to malign censorship, impede progress, and hence to a waste of human efforts and (mostly taxpayer's) money. It is argued that, by the way it is commonly executed by editorial boards and funding agencies, peer review does often more bad than good. In an academic environment which is increasingly ``objectivized'' and administered by quality measures of private business, careful peer review is almost punished, since it amounts to ``unproductive time.'' If paid realistically, it would be excessively expensive. Very little attention is also given to the quality of the review process. Alternatives to ``peer review'' are briefly suggested and discussed.

  2. 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.

  3. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Number of peer reviewers. 34.106 Section 34.106 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.106 Number of peer reviewers. The number of peer reviewers will vary by program...

  4. 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 § 34.104 Use of peer review. (a) Peer review for competitive and noncompetitive applications. (1)...

  5. 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...

  6. 2009 Water Power Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    2011-04-01

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

  7. Peer Review: Structured, Informal, Confidential, Helpful!

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cassidy, Alice; Lee, Jack

    2011-01-01

    This paper describes an introductory workshop, Preparing to be a Peer Reviewer, presented at the University of British Columbia (UBC) to give hands-on practice to faculty members and others in order to provide formative peer review upon request. This workshop, which was designed at the request of a faculty member, is complemented by an Advanced…

  8. The role of peer assessment and peer review in nursing.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gopee, N

    With the implementation of clinical governance and professional self-regulation, substantial responsibility is devolved on to clinical nurses. Central to these two concepts is accountability for practice. We are accountable for our professional competence and knowledge to various parties such as the professional statutory body, the employer, society as well as ourselves. Although self-assessment provides each individual with a medium for ascertaining his/her own level of performance and, therefore, identifying his/her learning needs, peer review and peer assessment provide healthy means for obtaining feedback and external perceptions. They also bring with them several other benefits and meet other recommended professional requirements. Peer review is an intrinsic component of clinical governance, and it can be initiated and implemented at one-to-one, departmental or organizational level.

  9. An open science peer review oath

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Allen, Thomas Wesley

    2013-12-01

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

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    2013-12-01

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

  12. Peer bullying in a pre-registration student nursing population.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cooper, Brenda; Curzio, Joan

    2012-11-01

    Peer bullying is a major problem in schools and workplaces including the National Health Service. Although there are a few published studies exploring the incidence of peer bullying among university students, none is specific to pre-registration nursing students. Nursing programmes are delivered across two campuses of the university however students registered at individual campuses do not mix which makes the experiences of each campus individual. The aim of this study was to explore the incidence and manifestation of peer bullying amongst pre-registration nursing students in the university setting. The study describes the reported incidence of the three types of peer bullying behaviour: physical, verbal and non-verbal bullying. Participants in their final year of adult nurse education were asked to explore their perceptions of peer bullying, the frequency of witnessed or experienced behaviour and the location of where this behaviour occurred on the university campuses via a quantitative questionnaire. In total 190 students were surveyed with 156 (82%) responding. Participants reported peer bullying is experienced by student nurses on university premises and that academic members of staff are sometimes present when this behaviour is demonstrated. Reported levels of bullying decreased during their 2nd and 3rd years of the course compared to the foundation year. This decrease may have been in response to the university's strong anti-bullying stance.

  13. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Felthous, Alan R; Wettstein, Robert M

    2014-01-01

    Peer reviewers have been called the gatekeepers of science. For journal publications in forensic psychiatry, as well as other disciplines, the purposes of peer review are to assist in the selection of manuscripts to publish, improve the quality of manuscripts before their publication, and promote the fairness of the process. In this article, we examine, in particular, characteristics of high-quality peer reviewers, selection of peer reviewers, recruitment and retention of peer reviewers, desired quality of peer-reviewer ratings, and the value of peer review. We conclude with specific, albeit largely untested, recommendations for improvements in peer review of forensic mental health publications.

  14. Understanding Peer Review of Scientific Research

    Science.gov (United States)

    Association of American Universities, 2011

    2011-01-01

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

  15. Student Peer Review Decisions on Submitted Manuscripts Are as Stringent as Faculty Peer Reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Navalta, James W.; Lyons, T. Scott

    2010-01-01

    The "International Journal of Exercise Science" is the only student-centered peer-reviewed journal in its field. Upon graduate student first author submissions, two student reviewers and one faculty reviewer are asked to review. On professionally submitted papers, two faculty peers are asked to assess the manuscript. The purpose of the present…

  16. Reviewer Stances and Writer Perceptions in EFL Peer Review Training

    Science.gov (United States)

    Min, Hui-Tzu

    2008-01-01

    Research has shown that reviewers' stances can impact the efficacy of peer response/review and subsequent revision. The purpose of this classroom-based study was to compare reviewer stances and writer perceptions of/and attitudes toward these stances prior to and after peer review training in an EFL writing class. Eighteen intermediate EFL writers…

  17. Thank you to our 2016 peer reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-02-01

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

  18. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Qualifications of peer reviewers. 34.109 Section 34.109 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.109 Qualifications of peer reviewers. The general reviewer qualification criteria to...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. Directed peer review in surgical pathology.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Smith, Maxwell L; Raab, Stephen S

    2012-09-01

    Second pathologist peer review is used in many surgical laboratory quality-assurance programs to detect error. Directed peer review is 1 method of second review and involves the selection of specific case types, such as cases from a particular site of anatomic origin. The benefits of using the directed peer review method are unique and directed peer review detects both errors in diagnostic accuracy and precision and this detection may be used to improve practice. We utilize the Lean quality improvement A3 method of problem solving to investigate these issues. The A3 method defines surgical pathology diagnostic error and describes the current state in surgical pathology, performs root cause analysis, hypothesizes an ideal state, and provides opportunities for improvement in error reduction. Published data indicate that directed peer review practices may be used to prevent active cognitive errors that lead to patient harm. Pathologists also may use directed peer review data to target latent factors that contribute to error and improve diagnostic precision.

  2. 2013 Bioenergy Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None, None

    2014-02-01

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

  3. 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

  4. Geothermal Technologies Program Overview - Peer Review Program

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    2011-06-06

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

  5. Peer Review in Collective Context of China

    Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (English)

    田秀峰

    2013-01-01

    Peer review, which incorporates the U.S. ideology of individualism, is regarded as an effective tool in writing classes for improving students’ writing proficiency and fostering their critical writing/revising skills (Ramanathan&Atkinson, 1999). Collectivism seems to be an impediment in peer reviewing according to Ramanathan&Atkinson (1999);however, it may not be the case due to the different contexts or cultural beliefs that students carry with.

  6. Evaluacion entre colegas profesores (Peer Review of Teachers). ERIC Digest.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hertling, Elizabeth

    This digest in Spanish examines peer review, focusing on how these types of reviews can improve teacher competence. Peer review is often linked to peer assistance, which helps new and veteran teachers improve their knowledge and skills. In peer-review programs, consulting teachers conduct formal evaluations and recommend whether the participating…

  7. 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 Peer Review § 34.110 Management of peer reviews. A technical support contractor may assist in...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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.

  11. 2013 Geothermal Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Geothermal Technologies Office

    2014-01-01

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

  12. Assessing Postgraduate Student Perceptions and Measures of Learning in a Peer Review Feedback Process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Simpson, Genevieve; Clifton, Julian

    2016-01-01

    Peer review feedback, developed to assist students with increasing the quality of group reports and developing peer review skills, was added to a master's level Climate Change Policy and Planning unit. A pre- and post-survey was conducted to determine whether students found the process a valuable learning opportunity: 87% of students responding to…

  13. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Kitas, George D

    2012-08-01

    Current scholarly publications heavily rely on high quality peer review. Peer review, albeit imperfect, is aimed at improving science writing and editing. Evidence supporting peer review as a guarantor of the quality of biomedical publications is currently lacking. Its outcomes are largely dependent on the credentials of the reviewers. Several lines of evidence suggest that predictors of the best contributors to the process include affiliation to a good University and proper research training. Though the options to further improve peer review are currently limited, experts are in favor of formal education and courses on peer review for all contributors to this process. Long-term studies are warranted to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

  14. Using a peer review exercise to teach students the value of the peer review process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cook, G. W.; Cook, H. M.

    2015-12-01

    The peer review process is integral to legitimate scientific study. Undergraduate students in geoscience classes often have a poor understanding of the process and specifically do not understand what constitutes peer-reviewed literature. This becomes especially apparent in situations where students are asked to write research-oriented papers or essays that make use of peer-reviewed scientific sources. Often, they believe that news articles and online sources such as blogs constitute valid (peer-reviewed) scientific sources. We make use of a relatively simple in-class exercise in our introductory geoscience classes that teaches students the necessity of the review process and educates them about the true nature and value of peer-reviewed literature. It also reinforces an understanding of the scientific method in the context of conducting literature-based research. Students report that they are better equipped to conduct research using scientific literature as a result of participating in the exercise.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kluge, S; Bause, H

    2015-01-01

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

  16. The ups and downs of peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Benos, Dale J; Bashari, Edlira; Chaves, Jose M; Gaggar, Amit; Kapoor, Niren; LaFrance, Martin; Mans, Robert; Mayhew, David; McGowan, Sara; Polter, Abigail; Qadri, Yawar; Sarfare, Shanta; Schultz, Kevin; Splittgerber, Ryan; Stephenson, Jason; Tower, Cristy; Walton, R Grace; Zotov, Alexander

    2007-06-01

    This article traces the history of peer review of scientific publications, plotting the development of the process from its inception to its present-day application. We discuss the merits of peer review and its weaknesses, both perceived and real, as well as the practicalities of several major proposed changes to the system. It is our hope that readers will gain a better appreciation of the complexities of the process and, when serving as reviewers themselves, will do so in a manner that will enhance the utility of the exercise. We also propose the development of an international on-line training program for accreditation of potential referees.

  17. Nurse Participation in Medical Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Orme, June Y.; Lindbeck, Rosemary S.

    1974-01-01

    The Utah Professional Review Organization (UPRO) enables nurse-coordinators to conduct an ongoing evaluation of the quality of patient care, to upgrade care through physician-sponsored continuing education programs, and to limit care cost, in a medical peer review program. (DS)

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Lei Li

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  20. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Dimitroulis, G

    2011-12-01

    Writing a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a rewarding experience but a very difficult undertaking that requires years of experience, determination and patience. The exponential rise of knowledge has resulted in the exponential rise of manuscripts submitted for publication in the various peer-reviewed journals all over the world. Potential authors are not only having to write high-quality papers to get published, but also have to compete with other authors for the limited journal space available to publish their papers. The purpose of this article is to highlight some of the ways of making the task of getting published in peer-reviewed journals easier to achieve. Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

  1. 75 FR 18205 - Notice of Peer Review Meeting for the External Peer Review Drafts of Two Documents on Using...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-04-09

    ... AGENCY Notice of Peer Review Meeting for the External Peer Review Drafts of Two Documents on Using... Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Peer Review Meeting with Opportunity for Public Comment. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor for external scientific peer...

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Redesigning educational peer review interactions using computer tools: An introduction

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Ilya M. Goldin, Kevin D. Ashley & Christian D. Schunn

    2012-11-01

    Full Text Available Peer review is a family of instructional techniques. Historically, these have been employed in writing and many other educational domains. Modern computer technologies facilitate the use of peer review, which is especially relevant to educational settings where it is not practical to administer peer review manually. The use of computer support for peer review has shed light on many important scientific questions, some of which we summarize. These findings set the context for the papers in this special issue, which demonstrate how computer support for peer review enables research on peer review itself and on its pedagogical significance.

  5. Geothermal Technologies Office 2012 Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2013-04-01

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

  6. Journals, repositories, peer review, non-peer review, and the future of scholarly communication

    CERN Document Server

    Wood, Michael

    2013-01-01

    Peer reviewed journals are a key part of the system by which academic knowledge is developed and communicated. Problems have often been noted, and alternatives proposed, but the journal system still survives. In this article I focus on problems relating to reliance on subject-specific journals and peer review. Contrary to what is often assumed, there are alternatives to the current system, some of which have only becoming viable since the rise of the world wide web. The market for academic ideas should be opened up by separating the publication service from the review service: the former would ideally be served by an open access, web-based repository system encompassing all disciplines, whereas the latter should be opened up to encourage non-peer reviews from different perspectives, user reviews, statistics reviews, reviews from the perspective of different disciplines, and so on. The possibility of multiple reviews of the same artefact should encourage competition between reviewing organizations and should m...

  7. Allowing Students to Select Deliverables for Peer Review: Analysis of a Free-Selection Protocol

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2011-01-01

    This study analyzes the benefits and limitations of a “free-selection” peer assignment protocol by comparing them to the widely implemented “assigned-pair” protocol. The primary motivation was to circumvent the issues that often appear to the instructors implementing peer review activities with pre...

  8. 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…

  9. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Peer review of contract proposals. 67.103 Section..., INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of Contracts... Administrator for review to a peer review group, as required in section 922(a) of the PHS Act. Proposals will...

  10. 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…

  11. Peer Review Methods for ESL Writing Improvement

    Science.gov (United States)

    Soares, Colleen J.

    2004-01-01

    This teacher research shows how peer reviews change draft papers. In the majority of cases, final papers improved in content. The study analyzes data collected from 40 intermediate/advanced nonnative speakers of English enrolled in freshman composition for international students at a large private university. It also examines student reflections…

  12. Implementation of Peer-Reviewed Homework Assignments

    Science.gov (United States)

    Zare, Richard N.; Cox, Charles T., Jr.; Murphy, Katherine; Bayas, Camille

    2017-01-01

    In large, introductory courses, instructors and teaching assistants often struggle to provide detailed feedback on student homework in a timely manner. Here we describe a peer-reviewed homework system that provides quick turnaround while offering flexibility in the construction of homework problems. Homework is administered through a cycle, which…

  13. Implementation of Peer-Reviewed Homework Assignments

    Science.gov (United States)

    Zare, Richard N.; Cox, Charles T., Jr.; Murphy, Katherine; Bayas, Camille

    2017-01-01

    In large, introductory courses, instructors and teaching assistants often struggle to provide detailed feedback on student homework in a timely manner. Here we describe a peer-reviewed homework system that provides quick turnaround while offering flexibility in the construction of homework problems. Homework is administered through a cycle, which…

  14. 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...

  15. 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…

  16. Ocean sciences peer review in NSF

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wall, Robert E.

    Someone—I believe it was a German statesman—once said that there were two questions to which most people did not really want answers: What goes in to sausage? and How are government decisions made? I am sure there is some truth here. Although I'm not familiar with what has been happening in the area of sausage making, there have been many discussions and several recent studies about the use and effectiveness of peer review in federal agencies deciding what research to support.This article is precipitated by these recent studies, by the availability of quantitative peer review data in the Ocean Sciences Research Section (OSRS) of the National Science Foundation (NSF), and by continuing questions and statements concerning the peer review process that suggest some misunderstanding about what it is and how it works. My intent in this article is to describe the general process of peer review used in OSRS and to explain some of the variations in that process. Data and statistics on proposals considered for support with Fiscal Year (FY) 1981 funds help illustrate the process.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 2014 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2014-10-01

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

  20. 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.

  1. Peer Review and Quality Assessment in Complete Denture Education.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Novetsky, Marvin; Razzoog, Michael E.

    1981-01-01

    A program in peer review and quality assessment at the University of Michigan denture department is described. The program exposes students to peer review in order to assess the quality of their treatment. (Author/MLW)

  2. Evaluation for citation metrics and peer reviewer acknowledgments.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Green, Bart N

    2016-10-01

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

  3. Quality assurance in packaging design through the peer review process

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Andersen, J.A.

    1983-01-01

    The formulation of a peer design review group, the method for accomplishing the study, and the organization and scope of the task are presented by using the recently accomplished TRUPACT preliminary design peer review as a case study.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Coté, Robert A.

    2014-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Ulysses Paulino de Albuquerque

    2011-02-01

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

  6. How important tasks are performed: peer review

    CERN Document Server

    Hartonen, T; 10.1038/srep01679

    2013-01-01

    The advancement of various fields of science depends on the actions of individual scientists via the peer review process. The referees' work patterns and stochastic nature of decision making both relate to the particular features of refereeing and to the universal aspects of human behavior. Here, we show that the time a referee takes to write a report on a scientific manuscript depends on the final verdict. The data is compared to a model, where the review takes place in an ongoing competition of completing an important composite task with a large number of concurrent ones - a Deadline -effect. In peer review human decision making and task completion combine both long-range predictability and stochastic variation due to a large degree of ever-changing external "friction".

  7. How important tasks are performed: peer review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hartonen, T.; Alava, M. J.

    2013-04-01

    The advancement of various fields of science depends on the actions of individual scientists via the peer review process. The referees' work patterns and stochastic nature of decision making both relate to the particular features of refereeing and to the universal aspects of human behavior. Here, we show that the time a referee takes to write a report on a scientific manuscript depends on the final verdict. The data is compared to a model, where the review takes place in an ongoing competition of completing an important composite task with a large number of concurrent ones - a Deadline -effect. In peer review human decision making and task completion combine both long-range predictability and stochastic variation due to a large degree of ever-changing external ``friction''.

  8. 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…

  9. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

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

  10. 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)

  11. 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)

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 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 fiscal year for which the grant is provided, provide for independent peer review to assess the...

  15. 42 CFR 67.15 - Peer review of applications.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Peer review of applications. 67.15 Section 67.15... Services Research, Evaluation, Demonstration, and Dissemination Projects § 67.15 Peer review of applications. (a) General procedures for peer review. (1) All applications for support under this subpart...

  16. 75 FR 4062 - Peer Review Best Practices Workshop

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-26

    ... and has used a variety of peer review approaches to select the best projects to perform this work. To... project proposals. The workshop will explore classic peer review processes such as those at NSF, NIH, and... the Meeting: To examine best practices for peer review of research, development, demonstration...

  17. Collaborative learning through formative peer review: pedagogy, programs and potential

    Science.gov (United States)

    Søndergaard, Harald; Mulder, Raoul A.

    2012-12-01

    We examine student peer review, with an emphasis on formative practice and collaborative learning, rather than peer grading. Opportunities to engage students in such formative peer assessment are growing, as a range of online tools become available to manage and simplify the process of administering student peer review. We consider whether pedagogical requirements for student peer review are likely to be discipline-specific, taking computer science and software engineering as an example. We then summarise what attributes are important for a modern generic peer review tool, and classify tools according to four prevalent emphases, using currently available, mature tools to illustrate each. We conclude by identifying some gaps in current understanding of formative peer review, and discuss how online tools for student peer review can help create opportunities to answer some of these questions.

  18. Proposals for the writing of peer reviews in lexicography

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Bergenholtz, Henning; Gouws, Rufus

    2015-01-01

    . Currently they can be included in a database, but they do not count as scientific outputs. The situation for peer reviews is similar. Peer reviews are an important quality assurance tool in the scientific publication process. Good peer reviews have some mutual characteristics with reviews, especially...... 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...... blind peer review. Another proposal focuses on the role of the editor and his ability to decide if a peer review should be rejected and not be forwarded to the author....

  19. Proposals for the writing of peer reviews in lexicography

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Bergenholtz, Henning; Gouws, Rufus

    2015-01-01

    . Currently they can be included in a database, but they do not count as scientific outputs. The situation for peer reviews is similar. Peer reviews are an important quality assurance tool in the scientific publication process. Good peer reviews have some mutual characteristics with reviews, especially...... 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...... blind peer review. Another proposal focuses on the role of the editor and his ability to decide if a peer review should be rejected and not be forwarded to the author....

  20. What is open peer review? A systematic review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ross-Hellauer, Tony

    2017-01-01

    Background: “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with a myriad of overlapping and often contradictory definitions. While the term is used by some to refer to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. Methods: Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are then systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the many different innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. Results: This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how  ambiguously the phrase “open peer review”  has been used thus far, for the literature offers a total of 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature. Conclusions: Based on this work, I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the ethos of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Review times in peer review: quantitative analysis of editorial workflows

    CERN Document Server

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

    2015-01-01

    We examine selected aspects of peer review and suggest possible improvements. To this end, we analyse a dataset containing information about 300 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. After separating the peer review process into stages that each review has to go through, we use a weighted directed graph to describe it in a probabilistic manner and test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole process.

  4. 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…

  5. Using Calibrated Peer Review to Teach Basic Research Skills

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bracke, Marianne S.; Graveel, John G.

    2014-01-01

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

  6. Peer Coaching and Pre-Service Teachers: Examining an Underutilised Concept

    Science.gov (United States)

    Britton, Linda R.; Anderson, Kenneth A.

    2010-01-01

    The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of peer coaching on the classroom practices of pre-service teachers. Four teacher interns learned peer coaching functions and techniques before participating in coaching cycles with their peers. Pairs of participants reciprocally observed classes, collected data, and held conferences. Multiple…

  7. Streaming Videos in Peer Assessment to Support Training Pre-Service Teachers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wu, Cheng-Chih; Kao, Hue-Ching

    2008-01-01

    A web-based peer assessment system using video streaming technology was implemented to support the training of pre-service teachers. The peer assessment process was synchronized with viewing of peer teaching videos so that comments could be linked to the relevant position on the video. When one viewed a comment, the associated video segment could…

  8. 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…

  9. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Corradini, M.L. (Wisconsin Univ., Madison, WI (United States). Dept. of Nuclear Engineering); Dhir, V.K. (Dhir, (V.K.) Santa Monica, CA (United States)); Haste, T.J. (AEA Technology, Winfrith (United Kingdom)); Heames, T.J. (Science Applications, Inc., Albuquerque, NM (United States)); Jenks, R.P. (Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States)); Kelly, J.E. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM

    1993-01-01

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

  10. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    1993-01-01

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

  11. Rebound peer review: a viable recourse for aggrieved authors?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sen, Chandan K

    2012-02-15

    Scholarly peer review represents the linchpin of academic publishing. Recognized benefits of the peer review system are manifold. Critics raise several valid concerns that deserve attention. Several studies show that the current peer review system lacks robustness and is subject to bias in favor of well-established research groups and "mainstream" theories. Hypotheses that harmonize with that of the leaders in the field are more likely to be accepted for publication in prestigious journals than heretic or radical ones. Then, there is the risk posed by the potentially unscrupulous reviewer. Alternatives to traditional peer review have been tried but the outcomes fall much short of expectations. Postreview rejection can be equally frustrating for the author and editor particularly when they are victims of limitations of the blinded forms of review. To provide recourse for authors who felt that their work has been rejected not because of the quality of science but because of the constraints of the peer review system, ARS introduces a rebound track for peer review ( www.liebertpub.com/ars ). The rebound peer review track is a two-tier process that represents a hybrid of partially blinded and open peer review systems. The goal is to make sure that every author has the opportunity to rescue their rejected work which they feel may have been victimized by the glitches of the current peer review system. I invite affected authors to make full use of this experimental mechanism so we know whether the rebound peer review should prevail as a viable recourse.

  12. 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

  13. 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 peer-r

  14. Predicting Pre-Service Teachers' Intention of Implementing Peer Assessment for Low-Achieving Students

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yim, Su Yon; Cho, Young Hoan

    2016-01-01

    Despite the benefits of peer assessment, many teachers are not willing to implement it, particularly for low-achieving students. This study used the theory of planned behaviour to predict pre-service teachers' intention to use peer assessment for low-achieving students. A total of 229 pre-service teachers in Singapore participated in the survey…

  15. Predicting Pre-Service Teachers' Intention of Implementing Peer Assessment for Low-Achieving Students

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yim, Su Yon; Cho, Young Hoan

    2016-01-01

    Despite the benefits of peer assessment, many teachers are not willing to implement it, particularly for low-achieving students. This study used the theory of planned behaviour to predict pre-service teachers' intention to use peer assessment for low-achieving students. A total of 229 pre-service teachers in Singapore participated in the survey…

  16. Commercial Lighting Solutions, Webtool Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Jones, Carol C.; Meyer, Tracy A.

    2009-06-17

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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Hadiseh Esmaeeli

    2014-08-01

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

  1. 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.

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

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2016-01-01

    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...

  3. 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.

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

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

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

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

  6. 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…

  7. 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... and the Seminole Tribe of Florida may initiate an external peer review process to review...

  8. Prisoner peer caregiving: a literature review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Stewart, Warren; Edmond, Nadia

    2017-04-05

    Aim To explore the role of prisoner caregivers in providing peer social care to older prisoners and to identify methodological information and challenges to conducting research in prisons, to inform future research in this setting. Method The literature review was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, a systematic literature review was undertaken to retrieve articles related to prisoner caregiving. The main themes from these articles were identified. In the second stage, a narrative literature review was undertaken to provide contextual and methodological information about research, which may support future research in prisons. Findings The main themes identified in the systematic literature review were: the benefits of prisoner caregiving; training needs; and the organisational implications of implementing prisoner caregiving. The narrative literature review identified a range of methodological approaches used to undertake research in prisons. Challenges to undertaking research in prisons included practical issues, the influence of power on relationships and the difficulty for researchers not to take the side of either the prisoners or prison staff. Conclusion The role of prisoner caregiver is increasingly recognised as important, and is associated with several benefits to individual prisoners and the prison community. However, further training is required for prisoner caregivers, and there is a need for further research into the prisoner caregiving role, using a methodology that is suitable for the prison setting.

  9. 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.

  10. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    BLOOMQUIST,DOUGLAS D.

    2000-12-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2016-12-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara; Adeli, Khosrow

    2014-10-01

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

  13. 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

  14. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Benson, P J

    2015-10-01

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

  16. Using Peer Review to Improve Student Writing in Business Courses

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rieber, Lloyd J.

    2006-01-01

    Student peer review has proven an effective technique for improving student writing in both English and business communication classes, yet the technique is not widely used in business courses other than business communication. In this article, the author discusses using student peer review in business classes to improve students' final written…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yang, Yu-Fen

    2011-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2004-06-01

    Medicare patients at risk for pressure ulcers ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE. 2001 JUN 25 161 12 1549 1554 Lyles A. Peer review and evidence...MAY-JUN 117 3 291 298 Moore JD Jr. Bedsores : $1 billion burden. N.Y. peer review organization tries education to stop a preventable problem. Mod

  19. Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2012-01-01

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

  20. Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2012-01-01

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

  1. Peer Review Improves the Quality of MCQ Examinations

    Science.gov (United States)

    Malau-Aduli, Bunmi S.; Zimitat, Craig

    2012-01-01

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

  2. EU and OECD benchmarking and peer review compared

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Groenendijk, Nico

    2009-01-01

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

  3. 7 CFR 3406.23 - Access to peer review information.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  4. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  5. 7 CFR 3405.16 - Access to peer review information.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  6. 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.

  7. Peer Review and Surgical Innovation: Robotic Surgery and Its Hurdles.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Vyas, Dinesh; Cronin, Sean

    2015-12-01

    The peer review processes as outlined in the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) is meant ensure quality standard of care through a self-policing mechanism by the medical community. This process grants immunity for people filing a peer review, which is meant to protect whistleblowers. However, it also creates a loophole that can be used maliciously to hinder competition. This is accentuated when surgeons are integrating new technologies, such as robotic surgery, into their practice. With more than 2000 da Vinci robots in use and more than 300 new units being shipped each year, robotic surgery has become a mainstay in the surgical field. The applications for robots continue to expand as surgeons discover their expanding capability. We need a better peer review process. That ensures the peer review is void of competitive bias. Peer reviewers need to be familiar with the procedure and the technology. The current process could stymie innovation in the name of competition.

  8. Process and quality of peer review in scientific Nursing journals

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Wai Tong Chien

    2011-09-01

    Full Text Available To be high quality and international recognized scientific journal for health care professions, such as medical and nursing disciplines, a well-structured and effective peer review system is of an utmost importance. Beckstead (2009 in his guest editorial published in the September issue of International Journal of Nursing Studies suggested that it was important for authors, as well as editors and publishers, to have a clear understanding of whom the intended readers of the journal are; and for the peer reviewers, to answer a key question: whom are we writing to? and more importantly, to assure a transparent, rigorous and quality peer-review. Their questions and declarations stimulated us to think about two important issues: first, the importance of a high quality and effective peer-review in a scientific nursing journal and second, the peer-review system, its monitoring and contribution to quality improvement.

  9. Research Workshop 2: How to Peer Review a Manuscript

    OpenAIRE

    Farrokh Habibzadeh

    2009-01-01

    "nObjectives: "nTo understand what “peer review” is "nWhat editors expect from reviewers "nHow to review a paper "nDo’s and Don’ts! "nHow to report your review "nPlan: "Peer review process is the cornerstone of evaluating the submitted manuscripts to biomedical journals. Considering the increasing trend in research publications in our country over the past decade, we witness establishment of new journals and higher num...

  10. 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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Aliaksandr eBirukou

    2011-12-01

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

  12. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Biddle, Chuck

    2011-10-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Geithner, Christina A; Pollastro, Alexandria N

    2016-03-01

    Doing peer review has been effectively implemented to help students develop critical reading and writing skills; however, its application in Human Physiology programs is limited. The purpose of the present study was to determine the impact of peer review on Human Physiology majors' perceptions of their scientific literacy and writing skills. Students enrolled in the Scientific Writing course completed multiple writing assignments, including three revisions after receiving peer and instructor feedback. Students self-assessed their knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to science and writing in pre- and postcourse surveys (n = 26 with complete data). Seven survey items related to scientific literacy and writing skills impacted by peer review were selected for analysis. Scores on these survey items were summed to form a composite self-rating score. Responses to two questions regarding the most useful learning activities were submitted to frequency analysis. Mean postcourse scores for individual survey items and composite self-rating scores were significantly higher than precourse means (P Peer review was the most frequently noted among 21 learning activities for increasing scientific literacy and in the top 5 for improving writing skills. In conclusion, peer review is an effective teaching/learning approach for improving undergraduate Human Physiology majors' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding science and scientific writing.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Andrade-Navarro Miguel A

    2012-09-01

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

  16. External Peer Review Report on the Missile Defense Agency Office of Internal Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    2015-05-14

    No. DODIG-2015-123 M A Y 1 4 , 2 0 1 5 External Peer Review Report on the Missile Defense Agency Office of Internal Review Report Documentation...3. DATES COVERED 00-00-2015 to 00-00-2015 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE External Peer Review Report on the Missile Defense Agency Office of Internal... REVIEW SUBJECT: External Peer Review Report on the Missile Defense Agency Office of Internal Review (Report No. DODIG-2015-123) Attached is the

  17. Facilitating Improved Writing among Students through Directed Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Crossman, Joanne M.; Kite, Stacey L.

    2012-01-01

    This study contributes to scant empirical investigation of peer critique of writing among heterogeneously grouped native and nonnative speakers of English, now commonplace in higher education. This mixed-methods study investigated the use of directed peer review to improve writing among graduate students, the majority of whom were nonnative…

  18. The Multiple Faces of Peer Review in Science Education

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tobin, Kenneth

    2002-04-01

    I use autobiographical narratives to describe and analyse my involvement in peer review activities in science education and to illustrate their historical, social and cultural constitution. I explore ways in which peer review and science education have interrelated in 30-plus years in which I have been a science educator. I employ cultural sociology and activity theory to identify patterns of coherence and coexisting contradictions that create tensions able to catalyse improvements in science education. I argue that early career science educators need a gradual induction into peer review activities, preferably increasing their effectiveness by coparticipating with more experienced colleagues. Also, I critically examine my roles as a peer reviewer, within various contexts that include being an editor of journals and a book series, an examiner of dissertations and an advisor of graduate students, and as a reviewer of applications for tenure and promotion. In so doing I probe power relationships between the reviewer and the reviewed and explore the possibility that peer review is hegemonic. Finally, I present strategies for science educators to reach a collective understanding of how to enact peer review equitably.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Zuzana Kubincová

    2016-04-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chop, Ines; Eberlein-Gonska, Maria

    2012-01-01

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

  1. Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Guilford, W H

    2001-12-01

    Many undergraduate and graduate students understand neither the process of scientific writing nor the significance of peer review. In response, some instructors have created writing assignments that teach or mimic parts of the scientific publishing process. However, none fully reproduced peer review and revision of papers together with the writing and publishing process from research to final, accepted draft. In addition, most have been instituted at the graduate rather than undergraduate level. We present a detailed method for teaching undergraduate students the full scientific publishing process, including anonymous peer review, during the process of writing a "term paper." The result is a review article in the format for submission to a major scientific journal. This method has been implemented in the course Cell and Molecular Biology for Engineers at the University of Virginia. Use of this method resulted in improved grades, much higher quality in the final manuscript, greater objectivity in grading, and improved understanding of the importance of peer review.

  2. 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.

  3. A Study on Reflective Reciprocal Peer Coaching for Pre-Service Teachers: Change in Reflectivity

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gonen, S. Ipek Kuru

    2016-01-01

    Reflective practice is considered as an effective way for professional development in order to gain awareness of one's own teaching as well as to compete with the changing needs of the students. Especially in pre-service period, when pre-service teachers work cooperatively with their peers in a reciprocal fashion towards reflectivity, it has a…

  4. 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.

  5. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52... composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and... information, or conferences, must be reviewed by a peer review panel that consists of a majority of...

  6. The Peer Education Approach in Adolescents- Narrative Review Article

    Science.gov (United States)

    Abdi, Fatemeh; Simbar, Masoumeh

    2013-01-01

    Abstract Adolescence is an important stage of human life span, which crucial developmental processes occur. Since peers play a critical role in the psychosocial development of most adolescents, peer education is currently considered as a health promotion strategy in adolescents. Peer education is defined as a system of delivering knowledge that improves social learning and provides psychosocial support. As identifying the outcomes of different educational approaches will be beneficial in choosing the most effective programs for training adolescents, the present article reviewed the impact of the peer education approach on adolescents. In this review, databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, ISI, and Iranian databases, from 1999 to 2013, were searched using a number of keywords. Peer education is an effective tool for promoting healthy behaviors among adolescents. The development of this social process depends on the settings, context, and the values and expectations of the participants. Therefore, designing such programs requires proper preparation, training, supervision, and evaluation. PMID:26171331

  7. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-02-02

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

  8. Administrative Sciences Introduces Double Blind Peer-Review

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Martyn Rittman

    2015-06-01

    Full Text Available Peer-review has become, and remains, the cornerstone on which scientific publication is built. Despite criticism, it remains almost the only method by which acceptance into the corpus of research literature is based. [...

  9. Peer Review Comments on the IRIS Assessment of Benzene

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  10. Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and Disposition

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  11. 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.

  12. 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).

  13. Peer Feedback Negotiation Strategies of Pre-intermediate JSL Learners

    OpenAIRE

    杉山, 純子; スギヤマ, ジュンコ; Sugiyama, Junko

    1999-01-01

    What types of feedback can truly help learners of foreign languages improve their writing skills? Although teacher response to student writing has been an object of study for a long time, there is little agreement as to how and when teachers should correct errors and comment on content. However, it seems to be generally agreed that revision is an essential way to improve student writing. Peer feedback has been considered one of the effective ways to help student revision, as it requires stude...

  14. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Walker, Richard; Rocha da Silva, Pascal

    2015-01-01

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

  15. 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…

  16. The JSC Engineering Directorate Product Peer Review Process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jenks, Kenneth C.

    2009-01-01

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

  17. Sample size and precision in NIH peer review.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    David Kaplan

    Full Text Available The Working Group on Peer Review of the Advisory Committee to the Director of NIH has recommended that at least 4 reviewers should be used to assess each grant application. A sample size analysis of the number of reviewers needed to evaluate grant applications reveals that a substantially larger number of evaluators are required to provide the level of precision that is currently mandated. NIH should adjust their peer review system to account for the number of reviewers needed to provide adequate precision in their evaluations.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Irene Hames

    2014-02-01

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

  19. Peer-to-Peer Teaching in Higher Education: A Critical Literature Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Stigmar, Martin

    2016-01-01

    The aim of my critical literature review is to identify studies where students are engaged as partners in teaching in higher education and to analyze how tutors and tutees benefit from peer teaching. Thirty studies were included for review. Thirteen countries are represented and two thirds of the studies conducted in the United States of America…

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

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

  1. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Esmaeeli, Hadiseh; Abasi, Maasumeh; Soori, Afshin

    2014-01-01

    This study aims to investigate the effect of peer review training on the Iranian EFL students' subsequent revision in an advanced writing class in Larestan Islamic Azad University. After 12 weeks class demonstration, teacher-reviewer conferences with 20 male and female students, the students' first drafts, revisions, and reviewers' comments were…

  3. 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…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Trautmann, Nancy M.

    2009-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Peiling Wang

    2016-11-01

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

  9. 2013 Building Technologies Office Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2013-11-01

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

  10. Peer Review Certifies Quality and Innovation in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Waldman, S A; Terzic, A

    2017-09-01

    Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is an established voice of the discipline, a trusted source of new knowledge showcasing discovery, translation, and application of novel therapeutic paradigms to advance the management of patients and populations. Identifying, evaluating, prioritizing, and disseminating the best science along the discovery-development-regulatory-utilization continuum are responsibilities shared through peer review. To enhance the uniformity of this essential component of quality assurance and innovation, and maximize the value of the journal and its contents to authors, reviewers, and the readership, we review key concepts concerning peer review as it specifically relates to CPT. © 2017 ASCPT.

  11. On becoming a peer reviewer for a neuropsychology journal.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Duff, Kevin; O'Bryant, Sid E; Westervelt, Holly James; Sweet, Jerry J; Reynolds, Cecil R; van Gorp, Wilfred G; Tranel, Daniel; McCaffrey, Robert J

    2009-05-01

    The peer-review process is an invaluable service provided by the professional community, and it provides the critical foundation for the advancement of science. However, there is remarkably little systematic guidance for individuals who wish to become part of this process. This paper, written from the perspective of reviewers and editors with varying levels of experience, provides general guidelines and advice for new reviewers in neuropsychology, as well as outlining benefits of participation in this process. It is hoped that the current information will encourage individuals at all levels to become involved in peer-reviewing for neuropsychology journals.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pytynia, Kristen B

    2016-09-27

    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.

  15. Meaningful Peer Review in Radiology: A Review of Current Practices and Potential Future Directions.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Moriarity, Andrew K; Hawkins, C Matthew; Geis, J Raymond; Dreyer, Keith J; Kamer, Aaron P; Khandheria, Paras; Morey, Jose; Whitfill, James; Wiggins, Richard H; Itri, Jason N

    2016-12-01

    The current practice of peer review within radiology is well developed and widely implemented compared with other medical specialties. However, there are many factors that limit current peer review practices from reducing diagnostic errors and improving patient care. The development of "meaningful peer review" requires a transition away from compliance toward quality improvement, whereby the information and insights gained facilitate education and drive systematic improvements that reduce the frequency and impact of diagnostic error. The next generation of peer review requires significant improvements in IT functionality and integration, enabling features such as anonymization, adjudication by multiple specialists, categorization and analysis of errors, tracking, feedback, and easy export into teaching files and other media that require strong partnerships with vendors. In this article, the authors assess various peer review practices, with focused discussion on current limitations and future needs for meaningful peer review in radiology.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Naghmeh Aghaee

    2013-03-01

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

  17. Peer review of grant applications: a simple method to identify proposals with discordant reviews.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Giraudeau, Bruno; Leyrat, Clémence; Le Gouge, Amélie; Léger, Julie; Caille, Agnès

    2011-01-01

    Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some proposals may result in discordant peer-review ratings and therefore require discussion by the selection committee members. The issue is which peer-review ratings are considered as discordant. We propose a simple method to identify such proposals. Our approach is based on the intraclass correlation coefficient, which is usually used in assessing agreement in studies with continuous ratings.

  18. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Giunta, R E; Prommersberger, K-J

    2012-08-01

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

  20. 34 CFR 350.50 - What is the peer review process for this Program?

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the peer review process for this Program? 350... peer review process for this Program? (a) The Secretary refers each application for a grant governed by those regulations in this part to a peer review panel established by the Secretary. (b) Peer...

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Allison Hirst

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

  2. Peer reviews and the role of a journal editor

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  3. Relationships among Shyness, Social Competence, Peer Relations, and Theory of Mind among Pre-Adolescents

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kokkinos, Constantinos M.; Kakarani, Styliani; Kolovou, Demetra

    2016-01-01

    The present study examined the relationships between shyness, a number of personal and interpersonal variables (i.e. social skills, self-esteem, attachment style, advanced Theory of Mind skills and peer relations) in a sample of 243 Greek pre-adolescents. Participants completed self-reports of the variables. Results indicated that females scored…

  4. Relationships among Shyness, Social Competence, Peer Relations, and Theory of Mind among Pre-Adolescents

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kokkinos, Constantinos M.; Kakarani, Styliani; Kolovou, Demetra

    2016-01-01

    The present study examined the relationships between shyness, a number of personal and interpersonal variables (i.e. social skills, self-esteem, attachment style, advanced Theory of Mind skills and peer relations) in a sample of 243 Greek pre-adolescents. Participants completed self-reports of the variables. Results indicated that females scored…

  5. Reliability of reviewer ratings in the manuscript peer review process: an opportunity for improvement.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Onitilo, Adedayo A; Engel, Jessica M; Salzman-Scott, Sherry A; Stankowski, Rachel V; Doi, Suhail A R

    2013-01-01

    Accountability to authors and readers cannot exist without proper peer review practices. Thus, the information a journal seeks from its peer reviewers and how it makes use of this information is paramount. Disagreement amongst peer reviewers can be considerable, resulting in very diverse comments to authors. Incorporating a clear scoring system for key concrete items and requiring referees to provide justification for scores may ensure that reviewers contribute in a consistently fair and effective manner. This article evaluates information collected from reviewers and proposes an example of a system that aims to improve accountability, while having the potential to make it easier for reviewers to perform a more objective review.

  6. 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....

  7. 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....

  8. A systematic guide for peer reviewers for a medical journal.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Garfield, Joseph M; Kaye, Alan David; Kolinsky, Daniel C; Urman, Richard D

    2015-01-01

    Performing a peer review of an article under consideration for publication requires not only an understanding of the subject matter, but also a systematic approach that includes screening for conflicts of interest; determining whether the manuscript is within or outside the reviewer's area of expertise; properly classifying the manuscript; and writing a detailed, organized review. Although some journals may provide guidelines for the reviewers, the guidelines usually are not detailed and do not take into consideration the variability in reviewer experience. This article is meant to serve as a guideline for peer reviewers and provide concrete information on how to write a comprehensive, unbiased review that will serve both the author and the journal well.

  9. P3ERS: Privacy-Preserving PEer Review System

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Esma Aimeur

    2012-12-01

    Full Text Available Even though they integrate some blind submission functionalities, current conference review systems, such as EasyChair and EDAS, do not fully protect the privacy of authors and reviewers, in particular from the eyes of the program chair. As a consequence, their use may cause a lack of objectivity in the decision process. In~this paper, we address this issue by proposing P3ERS (for Privacy-Preserving PEer Review System, a distributed conference review system based on group signatures, which aims at preserving the privacy of all participants involved in the peer review process. For~this purpose, we have improved on a generic group signature scheme with revocation features and implemented it in order to ensure the anonymity of the submission and the reviewing phases. We argue that P3ERS could contribute to increase objectivity during the conference review process while maintaining privacy of the various participants.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Richard R Snell

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

  11. Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Snell, Richard R.

    2015-01-01

    Peer review represents the primary mechanism used by funding agencies to allocate financial support and by journals to select manuscripts for publication, yet recent Cochrane reviews determined literature on peer review best practice is sparse. Key to improving the process are reduction of inherent vulnerability to high degree of randomness and, from an economic perspective, limiting both the substantial indirect costs related to reviewer time invested and direct administrative costs to funding agencies, publishers and research institutions. Use of additional reviewers per application may increase reliability and decision consistency, but adds to overall cost and burden. The optimal number of reviewers per application, while not known, is thought to vary with accuracy of judges or evaluation methods. Here I use bootstrapping of replicated peer review data from a Post-doctoral Fellowships competition to show that five reviewers per application represents a practical optimum which avoids large random effects evident when fewer reviewers are used, a point where additional reviewers at increasing cost provides only diminishing incremental gains in chance-corrected consistency of decision outcomes. Random effects were most evident in the relative mid-range of competitiveness. Results support aggressive high- and low-end stratification or triaging of applications for subsequent stages of review, with the proportion and set of mid-range submissions to be retained for further consideration being dependent on overall success rate. PMID:25830238

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Faggion, C M

    2016-02-26

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

  13. Biodiversity data should be published, cited, and peer reviewed.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Costello, Mark J; Michener, William K; Gahegan, Mark; Zhang, Zhi-Qiang; Bourne, Philip E

    2013-08-01

    Concerns over data quality impede the use of public biodiversity databases and subsequent benefits to society. Data publication could follow the well-established publication process: with automated quality checks, peer review, and editorial decisions. This would improve data accuracy, reduce the need for users to 'clean' the data, and might increase data use. Authors and editors would get due credit for a peer-reviewed (data) publication through use and citation metrics. Adopting standards related to data citation, accessibility, metadata, and quality control would facilitate integration of data across data sets. Here, we propose a staged publication process involving editorial and technical quality controls, of which the final (and optional) stage includes peer review, the most meritorious publication standard in science. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  14. Calibrated peer review assignments for the earth sciences

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2009-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kratz, John Ernest; Strasser, Carly

    2015-01-01

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

  16. 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.

  17. Peer review er ikke baseret på evidens, men på traditioner og gode intentioner

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Vinther, Siri; Rosenberg, Jacob

    2013-01-01

    Ideally, peer review is a method for guaranteeing and improving scientific work, but in terms of evidence we do not know much about what peer review is, what it does or how it could do better. There have been several attempts to improve the current system, but neither blinding, anonymisation, nor...... training of reviewers seem to make a big difference. The traditional "pre-publication" system seems to be based on tradition and good intentions rather than evidence. "Post-publication" review, which allows all members of the biomedical community to evaluate a certain work, may be an effective supplement...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2016-07-26

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

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

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2013-01-01

    within 2 years of the conference. Less is known about the relative difference between countries in regards to likelihood of publication. Methods: Using a validated automated computer algorithm, we searched the ISI Web of Science to identify peer-reviewed publications of abstracts presented at the AHA...... observed a significant variation among countries in terms of odds of subsequent publication (Figure). Conclusions: Our results show that conversion of science from an abstract into a peer-reviewed publication varies significantly by country. Local national initiatives should be deployed in order to break...

  20. 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.

  1. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Clark, R K F

    2012-08-01

    Peer review is an important stage in academic publishing, as a form of quality control to maintain the integrity of both the articles and the journals they appear in. However, the confidential nature of the relationship between reviewer and author does not necessarily benefit the system; with some reviewers using their anonymity to give unnecessary, injudicious comment. This paper explores the motives behind the reviewer's comments and how peer review could be improved by openness and honesty.

  2. The role of peer review in a health care organization driven by TQM/CQI.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wakefield, D S; Helms, C M

    1995-05-01

    Many health care organizations have embraced the philosophy and tools of total quality management (TQM) and continuous quality improvement (CQI) without overt linkage to existing peer review processes. Achieving total quality in an organization requires that both peer review and TQM/CQI improvement processes be effectively used. Three ways of linking peer review and TQM/CQI include: 1) coordinating TQM/CQI and peer review quality improvement initiatives whenever possible; 2) expanding the focus of peer review to include assessment of the processes and systems within which the clinician functions; and 3) linking peer review and TQM/CQI improvement processes to address behavioral and attitudinal issues having economic roots.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chan, Zenobia C Y

    2016-04-01

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

  4. Peer-Reviewed Open Research Data: Results of a Pilot

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Marjan Grootveld

    2012-12-01

    Full Text Available Peer review of publications is at the core of science and primarily seen as instrument for ensuring research quality. However, it is less common to independently value the quality of the underlying data as well. In the light of the ‘data deluge’ it makes sense to extend peer review to the data itself and this way evaluate the degree to which the data are fit for re-use. This paper describes a pilot study at EASY - the electronic archive for (open research data at our institution. In EASY, researchers can archive their data and add metadata themselves. Devoted to open access and data sharing, at the archive we are interested in further enriching these metadata with peer reviews.As a pilot, we established a workflow where researchers who have downloaded data sets from the archive were asked to review the downloaded data set. This paper describes the details of the pilot including the findings, both quantitative and qualitative. Finally, we discuss issues that need to be solved when such a pilot is turned into a structural peer review functionality for the archiving system.

  5. Peer-supported review of teaching: an evaluation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Thampy, Harish; Bourke, Michael; Naran, Prasheena

    2015-09-01

    Peer-supported review (also called peer observation) of teaching is a commonly implemented method of ascertaining teaching quality that supplements student feedback. A large variety of scheme formats with rather differing purposes are described in the literature. They range from purely formative, developmental formats that facilitate a tutor's reflection of their own teaching to reaffirm strengths and identify potential areas for development through to faculty- or institution-driven summative quality assurance-based schemes. Much of the current literature in this field focuses within general higher education and on the development of rating scales, checklists or observation tools to help guide the process. This study reports findings from a qualitative evaluation of a purely formative peer-supported review of teaching scheme that was implemented for general practice clinical tutors at our medical school and describes tutors' attitudes and perceived benefits and challenges when undergoing observation.

  6. Randomised controlled trials of veterinary homeopathy: characterising the peer-reviewed research literature for systematic review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mathie, Robert T; Hacke, Daniela; Clausen, Jürgen

    2012-10-01

    Systematic review of the research evidence in veterinary homeopathy has never previously been carried out. This paper presents the search methods, together with categorised lists of retrieved records, that enable us to identify the literature that is acceptable for future systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in veterinary homeopathy. All randomised and controlled trials of homeopathic intervention (prophylaxis and/or treatment of disease, in any species except man) were appraised according to pre-specified criteria. The following databases were systematically searched from their inception up to and including March 2011: AMED; Carstens-Stiftung Homeopathic Veterinary Clinical Research (HomVetCR) database; CINAHL; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Embase; Hom-Inform; LILACS; PubMed; Science Citation Index; Scopus. One hundred and fifty records were retrieved; 38 satisfied the acceptance criteria (substantive report of a clinical treatment or prophylaxis trial in veterinary homeopathic medicine randomised and controlled and published in a peer-reviewed journal), and were thus eligible for future planned systematic review. Approximately half of the rejected records were theses. Seven species and 27 different species-specific medical conditions were represented in the 38 papers. Similar numbers of papers reported trials of treatment and prophylaxis (n=21 and n=17 respectively) and were controlled against placebo or other than placebo (n=18, n=20 respectively). Most research focused on non-individualised homeopathy (n=35 papers) compared with individualised homeopathy (n=3). The results provide a complete and clarified view of the RCT literature in veterinary homeopathy. We will systematically review the 38 substantive peer-reviewed journal articles under the main headings: treatment trials; prophylaxis trials. Copyright © 2012 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  7. Peer review of the trusted software methodology

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Chisholm, G.H. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States); Gannon, J.D. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States)]|[Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (United States); Kemmerer, R.A. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States)]|[Univ. of California, Santa Barbara, CA (United States); McHugh, J. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States)]|[Portland State Univ., OR (United States)

    1994-02-01

    The review and analysis of the Trusted Software Methodology (TSM) by a panel of experts in various areas of computer science, computer security, and engineering are reported. The approach to the conduct of the review is described, and a brief introduction to the TSM is provided. The findings from the review fall into three categories: achievements, desirable additions, and changes. In addition, several recommendations are made with respect to application of the TSM within the purview of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

  8. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2015

    Science.gov (United States)

    Becker, Thorsten W.; Blichert-Toft, Janne; Lee, Cin-Ty; Paytan, Adina; Faul, Ulrich; Yokoyama, Yusuke

    2016-06-01

    The editorial and scientific publishing process relies on the sustained work of volunteer reviewers, and evaluating the interdisciplinary and broad interest papers published in G-Cubed can be a particular challenge. As Editors and Associated Editors, we are therefore hugely appreciative of the efforts of our reviewers and would like to thank and acknowledge them in this editorial. G-Cubed published 252 manuscripts out of 472 submissions in 2015, and for this, we were able to rely on the efforts of 712 dedicated reviewers. Their names are listed below; in italics are those 41 who provided three or more reviews(!). A big thank you from the G-Cubed team!

  9. Review & Peer Review of “Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares” Documents

    Science.gov (United States)

    This page contains two 2012 memoranda on the review of EPA's parameters for properly designed and operated flares. One details the process of peer review, and the other provides background information and specific charge questions to the panel.

  10. Upon Further Review: Peer Process Vital to Publishing.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Katz, Anne

    2016-11-01

    Peer review is one of the hallmarks of professional publishing and one that I appreciate every day in my work as editor of this journal. I simply could not do this work without reviewers, and all of my editor colleagues across the globe would agree. I have been a reviewer for various journals for many years, and now, as editor of the Oncology Nursing Forum, I am even more aware of how important my reviews are for others. Just this morning, I reviewed a manuscript-for a noncompeting journal, of course-and as I entered my comments, I thought about what I, as editor, would find useful.
.

  11. Open Peer Review: A New Challenge for Cosmetics

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Enzo Berardesca

    2015-03-01

    Full Text Available Dear Readers, As part of a continued effort to improve the quality of our papers and the transparency of the publication process, Cosmetics will introduce in the near future the possibility for the Authors to choose an Open Peer Review process (OPR. OPR is as a process in which the names of the authors and reviewers may be known to each other, and where review reports are published alongside the final manuscript, with the aim to facilitate discussion and clarity between the authors and the reviewer(s.

  12. Collaborative Learning through Formative Peer Review with Technology

    Science.gov (United States)

    Eaton, Carrie Diaz; Wade, Stephanie

    2014-01-01

    This paper describes a collaboration between a mathematician and a compositionist who developed a sequence of collaborative writing assignments for calculus. This sequence of developmentally appropriate assignments presents peer review as a collaborative process that promotes reflection, deepens understanding, and improves exposition. First, we…

  13. Enhancing Proof Writing via Cross-Institutional Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  14. Peer Reviewers' Dilemmas: Values Antinomies when Evaluating Higher Education Institutions

    Science.gov (United States)

    Patry, Jean-Luc; Gastager, Angela

    2012-01-01

    Whenever evaluations are done, there are antinomies of interests both within and between stakeholders. To account for such antinomies, taxonomy has been developed which will be presented and discussed using the peer review processes in university evaluations as example. The taxonomy contains four dimensions: a) seven values domains are…

  15. Five Steps to Becoming a Better Peer Reviewer

    Science.gov (United States)

    Carter, Vicki K.

    2008-01-01

    Higher education faculty's teaching-related activities are often evaluated either for summative (personnel/tenure decisions) or formative (developmental) purposes. Although many faculty members feel they benefit from thoughtful attention to their teaching, other faculty find the peer-review process intimidating, meaningless, or both. The author…

  16. NIH Mulls Ways to Lure Back Veteran Peer Reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brainard, Jeffrey

    2008-01-01

    Not long ago, academic scientists welcomed calls from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) asking them to volunteer as peer reviewers. Many were glad for the opportunity to help distribute billions of dollars in federal biomedical-research grants even though the service required a big time commitment--the equivalent of one month a year to…

  17. Instructors' Uses, Experiences, Thoughts and Suggestions regarding Calibrated Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gunersel, Adalet Baris; Simpson, Nancy J.

    2010-01-01

    This paper presents a qualitative study conducted with faculty members who participated in a project funded by the National Science Foundation focusing on student development with Calibrated Peer Review (CPR)[TM], a web-based tool created to promote writing and critical-thinking skills. The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of…

  18. Teaching Undergraduates the Process of Peer Review: Learning by Doing

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rangachari, P. K.

    2010-01-01

    An active approach allowed undergraduates in Health Sciences to learn the dynamics of peer review at first hand. A four-stage process was used. In "stage 1", students formed self-selected groups to explore specific issues. In "stage 2", each group posted their interim reports online on a specific date. Each student read all the…

  19. Instructors' Uses, Experiences, Thoughts and Suggestions regarding Calibrated Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gunersel, Adalet Baris; Simpson, Nancy J.

    2010-01-01

    This paper presents a qualitative study conducted with faculty members who participated in a project funded by the National Science Foundation focusing on student development with Calibrated Peer Review (CPR)[TM], a web-based tool created to promote writing and critical-thinking skills. The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of…

  20. Accelerated Peer-Review Journal Usage Technique for Undergraduates

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wallace, J. D.

    2008-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Naemi Luckner

    2015-08-01

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

  2. Enhancing Proof Writing via Cross-Institutional Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2014-01-01

    Medical conferences are key in the sharing of new scientific findings. However, results reported as conference-abstracts are generally not considered final before publication in a peer-reviewed journal. It is known that approximately 1/3 of the scientific results presented as abstracts at large...

  4. Peer Review: The Importance of Education for Best Practice

    Science.gov (United States)

    Goldberg, Lynette R.; Parham, Douglas F.; Coufal, Kathy L.; Maeda, Masako; Scudder, Rosalind R.; Sechtem, Phillip R.

    2010-01-01

    The effectiveness of teaching is expected by an increasingly skeptical public that wants those in higher education to contain costs, increase access, and teach in ways that make sure students learn. An integral and under-used component of documenting teaching effectiveness is peer review. A framework for best practice to ensure a systematic and…

  5. Whither "Peer Review"? Terminology Matters for the Writing Classroom

    Science.gov (United States)

    Armstrong, Sonya L; Paulson, Eric J.

    2008-01-01

    In two-year college writing classrooms and beyond, peer review is one of the most widely used tools for helping students improve their writing. Despite its widespread usage, however, it is one of the most diffuse, inconsistent, and ambiguous practices associated with writing instruction. This essay aims to explore the widely varying terminology…

  6. Investigating Mandatory Peer Review of Teaching In Schools

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brix, Jacinta; Grainger, Peter; Hill, Angela

    2014-01-01

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

  7. Consensus-oriented group peer review: a new process to review radiologist work output.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Alkasab, Tarik K; Harvey, H Benjamin; Gowda, Vrushab; Thrall, James H; Rosenthal, Daniel I; Gazelle, G Scott

    2014-02-01

    The Joint Commission and other regulatory bodies have mandated that health care organizations implement processes for ongoing physician performance review. Software solutions, such as RADPEER™, have been created to meet this need efficiently. However, the authors believe that available systems are not optimally designed to produce changes in practice and overlook many important aspects of quality by excessive focus on diagnosis. The authors present a new model of peer review known as consensus-oriented group review, which is based on group discussion of cases in a conference setting and places greater emphasis on feedback than traditional systems of radiology peer review. By focusing on the process of peer review, consensus-oriented group review is intended to optimize performance improvement and foster group standards of practice. The authors also describe the software tool developed to implement this process of enriched peer review.

  8. Peer review, program officers and science funding.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Paul J Roebber

    Full Text Available Increased competition for research funding has led to growth in proposal submissions and lower funding-success rates. An agent-based model of the funding cycle, accounting for variations in program officer and reviewer behaviors, for a range of funding rates, is used to assess the efficiency of different proposal-submission strategies. Program officers who use more reviewers and require consensus can improve the chances of scientists submitting fewer proposals. Selfish or negligent reviewers reduce the effectiveness of submitting more proposals, but have less influence as available funding declines. Policies designed to decrease proposal submissions reduce reviewer workload, but can lower the quality of funded proposals. When available funding falls below 10-15% in this model, the most effective strategy for scientists to maintain funding is to submit many proposals.

  9. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Feedstock

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    McCann, Laura [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2012-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2011 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program’s Feedstock Platform Review meeting.

  10. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review. Infrastructure

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Lindauer, Alicia [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2012-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2011 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program’s Infrastructure Platform Review meeting.

  11. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Algae

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Yang, Joyce [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2012-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2011 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program’s Algae Platform Review meeting.

  12. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review. Sustainability

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Eng, Alison Goss [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2012-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2011 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program’s Sustainability Platform Review meeting.

  13. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Analysis

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Haq, Zia [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2012-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2011 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program’s Analysis Platform Review meeting.

  14. Collaborative Learning Through Formative Peer Review With Technology

    OpenAIRE

    Eaton, Carrie Diaz; Wade, Stephanie

    2014-01-01

    This paper describes a collaboration between a mathematician and a compositionist who developed a sequence of collaborative writing assignments for calculus. This sequence of developmentally-appropriate assignments presents peer review as a collaborative process that promotes reflection, deepens understanding, and improves exposition. First, we distinguish writing-to-learn from writing-in-the-disciplines. Then, we review collaborative writing pedagogies and explain best practices for teaching...

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

    OpenAIRE

    Stahel, Philip F; Moore, Ernest E

    2014-01-01

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

  16. 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.

  17. Peer review of medical practices: missed opportunities to learn.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kadar, Nicholas

    2014-12-01

    Appropriately conducted peer review of medical practices provides the greatest opportunity for health care professionals to learn from their mistakes and improve the quality and safety of health care. But in practice, peer review has not been an effective learning tool because it is subjective and irreproducible. Physicians reviewing the same cases disagree over the cause(s) of adverse outcomes and the quality and appropriateness of care, and agreement is not improved by training, use of objective review criteria, or having the reviewers discuss the cases. The underlying reason is a general lack of understanding and an oversimplified view of the causes of medical errors in complex, high-risk organization and a preoccupation with attributing medical errors to particular individuals. This approach leads to judgments, not understanding, and creates a culture of blame that stops learning and undermines the potential for improvement. For peer review to have an impact on the quality of care and patient safety, it must be standardized to remove cognitive biases and subjectivity from the process.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  19. 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

  20. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2016

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-06-01

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

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

    Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (English)

    2006-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ucko, Daniel

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

  3. Peer-review Platform for Astronomy Education Activities

    CERN Document Server

    Russo, Pedro; Gomez, Edward; Strubbe, Linda

    2015-01-01

    Hundreds of thousands of astronomy education activities exist, but their discoverability and quality is highly variable. The web platform for astronomy education activities, astroEDU, presented in this paper tries to solve these issues. Using the familiar peer-review workflow of scientific publications, astroEDU is improving standards of quality, visibility and accessibility, while providing credibility to these astronomy education activities. astroEDU targets activity guides, tutorials and other educational activities in the area of astronomy education, prepared by teachers, educators and other education specialists. Each of the astroEDU activities is peer-reviewed by an educator as well as an astronomer to ensure a high standard in terms of scientific content and educational value. All reviewed materials are then stored in a free open online database, enabling broad distribution in a range of different formats. In this way astroEDU is not another web repository for educational resources but a mechanism for ...

  4. Italian social psychiatry research: what gets published in peer reviewed journals?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Galeazzi, Gian Maria; Priebe, Stefan

    2007-01-01

    To explore the current state of Italian social psychiatry research as evidenced by original papers published in peer-reviewed journals 2004-2006. Electronic databases and hand searches of leading peer-reviewed journals were used to identify original research papers published in 2004-2006, addressing a social psychiatric issue, having at least one Italian author, and reporting data from Italian samples. A total of 174 papers were identified. A substantial proportion reported findings of international collaborative research. Quantitative methods dominated, with 86 papers on cross-sectional surveys. Only 18 papers showed results of intervention trials with pre and post measures. Most common target group were psychiatric patients in community mental health services which featured in 93 papers. There is a critical mass of Italian social psychiatry research, dominated by a few research centres and with considerable amount of international collaboration. The findings of this survey might reflect the relative shortage of national funding for social psychiatry research.

  5. Peer review at the Health Information and Libraries Journal.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Grant, Maria J

    2014-12-01

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

  6. An Analysis of Peer-Submitted and Peer-Reviewed Answer Rationales, in an Asynchronous Peer Instruction Based Learning Environment

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bhatnagar, Sameer; Lasry, Nathaniel; Desmarais, Michel; Dugdale, Michael; Whittaker, Chris; Charles, Elizabeth S.

    2015-01-01

    This paper reports on an analyis of data from a novel "Peer Instruction" application, named DALITE. The Peer Instruction paradigm is well suited to take advantage of peer-input in web-based learning environments. DALITE implements an asynchronous instantiation of peer instruction: after submitting their answer to a multiple-choice…

  7. Do Peer Reviews Help Improve Student Writing Abilities in an EFL High School Classroom?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kurihara, Noriko

    2017-01-01

    Several studies have reported the benefits of peer reviews in English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) writing classrooms. However, there has been little empirical research on whether such peer reviews improve students' writing abilities. The current study investigated the effects of peer review on the development…

  8. 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…

  9. Building Scholarly Writers: Student Perspectives on Peer Review in a Doctoral Writing Seminar

    Science.gov (United States)

    Adamek, Margaret Ellen

    2015-01-01

    Peer review was used as a primary pedagogical tool in a scholarly writing course for social work doctoral students. To gauge student response to peer review and learning as a result of peer review, the instructor used narrative analysis to organize student comments into themes. Themes identified included initial trepidation, "no pain, no…

  10. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  11. 77 FR 19126 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: New Threshold for Peer Reviews of...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-03-30

    ... Regulation Supplement: New Threshold for Peer Reviews of Noncompetitive Contracts (DFARS Case 2012-D018... modify the threshold for noncompetitive contract peer reviews. DATES: Effective Date: April 30, 2012. FOR.... Background This final rule reduces the threshold for DoD peer reviews of noncompetitive contracts from...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  13. 34 CFR 359.30 - How is peer review conducted under this program?

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false How is peer review conducted under this program? 359.30 Section 359.30 Education Regulations of the Offices of the Department of Education (Continued) OFFICE OF...? § 359.30 How is peer review conducted under this program? Peer review is conducted under this program...

  14. 34 CFR 350.51 - What is the purpose of peer review?

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

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

  15. 76 FR 67439 - External Peer Review Meeting for Draft Microbial Risk Assessment Guideline: Pathogenic...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-11-01

    ... AGENCY External Peer Review Meeting for Draft Microbial Risk Assessment Guideline: Pathogenic... attend this peer review meeting as observers. Time will be set aside at the meeting for observers to give... the draft document, EPA intends to consider the comments from the external peer review meeting,...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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,...

  20. 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...

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yankulov, Krassimir; Couto, Richard

    2012-01-01

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

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fischman, Mark G.

    2014-01-01

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

  7. What Works in Writing with Peer Response? A Review of Intervention Studies with Children and Adolescents

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hoogeveen, Mariëtte; van Gelderen, Amos

    2013-01-01

    Peer response is viewed as an important aspect of writing instruction. Several meta-studies indicated that peer response is effective. However, these studies did not focus on the specific aspects of peer response that made it effective. The present review analyzes the effects of instructional factors accompanying peer response in 26 studies on…

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Beeson, Tracy A.; Jones, Carol C.

    2010-02-01

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

  9. Safety Assessment for Explosive Risk (SAFER) peer review report.

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Heimdahl, Olaf E. R. (Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, CA); LaHoud, Paul (Athens, AL); Chapman, Leon Darrel

    2004-08-01

    At the direction of the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB), a Peer Review Team was established to review the status of development of the risk-based explosives safety siting process and criteria as currently implemented in the software 'Safety Assessment for Explosive Risk (SAFER)' Version 2.1. The objective of the Peer Review Team was to provide an independent evaluation of the components of the SAFER model, the ongoing development of the model and the risk assessment process and criteria. This peer review report addressed procedures; protocols; physical and statistical science algorithms; related documents; and software quality assurance, validation and verification. Overall, the risk-based method in SAFER represents a major improvement in the Department of Defense (DoD) approach to explosives safety management. The DDESB and Risk Based Explosives Safety Criteria Team (RBESCT) have made major strides in developing a methodology, which over time may become a worldwide model. The current status of all key areas of the SAFER code has been logically developed and is defensible. Continued improvement and refinement can be expected as implementation proceeds. A consistent approach to addressing and refining uncertainty in each of the primary areas (probability of event, consequences of event and exposure) will be a very beneficial future activity.

  10. A core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Onitilo, Adedayo A; Engel, Jessica M; Salzman-Scott, Sherry A; Stankowski, Rachel V; Doi, Suhail A R

    2014-01-01

    Manuscript peer review is essential for ensuring accountability to all involved in the publication process, including authors, journals, and readers. Lack of consensus regarding what constitutes an accountable manuscript peer review process has resulted in varying practices from one journal to the next. Currently, reviewers are asked to make global judgments about various aspects of a paper for review irrespective of whether guided by a review checklist or not, and several studies have documented gross disagreement between reviewers of the same manuscript. We have previously proposed that the solution may be to direct reviewers to concrete items that do not require global judgments but rather provide a specific choice, along with referee justification for such choices. This study evaluated use of such a system via an international survey of health care professionals who had recently reviewed a health care--related manuscript. Results suggest that use of such a peer review system by reviewers does indeed improve interreviewer agreement, and thus, has the potential to support more consistent and effective peer review, if introduced into journal processes for peer review.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Michael L Callaham

    2007-01-01

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

  12. Peer review in Clinical Pharmacology using the 8-D Assessment

    Science.gov (United States)

    Woodcock, Barry G.

    2017-01-01

    The requirement for editors of clinical pharmacology journals to maintain an overview of the peer review process for manuscripts submitted can be facilitated by use of the 8-D Assessment. The 8-D Assessment comprises peer review criteria to determine if the:1. Design of the study, 2. Diagnoses employed, 3. Drug molecules involved, 4. Dosages applied, 5. Data collected, 6. Discussion of the findings, 7. Deductions made, and 8. Documentation are in accord with the objectives of the study and meet the requirements of evidence-based medicine. This tool, although easy to apply, requires a high level of clinical pharmacology expertise, especially in the fields of drug disposition, pharmacokinetics, and drug action. PMID:28218890

  13. A Semi-automated Peer-review System

    CERN Document Server

    Alicea, Bradly

    2013-01-01

    A semi-supervised model of peer review is introduced that is intended to overcome the bias and incompleteness of traditional peer review. Traditional approaches are reliant on human biases, while consensus decision-making is constrained by sparse information. Here, the architecture for one potential improvement (a semi-supervised, human-assisted classifier) to the traditional approach will be introduced and evaluated. To evaluate the potential advantages of such a system, hypothetical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both approaches will be assessed. This will provide more specific indications of how automation would be beneficial in the manuscript evaluation process. In conclusion, the implications for such a system on measurements of scientific impact and improving the quality of open submission repositories will be discussed.

  14. Peer Observation and Evaluation Tool (POET: A Formative Peer Review Supporting Scholarly Teaching

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jeffrey L. Crabtree

    2016-07-01

    Full Text Available The Peer Observation and Evaluation Tool (POET is a valid and reliable measure developed for formative peer evaluation of pharmacy faculty. The authors replicated a study conducted on the POET in pharmacy in order to report the instrument’s validity and reliability in occupational therapy and to explore its potential as a formative teaching evaluation for occupational therapy educators. To verify item importance, seven participants from the faculty in an occupational therapy department rated each item. To establish inter-rater reliability, the participants evaluated one videotaped 55 min lecture. The POET was reliable with ICC at 0.93. There were high levels of agreement with the importance ratings among the participants with all scales. The POET appears to be a valid and reliable formative measure of teaching. At a time of significant change in the level of occupational therapy education, this measure may be an important support for scholarly teaching in two ways: First, this measure offers several opportunities to document the instructor’s strengths and, second, it offers the instructor suggestions about ways to improve teaching quality. Finally, the POET may facilitate faculty professional growth and development through systematic, strategic, and constructive peer review feedback.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2016-12-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rangachari, P K

    2010-09-01

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

  17. Quantifying the quality of peer reviewers through Zipf's law

    CERN Document Server

    Ausloos, Marcel; Fronczak, Agata; Fronczak, Piotr

    2015-01-01

    This paper introduces a statistical and other analysis of peer reviewers in order to approach their "quality" through some quantification measure, thereby leading to some quality metrics. Peer reviewer reports for the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society are examined. The text of each report has first to be adapted to word counting software in order to avoid jargon inducing confusion when searching for the word frequency: e.g. C must be distinguished, depending if it means Carbon or Celsius, etc. Thus, every report has to be carefully "rewritten". Thereafter, the quantity, variety and distribution of words are examined in each report and compared to the whole set. Two separate months, according when reports came in, are distinguished to observe any possible hidden spurious effects. Coherence is found. An empirical distribution is searched for through a Zipf-Pareto rank-size law. It is observed that peer review reports are very far from usual texts in this respect. Deviations from the usual (first) Zipf's l...

  18. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hadjistavropoulos, T; Bieling, P J

    2000-08-01

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

  20. 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.

  1. Epidemiological Review of Injury in Pre-Professional Ballet Dancers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Caine, Dennis; Goodwin, Brett J; Caine, Caroline G; Bergeron, Glen

    2015-12-01

    The objective of this study was to provide an epidemiological review of the literature concerning ballet injuries affecting pre-professional ballet dancers. The literature search was limited to published peer-reviewed reports and involved an extensive examination of Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL. The following search terms were used in various combinations: ballet, injury, epidemiology, risk factor, pre-professional, and intervention. Additional citations were located using the ancestry approach. Unlike some other athletic activities that have been the focus of recent intervention research, there is a paucity of intervention and translational research in pre-professional ballet, and sample sizes have often been small and have not accounted for the multivariate nature of ballet injury. Exposure-based injury rates in this population appear similar to those reported for professional ballet dancers and female gymnasts. A preponderance of injuries affect the lower extremity of these dancers, with sprains and strains being the most frequent type of injury reported. The majority of injuries appear to be overuse in nature. Injury risk factors have been tested in multiple studies and indicate a variety of potential injury predictors that may provide useful guidance for future research.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Skaik, Younis

    2015-01-01

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

  3. AB 1007 Full Fuel Cycle Analysis (FFCA) Peer Review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Rice, D; Armstrong, D; Campbell, C; Lamont, A; Gallegos, G; Stewart, J; Upadhye, R

    2007-01-19

    LLNL is a participant of California's Advanced Energy Pathways (AEP) team funded by DOE (NETL). At the AEP technical review meeting on November 9, 2006. The AB 1007 FFCA team (Appendix A) requested LLNL participate in a peer review of the FFCA reports. The primary contact at the CEC was McKinley Addy. The following reports/presentations were received by LLNL: (1) Full Fuel Cycle Energy and Emissions Assumptions dated September 2006, TIAX; (2) Full Fuel cycle Assessment-Well to Tank Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts dated December 2006, TIAX; and (3) Full Fuel Cycle Analysis Assessment dated October 12, 2006, TIAX.

  4. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Herron, Daniel M

    2012-08-01

    The peer review process is the gold standard by which academic manuscripts are vetted for publication. However, some investigators have raised concerns regarding its unopposed supremacy, including lack of expediency, susceptibility to editorial bias and statistical limitation due to the small number of reviewers used. Post-publication review-in which the article is assessed by the general readership of the journal instead of a small group of appointed reviewers-could potentially supplement or replace the peer-review process. In this study, we created a computer model to compare the traditional peer-review process to that of post-publication reader review. We created a mathematical model of the manuscript review process. A hypothetical manuscript was randomly assigned a "true value" representing its intrinsic quality. We modeled a group of three expert peer reviewers and compared it to modeled groups of 10, 20, 50, or 100 reader-reviewers. Reader-reviewers were assumed to be less skillful at reviewing and were thus modeled to be only ¼ as accurate as expert reviewers. Percentage of correct assessments was calculated for each group. 400,000 hypothetical manuscripts were modeled. The accuracy of the reader-reviewer group was inferior to the expert reviewer group in the 10-reviewer trial (93.24% correct vs. 97.67%, p reader-reviewer group surpassed the expert reviewer group in accuracy when 50 or 100 reader-reviewers were used (97.92 and 99.20% respectively, p reader-reviewers can surpass that of a small group of expert reviewers if the group of public reviewers is of sufficient size. Further study will be required to determine whether the mathematical assumptions of this model are valid in actual use.

  5. SCOAP3: converting the peer-reviewed HEP literature to Open Access

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Vigen, Jens [CERN, 1211 Geneva (Switzerland)

    2009-07-01

    The debate on Open Access raves on but stays, in many quarters, just a debate. The High-Energy Physics community, which spearheaded Open Access with over half a century of dissemination of pre-prints culminating in the arXiv system, is now pushing forward with an Open Access model which goes beyond the present, often controversial, proposals with a novel practical approach. This new model is called the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3). In the SCOAP3 model, libraries federate to explicitly cover the costs of peer-review rather than implicitly supporting it via journal subscriptions. Rather than selling subscriptions, journals will charge for the peer-review service and make the electronic versions of their journals free to read. Unlike many *author-pays* Open Access models, authors are not directly charged to publish their articles in the Open Access paradigm. Contributions to the SCOAP3 consortium would come on a nation-wide re-direction of current library subscriptions to High-Energy Physics journals. These contributions are determined on a country-by-country basis, according to the volume of High-Energy Physics publications originating from that country, taking into account co-authorship. SCOAP3 will negotiate with major publishers in the field the price of their peer review services through a tendering process, linking, possibly for the first time, quality, volume and price in scientific publishing.

  6. Peer-supported review of teaching: making the grade in midwifery and nursing education.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Murphy Tighe, Sylvia; Bradshaw, Carmel

    2013-11-01

    This paper outlines the value of peer-supported review of teaching for nurse and midwifery educators in an academic environment. Reflection and continuing professional development are important tenets of an educators' practice and can be addressed via peer observation. Definitions and models of peer observation are presented. The strengths and challenges associated with peer-supported review of teaching are discussed. The reasons why peer observation is underutilised are explored with some suggestions on how to overcome these challenges. Recent developments in relation to peer observation and peer-supported review are outlined. The need for tangible evidence of development and enhancement of existing teaching expertise is very pronounced in the current economic climate, it is concluded that peer-supported review of teaching can provide such evidence. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2011-11-01

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

  8. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    OpenAIRE

    Bruce, Rachel; Chauvin, Anthony; Trinquart, Ludovic; Ravaud, Philippe; Boutron, Isabelle

    2016-01-01

    Background The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedi...

  9. Open peer review by a selected-papers network.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lee, Christopher

    2012-01-01

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

  10. The Assessment and Mentoring Program (AMP): Final Year Pre-Service Physical Education Peer Mentors' Perceptions of Effective Mentoring

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jenkinson, Kate A.; Benson, Amanda C.

    2017-01-01

    In the teacher education context, most peer mentoring programs have focused on pre-service teachers and a qualified teacher mentor within schools (Hobson, et.al., 2009; Ambrosetti, Knight & Dekkers, 2014). Few studies have focused on mentoring between pre-service physical education teachers. Therefore, we describe the Assessment and Mentoring…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Barroga, Edward F

    2014-11-01

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

  12. Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices

    OpenAIRE

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

    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...

  13. The learner as co-creator: A new peer review and self-assessment feedback form created by student nurses.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Duers, Lorraine E

    2017-09-01

    Engagement with peer review and self-assessment is not always regarded by student nurses as an activity that results in a positive learning experience. Literature indicates that withdrawal from the learning process becomes attractive to individuals affected by a negative experience of peer review. Literature also provides examples of student nurses' feeling 'torn to shreds' during the process of peer review, resulting in loss of confidence and self-esteem. An influencing factor in such situations appears to be the absence of specific learner-driven criteria against which student nurses can assess peer and self-performance. The idea was thus ignited, that creation and utilisation of a learner-driven feedback form might potentially prevent, or at least minimise, the possibility of negative peer review experience. Set within the context of a pre-registration nursing programme, within a Higher Education institution, student nurses (n=25), created a peer review/self-assessment feedback form. Its potential cross-discipline, global applicability is reasonably speculated. Purposive sampling, followed by Stratified Random sampling, maximised participant variation. Data collection took place on 34 occasions, utilising focus group discussions using Nominal Group Technique, a practical task which was video recorded for mediating artefact purposes, and individual interviews. Analysis was concept and theme driven. The study found that participants desired a new feedback form that specifically asks the evaluator to judge human qualities, such as 'compassion' and 'kindness', in addition to the skills and knowledge criteria that any peer review or self-assessment form used currently had incorporated. Providing the participants with the opportunity to develop criteria, against which performance could be measured, with emphasis being afforded to student inclusivity and resultant shift in power balance from the educator to the learner, embraces the idea of teaching and learning in the

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Peer review of HEDR uncertainty and sensitivity analyses plan

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Hoffman, F.O.

    1993-06-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Premchaiswadi, Wichian; Porouhan, Parham

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Houry Debra

    2012-08-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jeffrey L Jackson

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2016-09-01

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

  1. Assigning the Appropriate Works for Review on Networked Peer Assessment

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lee, Chien-I

    2017-01-01

    Peer assessment can expand the cognitive schemas of students, facilitate knowledge construction, and promote discussion and cooperative learning among students and their peers. In recent years, the application of the internet to conduct peer assessment activities has been widely implemented. The advantages of networked peer assessments over…

  2. 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

  3. Strengthening Technical Peer Review at the Army S&T Laboratories

    Science.gov (United States)

    2009-03-01

    The assumption underlying the value of peer review is that the quality of work is substantiated or improved through critiques by individuals who are...in shaping future work. The use of peer review , using experts in possession of varied and extensive experience, can much improve the quality of work...and efficacy of results. The Army Science and Technology Executive, Dr. Thomas Killion, requested a study of peer review methods in use at Army

  4. Nevada Risk Assessment/Management Program scientific peer review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Bentz, E.J. Jr.; Bentz, C.B.; O`Hora, T.D. [E.J. Bentz and Associates, Inc., Alexandria, VA (United States); Chen, S.Y. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States). Environmental Assessment Div.

    1997-04-01

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

  5. CoLab: A Collaborative Laboratory for Facilitating Code Reviews through a Peer-to-Peer Network

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kini, Shwetha

    2010-01-01

    CoLab is a collaborative tool for peer review of software programs for providing constructive feedback to first-time programmers. It targets two kinds of users: a trainer (who is the facilitator) and a trainee (whose programming skills have to be assessed and, if needed, improved). The tool provides real-time information on the reviewing ability…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Garousi, V.

    2010-01-01

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

  7. 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…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Garousi, V.

    2010-01-01

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

  9. Information Quality in Regulatory Decision Making: Peer Review versus Good Laboratory Practice

    National Research Council Canada - National Science Library

    Lynn S. McCarty; Christopher J. Borgert; Ellen M. Mihaich

    2012-01-01

    ...) standards employed for compliance with regulatory mandates. Objective: We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards. Method...

  10. Problems faced by editors of peer reviewed medical journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jawaid, Shaukat A

    2004-01-01

    Forty-six medical and dental journals are published from Pakistan of which only 29 are currently recognized by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council. Only a few are peer reviewed. Six are indexed in Medline while EMBASE Excerpta Medica and World Health Organization Index Medicus for Eastern Mediterranean Region cover others. Editors of the peer reviewed medical journals are faced with numerous problems, which relate to the authors. Some of these are: shortage of quality of manuscripts, poor quality of reviewers, problems with indexation in international indexing services particularly Medline, duplicate submission and authorship and lastly, financial problems. Patronage from the Pharma industry is the major source of revenue which itself has serious implications. Editing a medical journal is a very stressful job and the editors have to work under too many pressures. A lot of useful data is presented at medical conferences, but a vast majority of it remains unpublished for various reasons, which adversely affects the citation rate from scientists from the developing third world countries in the world of medical literature. A few lectures on medical writing and research methodology to final year medical students will expose them to the art of medical writing. Specialty organizations can be persuaded to have a session on medical writing at their conferences, which will be extremely helpful not only to the potential new authors but also others, thereby improving the quality of their manuscripts. In addition to regular seminars, workshops for authors, reviewers and training courses for editors, subscribing to local medical journals by healthcare professionals and libraries are some of the measures that will help improve the situation to a great extent.

  11. Online Peer-to-Peer Communities in the Daily Lives of People With Chronic Illness: A Qualitative Systematic Review

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Kingod, Natasja; Cleal, Bryan; Wahlberg, Ayo

    2017-01-01

    This qualitative systematic review investigated how individuals with chronic illness experience online peer-to-peer support and how their experiences influence daily life with illness. Selected studies were appraised by quality criteria focused upon research questions and study design, participant...... provide a supportive space for daily self-care related to chronic illness. Online communities provided a valued space to strengthen social ties and exchange knowledge that supported offline ties and patient–doctor relationships. Individuals used online communities to exchange experiential knowledge about...... selection, methods of data collection, and methods of analysis. Four themes were identified: (a) illness-associated identity work, (b) social support and connectivity, (c) experiential knowledge sharing, and (d) collective voice and mobilization. Findings indicate that online peer-to-peer communities...

  12. Using Errors to Teach through a Two-Staged, Structured Review: Peer-Reviewed Quizzes and "What's Wrong with Me?"

    Science.gov (United States)

    Coppola, Brian P.; Pontrello, Jason K.

    2014-01-01

    Using errors as a method of learning has been made explicit through a two-staged peer review and discussion. During organic chemistry discussion sessions, quizzes are followed by a structured peer review designed to help students identify and discuss student errors. After the face-to-face discussion, a second stage of review involves analyzing and…

  13. To Give Is Better Than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer's Own Writing

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lundstrom, Kristi; Baker, Wendy

    2009-01-01

    Although peer review has been shown to be beneficial in many writing classrooms, the benefits of peer review to the reviewer, or the student giving feedback, has not been thoroughly investigated in second-language writing research. The purpose of this study is to determine which is more beneficial to improving student writing: giving or receiving…

  14. A Pre-Service Teacher Training Model with Instructional Technology Graduate Students as Peer Coaches to Elementary Pre-Service Teachers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Slagter van Tryon, Patricia J.; Schwartz, Catherine Stein

    2012-01-01

    This paper describes a peer coaching collaboration between graduate students in a Master's program in Instructional Technology and undergraduate pre-service teachers enrolled in an elementary mathematics methods course. Integrated as a major project in a graduate level K-12 technology integration course, the Instructional Technology students…

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mu-Hsuan Huang

    2016-06-01

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

  16. Implementing peer review at an emergency medicine blog: bridging the gap between educators and clinical experts.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Thoma, Brent; Chan, Teresa; Desouza, Natalie; Lin, Michelle

    2015-03-01

    Emergency physicians are leaders in the ''free open-access meducation'' (FOAM) movement. The mandate of FOAM is to create open-access education and knowledge translation resources for trainees and practicing physicians (e.g., blogs, podcasts, and vodcasts). Critics of FOAM have suggested that because such resources can be easily published online without quality control mechanisms, unreviewed FOAM resources may be erroneous or biased. We present a new initiative to incorporate open, expert, peer review into an established academic medical blog. Experts provided either pre- or postpublication reviews that were visible to blog readers. This article outlines the details of this initiative and discusses the potentially transformative impact of this educational innovation.

  17. The dynamics of writing and peer review at primary school

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jacques Crinon

    2012-11-01

    Full Text Available The object of this research is a learning method that uses email correspondence to promote the development of narrative writing skills in year 4 and year 5 students. Focusing on the written production of episodes of adventure novels and peer review, this learning method was applied to four classes in the Paris region over a 1-year period. The classes were paired in such a way that some students were required to read and analyze texts produced by correspondents (advice givers while others carried out revisions using peer advice and suggestions (advice receivers. To describe the dynamics of writing, revision and learning, a qualitative analysis of the texts and suggestions given or received by the student partners is carried out. A statistical analysis comparing the texts produced by students in both groups is used to corroborate the findings of the initial analysis. Students showed an increasing awareness and consideration of the key characteristics of the practiced genre, resulting in an improvement of the quality of the texts in the course of the revision process and throughout the year. The texts produced by the advice givers improved more than the texts produced by the advice receivers. The findings are attributed to greater self-reflection and successive reformulations fostered by the elaboration of advice and suggestions.

  18. Development, implementation and evaluation of a peer review of teaching (PRoT) initiative in nursing education.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mager, Diana R; Kazer, Meredith W; Conelius, Jaclyn; Shea, Joyce; Lippman, Doris T; Torosyan, Roben; Nantz, Kathryn

    2014-06-03

    For many years, an area of research in higher education has been emerging around the development and implementation of fair and effective peer evaluation programs. Recently, a new body of knowledge has developed regarding the development and implementation of fair and effective peer evaluation programs resulting in formative and summative evaluations. The purpose of this article is to describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a peer review of teaching (PRoT) program for nursing faculty, initiated at one small comprehensive university in the northeastern United States. Pairs of nursing faculty evaluated each other's teaching, syllabi, and course materials after collaborating in a pre-evaluation conference to discuss goals of the classroom visit. Qualitative data gathered in post project focus groups revealed that faculty found their modified PRoT process to be a mutually beneficial experience that was more useful, flexible and collegial, and less stressful than their previous evaluation process.

  19. PaperBricks: An Alternative to Complete-Story Peer Reviewing

    CERN Document Server

    Dittrich, Jens

    2011-01-01

    The peer review system as used in several computer science communities has several flaws including long review times, overloaded reviewers, as well as fostering of niche topics. These flaws decrease quality, lower impact, slowdown the innovation process, and lead to frustration of authors, readers, and reviewers. In order to fix this, we propose a new peer review system termed paper bricks. Paper bricks has several advantages over the existing system including shorter publications, better competition for new ideas, as well as an accelerated innovation process. Furthermore, paper bricks may be implemented with minimal change to the existing peer review systems.

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

    OpenAIRE

    Erin B. Jensen

    2016-01-01

    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...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2010-01-01

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

  2. Clinical perspective: creating an effective practice peer review process-a primer.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gandhi, Manisha; Louis, Frances S; Wilson, Shae H; Clark, Steven L

    2017-03-01

    Peer review serves as an important adjunct to other hospital quality and safety programs. Despite its importance, the available literature contains virtually no guidance regarding the structure and function of effective peer review committees. This Clinical Perspective provides a summary of the purposes, structure, and functioning of effective peer review committees. We also discuss important legal considerations that are a necessary component of such processes. This discussion includes useful templates for case selection and review. Proper committee structure, membership, work flow, and leadership as well as close cooperation with the hospital medical executive committee and legal representatives are essential to any effective peer review process. A thoughtful, fair, systematic, and organized approach to creating a peer review process will lead to confidence in the committee by providers, hospital leadership, and patients. If properly constructed, such committees may also assist in monitoring and enforcing compliance with departmental protocols, thus reducing harm and promoting high-quality practice.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mandala, Mahender Arjun

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schmalbach, Cecelia E

    2016-07-01

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

  5. 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.

  6. Pre-Service Teachers' Science Teaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs: The Influence of a Collaborative Peer Microteaching Program

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cinici, Ayhan

    2016-01-01

    The aim of my study was to explore the nature of changes in pre-service science teachers' (PSTs') self-efficacy beliefs toward science teaching through a mixed-methods approach. Thirty-six participants enrolled in a science methods course that included a collaborative peer microteaching ("Cope-M"). Participants' science teaching…

  7. The Impact of Ranking Information on Students’ Behavior and Performance in Peer Review Settings

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2015-01-01

    The paper explores the potential of usage and ranking information in increasing student engagement in a double-blinded peer review setting, where students are allowed to select freely which/how many peer works to review. The study employed 56 volunteering sophomore students majoring in Informatic...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Knight, Carolyn

    2013-01-01

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

  9. The Multiple Faces of Peer Review in Higher Education. Five Learning Scenarios Developed for Digital Business

    Science.gov (United States)

    Herzog, Michael A.; Katzlinger, Elisabeth

    2017-01-01

    Peer review, as an e-assessment tool incorporates the human factor to treat complexity for rating and grading students. It could address the qualitative more than quantitative aspects with flexible human feedback that leads up to metacognitive knowledge aspects, which e-assessment usually is not able to achieve. Peer review is an internationally…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kim, Soo Hyon

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Geithner, Christina A.; Pollastro, Alexandria N.

    2016-01-01

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

  12. The way second language young learners view peer review in writing

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Karen Pupp Spinassé

    2016-01-01

    mixed methods approach (qualitative and quantitative. Results show that students were receptive to peer review and to collaborative work and showed optimism regarding the possibility of having better versions of their texts ater the peers’ feedback. Data also help us understand more about the teacher’s role and the use of second language in peer review.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Knight, Carolyn

    2013-01-01

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

  14. Independent Research Projects in General Chemistry Classes as an Introduction to Peer-Reviewed Literature

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tribe, Lorena; Cooper, Evan L.

    2008-01-01

    A well-structured independent literature research project with a poster session was used to introduce students to peer-reviewed literature in a general chemistry course. Overall, students reported an enhanced appreciation of the course due to performing research at some level, using peer-reviewed literature, and presenting their results in a…

  15. DOE Hydrogen Program: 2010 Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    2010-12-01

    This document summarizes the comments provided by peer reviewers on hydrogen and fuel cell projects presented at the FY 2010 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program and Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting (AMR), held June 7-11, 2010 in Washington, D.C.

  16. Blog Comments vs. Peer Review: Which Way Makes a Book Better?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Young, Jeffrey R.

    2008-01-01

    What if scholarly books were peer reviewed by anonymous blog comments rather than by traditional, selected peer reviewers? This is the question posed by an unusual experiment that was started recently by Noah Wardrip-Fruin, an an assistant professor of communication at the University of California at San Diego. His experiment was started after his…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kim, Soo Hyon

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Beddoes, Kacey

    2014-01-01

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

  20. 76 FR 4113 - Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Meeting on an In Vitro

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-24

    ... HUMAN SERVICES Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Meeting on an In Vitro Estrogen Receptor...); Announcement of an Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Meeting on an In Vitro Estrogen Receptor... panel (Panel) to evaluate the validation status of LUMI-CELL ER (BG1Luc ER TA), an in vitro...

  1. 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…

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

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Kilsdonk, M.J.; Siesling, S.; Otter, R.; Harten, van W.H.

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Geithner, Christina A.; Pollastro, Alexandria N.

    2016-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Roberts, Thomas J.; Shambrook, Jennifer

    2012-01-01

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

  6. 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…

  7. The Multiple Faces of Peer Review in Higher Education. Five Learning Scenarios Developed for Digital Business

    Science.gov (United States)

    Herzog, Michael A.; Katzlinger, Elisabeth

    2017-01-01

    Peer review, as an e-assessment tool incorporates the human factor to treat complexity for rating and grading students. It could address the qualitative more than quantitative aspects with flexible human feedback that leads up to metacognitive knowledge aspects, which e-assessment usually is not able to achieve. Peer review is an internationally…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-01-01

    Many academic librarians who provide library instruction have never received formal training in educational theory and methods. To bridge this gap and improve the teaching skills of instruction librarians, some academic libraries have established peer review of teaching programs. Despite the recognized benefits of peer review, it may not be…

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    1997-02-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jaena Alabi

    2014-12-01

    Full Text Available Many academic librarians who provide library instruction have never received formal training in educational theory and methods. In an effort to bridge this gap and improve the teaching skills of instruction librarians, some academic libraries have established peer review of teaching programs. Despite the recognized benefits of peer review, it may not be feasible for every library to establish such a program. In an effort to aid those who are interested in peer review, but who may not be able to participate in a formal program, the authors identify the principles of peer review that can be applied on a non-programmatic basis. Six areas of best practice are described: establishing an environment of trust, respect, and confidentiality; selecting a suitable partner for the process; communicating with a peer reviewer; focusing on specific aspects of teaching where feedback is desired; making time for the process; and preparing oneself to accept criticism.

  11. 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…

  12. 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

  13. 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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Kayser Klaus

    2011-12-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Stephen John Cowley

    2015-11-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cowley, Stephen J

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Kevin W Boyack

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

  18. A Peer Reviewed Digital Library: New feature in RBEBBM

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Eduardo Galembeck

    2006-07-01

    Full Text Available The  RBEBBM  publishes  papers  on  Biochemistry  and  Molecular  Biology  Education  mostly,  but  not  research  papers exclusively. The RBEBBM readers are not only interested in research papers but also in any kinds of resources that are  useful  to  improve  their  classes.  In  order  to  fulfill  the  biochemistry  community  needs  expressed  in  the  2004 Workshop on Biochemistry Education, that took place at the 2004 SBBq annual meeting, new features were added to the RBEBBM. Started in March 2006, a digital library that publishes several kinds of materials, such as software, images, thesis and monographs,  were  incorporated  to  the  RBEBBM  collection.  In  its  new  format,  every  submitted  content  is  peer reviewed before it is published. Another improvement was the offer of new tools for both authors and users, such as statistics  of  views  and  downloads,  and  interaction  tools  between  authors  and  users,  including  a  discussion  forum exclusive to every resource published and user evaluation. We  have  obtained  an  innovative  model  for  digital  libraries  which  includes  peer  review,  user  evaluation  and communication channels. This model brings users to the development of a more active role when using these tools.

  19. 77 FR 21777 - Expanded Charge for Peer Review of the NIOSH document Titled: “Criteria for a Recommended...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-04-11

    ... Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor (OSHA/DOL), NIOSH has asked the peer reviewers.../HISA/diacetyl-pr.html . This entry serves as notice of the expanded charge to peer reviewers for this... HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Expanded Charge for Peer Review of the...

  20. 77 FR 56202 - Notification of an External Peer Review Meeting for the Draft Framework for Human Health Risk...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-12

    ... AGENCY Notification of an External Peer Review Meeting for the Draft Framework for Human Health Risk... external peer review meeting. SUMMARY: The EPA Office of the Science Advisor announces that Versar, Inc., a... attend this peer review meeting as an observer. Time will be set aside for observers to give brief...

  1. 45 CFR 60.10 - Reporting negative actions or findings taken by peer review organizations or private...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

    ... peer review organizations or private accreditation entities. 60.10 Section 60.10 Public Welfare... negative actions or findings taken by peer review organizations or private accreditation entities. (a) What..., dentist, or entity by a peer review organization or private accreditation entity. The health...

  2. 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…

  3. 75 FR 7522 - Peer Review, Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form; Request for the Office of Management and...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-02-19

    ... Occupational Safety and Health Administration Peer Review, Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form; Request... whether or not a conflict of interest exists for a potential peer review panel member. ] DATES: Comments... draft. The selection of participants in a peer review is based on expertise, with due consideration...

  4. 76 FR 55384 - External Peer Review Meeting for the Draft Guidance of Applying Quantitative Data To Develop Data...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-09-07

    ... AGENCY External Peer Review Meeting for the Draft Guidance of Applying Quantitative Data To Develop Data... register to attend this peer review meeting as observers. Time will be set aside for observers to give... finalizing the draft document, EPA intends to consider the comments from the external peer review...

  5. 77 FR 33213 - An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska-Peer Review...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-06-05

    ... AGENCY An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska--Peer Review... availability and public comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the peer review panel members assembled by... three week public comment period for the draft charge questions to be provided to the peer review...

  6. 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

    ... the Peer Review of ARS Research Projects AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA. ACTION...: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Michael S. Strauss, Peer Review Program Coordinator... associated with the peer review of agricultural research. All forms are transferred and received in...

  7. Networking and knowledge exchange to promote the formation of transdisciplinary coalitions and levels of agreement among transdisciplinary peer reviewers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lobb, Rebecca; Petermann, Lisa; Manafo, Elizabeth; Keen, Deb; Kerner, Jon

    2013-01-01

    Funding for transdisciplinary chronic disease prevention research has increased over the past decade. However, few studies have evaluated whether networking and knowledge exchange activities promote the creation of transdisciplinary teams to successfully respond to requests for proposals (RFPs). Such evaluations are critical to understanding how to accelerate the integration of research with practice and policy to improve population health. To examine (1) the extent of participation in pre-RFP activities among funded and nonfunded transdisciplinary coalitions that responded to a RFP for cancer and chronic disease prevention initiatives and (2) levels of agreement in proposal ratings among research, practice, and policy peer reviewers. Descriptive report of a Canadian funding initiative to increase the integration of evidence with action. Four hundred forty-nine representatives in 41 research, practice, and policy coalitions who responded to a RFP and whose proposals were peer reviewed by a transdisciplinary adjudication panel. The funder hosted 6 national meetings and issued a letter of intent (LOI) to foster research, practice, and policy collaborations before issuing a RFP. All provinces and territories in Canada were represented by the coalitions. Funded coalitions were 2.5 times more likely than nonfunded coalitions to submit a LOI. A greater proportion of funded coalitions were exposed to the pre-RFP activities (100%) compared with coalitions that were not funded (68%). Overall research, practice, and policy peer reviewer agreement was low (intraclass correlation 0.12). There is widespread interest in transdisciplinary collaborations to improve cancer and chronic disease prevention. Engagement in networking and knowledge exchange activities, and feedback from LOIs prior to submission of a final application, may contribute to stronger proposals and subsequent funding success. Future evaluations should examine best practices for transdisciplinary peer review to

  8. Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Zhu, Jia; Fung, Gabriel; Wong, Wai Hung; Li, Zhixu; Xu, Chuanhua

    2016-08-01

    In the academic world, peer review is one of the major processes in evaluating a scholars contribution. In this study, we are interested in quantifying the merits of different policies in a peer review process, such as single-blind review, double-blind review, and obtaining authors feedback. Currently, insufficient work has been undertaken to evaluate the benefits of different peer review policies. One of the major reasons for this situation is the inability to conduct any empirical study because data are presently unavailable. In this case, a computer simulation is one of the best ways to conduct a study. We perform a series of simulations to study the effects of different policies on a peer review process. In this study, we focus on the peer review process of a typical computer science conference. Our results point to the crucial role of program chairs in determining the quality and diversity of the articles to be accepted for publication. We demonstrate the importance of discussion among reviewers, suggest circumstances in which the double-blind review policy should be adopted, and question the credibility of the authors feedback mechanism. Finally, we stress that randomness plays an important role in the peer review process, and this role cannot be eliminated. Although our model may not capture every component of a peer review process, it covers some of the most essential elements. Thus, even the simulation results clearly cannot be taken as literal descriptions of an actual peer review process. However, we can at least still use them to identify alternative directions for future study.

  9. A descriptive review of the peer and non-peer reviewed literature on the treatment and prevention of foot lameness in cattle published between 2000 and 2011.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Potterton, S L; Bell, N J; Whay, H R; Berry, E A; Atkinson, O C D; Dean, R S; Main, D C J; Huxley, J N

    2012-09-01

    The aim of this study was to collate and review the peer and non-peer reviewed English language literature on the treatment and prevention of foot lameness in cattle published since January 2000. The study aimed to identify deficits in knowledge and areas of disparity between what is recommended in the field by veterinarians, foot trimmers and advisors and what has been substantiated experimentally. Peer reviewed literature containing original work was gathered by searching three databases. Papers were categorised and reviewed if they contained material on treatment or prevention. Non-peer reviewed clinical materials were collated from a range of sources. The materials were reviewed and categorised based on whether they recommended a range of possible treatment and prevention strategies. The peer reviewed data base contained 591 papers, of which 286 contained information on treatment or prevention. The vast majority of papers (258) concerned prevention; only a small number covered treatment (31) and of these only three contained information on the treatment of sole ulcers or white line disease. The number of intervention studies and trials was low; most papers on prevention were observational. Generally, lesion specific outcomes were not described making the findings of these papers difficult to use clinically. The non-peer reviewed material contained 46 sources; they varied significantly in regard to the treatments they advocated with some texts directly contradicting each other. Some aspects of prevention recommended in these sources seemed poorly supported by findings from the research literature. Well designed intervention studies are required to address these deficits. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  10. Augmented Articles: The Future of Peer-Reviewed Publications?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Madura, Thomas Ignatius; Clementel, Nicola; Gull, Theodore R.

    2015-08-01

    The predominance of 2D figures and animations in the literature is clearly driven by the need to display data in a classic paper-journal format. However, there is no real reason that researchers should be limited to 2D graphics when presenting their results in peer-reviewed publications. This is especially true since all major astrophysical journals are now published online. So-called ‘augmented articles’ are possible, in which 3D interactive models, images, sound, and video can be included directly within an Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) article. The inclusion of 3D interactive models in the astrophysics literature is slowly becoming popular, and several journals now fully support the inclusion of 3D interactive figures and movies. I present examples of recently published augmented articles in astronomy (e.g. Madura et al. 2015, arXiv:1503.00716) and discuss their perceived benefits and limitations. Such articles may become the norm in astronomy as data and numerical simulations increasingly become multidimensional (see http://www.technologyreview.com/view/535796/astronomers-create-3-d-printed-model-of-colliding-stellar-winds/).

  11. Federal antitrust jurisdiction in peer review cases: the Pinhas decision.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Busey, R C

    1991-11-01

    In Summit Health Ltd. v. Pinhas, the United States Supreme Court by a narrow majority found that the exclusion of an ophthalmologist from a hospital in Los Angeles had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce to establish federal jurisdiction under the Sherman Act. In resolving a split among the federal circuit courts of appeal, the Court applied the broad jurisdictional test from McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc. to peer review proceedings. Despite many ambiguities in the majority opinion by Justice Stevens and a scathing dissent by Justice Scalia, the effect of Pinhas will be to increase the suits in federal court on antitrust grounds brought by aggrieved medical staff members and applicants denied appointments or privileges, and to decrease, if not eliminate, the likelihood of preliminary dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. This, in turn, should serve to emphasize the importance of complying with the Health Care Quality Improvement Act in order to obtain immunity from damages under federal antitrust and state laws.

  12. Peer-Assisted Learning in School Physical Education, Sport and Physical Activity Programmes: A Systematic Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jenkinson, Kate. A.; Naughton, Geraldine; Benson, Amanda C.

    2014-01-01

    Background: Peer-assisted learning (PAL) is a teaching strategy utilised in both the general classroom and physical education. Through the interaction with same-age or cross-age peers, learning can occur across various domains. Purpose: This review aimed to identify school-based PAL interventions and assess the tutor training provided, as well as…

  13. The Reliability and Validity of Peer Review of Writing in High School AP English Classes

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schunn, Christian; Godley, Amanda; DeMartino, Sara

    2016-01-01

    One approach to writing instruction that has been shown to improve secondary students' academic writing without increasing demands on teachers' time is peer review. However, many teachers and students worry that students' feedback and assessment of their peers' writing is less accurate than teachers'. This study investigated whether Advanced…

  14. Open and Anonymous Peer Review in a Digital Online Environment Compared in Academic Writing Context

    Science.gov (United States)

    Razi, Salim

    2016-01-01

    This study compares the impact of "open" and "anonymous" peer feedback as an adjunct to teacher-mediated feedback in a digital online environment utilising data gathered on an academic writing course at a Turkish university. Students were divided into two groups with similar writing proficiencies. Students peer reviewed papers…

  15. "Observation Has Set In": Comparing Students and Peers as Reviewers of Teaching

    Science.gov (United States)

    Huxham, Mark; Scoles, Jenny; Green, Ursula; Purves, Samantha; Welsh, Zoe; Gray, Andrew

    2017-01-01

    Peer review is a powerful method to enhance teaching in higher education. Peers, however, may not be the most relevant people in evaluating teaching success; as the most important stakeholders in learning, students' evaluations need to be heard. Whilst some efforts to capture "the student voice" are simplistic and may foster consumerist…

  16. Effect of Duration of Peer Awareness Education on Attitudes toward Students with Disabilities: A Systematic Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Leigers, Kelly L.; Myers, Christine T.

    2015-01-01

    The attitudes of peers towards fellow students with disabilities impacts social participation and the development of relationships within the school context. This systematic review examined the effect of duration of a disability-awareness education program on the attitudes of peers towards students with disabilities. Sources such as the Academic…

  17. Students' Attitudes towards Peers with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature

    Science.gov (United States)

    de Boer, Anke; Pijl, Sip Jan; Minnaert, Alexander

    2012-01-01

    The trend towards inclusive education has led to an increase of studies focusing on peer attitudes. This review study presents an overview of studies describing attitudes of students, variables relating to students' attitudes, and the relationship between students' attitudes and the social participation of peers with disabilities. Based on a…

  18. Problematic Peer Functioning in Girls with ADHD: A Systematic Literature Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Groen, Yvonne; Fuermaier, Anselm B. M.; Tucha, Oliver

    2016-01-01

    Objective Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) experience many peer interaction problems and are at risk of peer rejection and victimisation. Although many studies have investigated problematic peer functioning in children with ADHD, this research has predominantly focused on boys and studies investigating girls are scant. Those studies that did examine girls, often used a male comparison sample, disregarding the inherent gender differences between girls and boys. Previous studies have highlighted this limitation and recommended the need for comparisons between ADHD females and typical females, in order to elucidate the picture of female ADHD with regards to problematic peer functioning. The aim of this literature review was to gain insight into peer functioning difficulties in school-aged girls with ADHD. Methods PsychINFO, PubMed, and Web of Knowledge were searched for relevant literature comparing school-aged girls with ADHD to typically developing girls (TDs) in relation to peer functioning. The peer relationship domains were grouped into ‘friendship’, ‘peer status’, ‘social skills/competence’, and ‘peer victimisation and bullying’. In total, thirteen studies were included in the review. Results All of the thirteen studies included reported that girls with ADHD, compared to TD girls, demonstrated increased difficulties in the domains of friendship, peer interaction, social skills and functioning, peer victimization and externalising behaviour. Studies consistently showed small to medium effects for lower rates of friendship participation and stability in girls with ADHD relative to TD girls. Higher levels of peer rejection with small to large effect sizes were reported in all studies, which were predicted by girls’ conduct problems. Peer rejection in turn predicted poor social adjustment and a host of problem behaviours. Very high levels of peer victimisation were present in girls with ADHD with large effect sizes

  19. Allowing Students to Select Deliverables for Peer Review: Analysis of a Free-Selection Protocol

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2011-01-01

    This study analyzes the benefits and limitations of a “free-selection” peer assignment protocol by comparing them to the widely implemented “assigned-pair” protocol. The primary motivation was to circumvent the issues that often appear to the instructors implementing peer review activities with p......-Selection, where students were able to explore and select peer work for review. Result analysis showed a very strong tendency in favor of the Free-Selection students regarding both domain specific (conceptual) and domain-general (reviewing) knowledge....

  20. Referees' Comments on Submissions to Peer-Reviewed Journals: When Is a Suggestion Not a Suggestion?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Paltridge, Brian

    2015-01-01

    This paper examines the ways in which reviewers ask for changes to be made to submissions to peer-reviewed journal articles. Ninety-five reviewers' reports were examined. Forty-five of the reviewers also completed a questionnaire which asked about their experience in carrying out peer reviews, how they learnt to write reviews and the…

  1. Referees' Comments on Submissions to Peer-Reviewed Journals: When Is a Suggestion Not a Suggestion?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Paltridge, Brian

    2015-01-01

    This paper examines the ways in which reviewers ask for changes to be made to submissions to peer-reviewed journal articles. Ninety-five reviewers' reports were examined. Forty-five of the reviewers also completed a questionnaire which asked about their experience in carrying out peer reviews, how they learnt to write reviews and the…

  2. Real-time peer review: an innovative feature to an evidence-based practice conference.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Eldredge, Jonathan D; Phillips, Holly E; Kroth, Philip J

    2013-01-01

    Many health sciences librarians as well as other professionals attend conferences on a regular basis. This study sought to link an innovative peer review process of presented research papers to long-term conference outcomes in the peer-reviewed professional journal literature. An evidence-based conference included a proof-of-concept study to gauge the long-term outcomes from research papers presented during the program. Real-time peer review recommendations from the conference were linked to final versions of articles published in the peer-reviewed literature. The real-time peer review feedback served as the basis for further mentoring to guide prospective authors toward publishing their research results. These efforts resulted in the publication of two of the four research papers in the peer-viewed literature. A third presented paper appeared in a blog because the authors wanted to disseminate their findings more quickly than through the journal literature. The presenters of the fourth paper never published their study. Real-time peer review from this study can be adapted to other professional conferences that include presented research papers.

  3. Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review

    CERN Document Server

    Bornmann, Lutz

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on around 100,000 papers with recommendations from Faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between Faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies which have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the Faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores ...

  4. Code R: Redesigning Hospital-wide Peer Review for Academic Hospitals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kim, Daniel I; Au, Huy; Fargo, Ramiz; Garrison, Roger C; Thompson, Gary; Yu, Minho; Loo, Lawrence K

    2016-09-01

    In most health care institutions, physician peer review is the primary method for maintaining and measuring physician competency and quality of care issues. However, many teaching hospitals do not have a method of tracking resident trainees' involvement in adverse cases. At the study institution, Code R was introduced as a measure to capture resident trainee involvement in the hospital-wide peer review process. The authors conducted a retrospective review of all peer review cases from January 2008 to December 2011 in an academic medical center and determined the quantity and type of resident errors that occurred compared to attending faculty. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's core competencies served as a framework to categorize quality of care errors. The addition of Code R to the peer review process can be readily adopted by other institutions to help improve resident education, facilitate faculty supervision, and potentially improve patient safety.

  5. Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Shashok Karen

    2008-01-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Peer review is assumed to improve the quality of research reports as tools for scientific communication, yet strong evidence that this outcome is obtained consistently has been elusive. Failure to distinguish between aspects of discipline-specific content and aspects of the writing or use of language may account for some deficiencies in current peer review processes. Discussion The process and outcomes of peer review may be analyzed along two dimensions: 1 identifying scientific or technical content that is useful to other researchers (i.e., its "screening" function, and 2 improving research articles as tools for communication (i.e., its "improving" function. However, editors and reviewers do not always distinguish clearly between content criteria and writing criteria. When peer reviewers confuse content and writing, their feedback can be misunderstood by authors, who may modify texts in ways that do not make the readers' job easier. When researchers in peer review confuse the two dimensions, this can lead to content validity problems that foil attempts to define informative variables and outcome measures, and thus prevent clear trends from emerging. Research on writing, revising and editing suggests some reasons why peer review is not always as effective as it might be in improving what is written. Summary Peer review could be improved if stakeholders were more aware of variations in gatekeepers' (reviewers' and editors' ability to provide feedback about the content or the writing. Gatekeepers, academic literacy researchers, and wordface professionals (author's editors, medical writers and translators could work together to discover the types of feedback authors find most useful. I offer suggestions to help editologists design better studies of peer review which could make the process an even stronger tool for manuscript improvement than it is now.

  6. Peer Observation of Teaching: The Interaction between Peer Review and Developmental Models of Practice

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yiend, Jenny; Weller, Saranne; Kinchin, Ian

    2014-01-01

    Teaching observation is widely promoted as a mechanism for developing teaching practice in higher education. Specifically, formative peer observation is considered by many to be a powerful tool for providing feedback to individual teachers, disseminating disciplinary good practice and fostering a local evaluative enhancement culture. Despite its…

  7. Peer Observation of Teaching: The Interaction between Peer Review and Developmental Models of Practice

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yiend, Jenny; Weller, Saranne; Kinchin, Ian

    2014-01-01

    Teaching observation is widely promoted as a mechanism for developing teaching practice in higher education. Specifically, formative peer observation is considered by many to be a powerful tool for providing feedback to individual teachers, disseminating disciplinary good practice and fostering a local evaluative enhancement culture. Despite its…

  8. Automated Assessment of the Quality of Peer Reviews Using Natural Language Processing Techniques

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ramachandran, Lakshmi; Gehringer, Edward F.; Yadav, Ravi K.

    2017-01-01

    A "review" is textual feedback provided by a reviewer to the author of a submitted version. Peer reviews are used in academic publishing and in education to assess student work. While reviews are important to e-commerce sites like Amazon and e-bay, which use them to assess the quality of products and services, our work focuses on…

  9. How to write a scholarly book review for publication in a peer-reviewed journal: a review of the literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2010-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Resnik, David B; Elmore, Susan A

    2016-02-01

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

  11. Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Dekanski Aleksandar

    2016-01-01

    Full Text Available A survey was conducted among editors of journals publishing in the field of chemistry, chemical technology and related topics in Serbia, aiming to collect information on their experience, problems and difficulties during peer-review process. Editors from 22 journals out of 27 which regularly published during 2015 replied. General data on journals were collected from responses obtained from editors-in-chief, whereas all editors (including sub-editors and section editors participated in a questionnaire concerning peer-review procedure. Additionally, they were asked to evaluate quality of reports and attitude of reviewers, discuss present situation and suggest measures to improve peer-review process. Greatest problems encountered by editors in peer-review process can be summarized as follows: low rate of acceptance to review, low quality of reports, sometimes due to reviewer’s bias or his/her inability to properly understand review process. A method used to search for reviewers does not substantially influence quality of reports. Editors agree that introduction of On-Line process and creation of precise instructions for reviewers, education of potential reviewers, as well as social, public and professional recognition and appreciation of reviewers’ work, are the most important measures to improve quality of peer-review process and, consecutively, quality of published articles and journals.

  12. Submission Form for Peer-Reviewed Cancer Risk Prediction Models

    Science.gov (United States)

    If you have information about a peer-reviewd cancer risk prediction model that you would like to be considered for inclusion on this list, submit as much information as possible through the form on this page.

  13. Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    In this paper, we undertake a data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows. We analyse a dataset containing information about 58 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. We separate the peer review process into stages that each paper has to go through and introduce the notion of completion rate - the probability that an invitation sent to a potential reviewer will result in a finished review. Using empirical transition probabilities and probability distributions of the duration of each stage we create a directed weighted network, the analysis of which allows us to obtain the theoretical probability distributions of review time for different classes of reviewers. These theoretical distributions underlie our numerical simulations of different editorial strategies. Through these simulations, we test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole review process. We discover that the distribution of review time is similar for all classes of reviewers, and that the completion rate of reviewers known personally by the editor is very high, which means that they are much more likely to answer the invitation and finish the review than other reviewers. Thus, the completion rate is the key factor that determines the efficiency of each editorial policy. Our results may be of great importance for editors and act as a guide in determining the optimal number of reviewers.

  14. Learning effects of thematic peer-review : A qualitative analysis of reflective journals on spiritual care

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    van Leeuwen, Rene; Tiesinga, Lucas J.; Jochemsen, Henk; Post, Doeke

    2009-01-01

    This study describes the learning effects of thematic peer-review discussion groups (Hendriksen, 2000. Begeleid intervisie model, Collegiate advisering en probleemoplossing, Nelissen, Baarn.) on developing nursing students' competence in providing spiritual care. It also discusses the factors that m

  15. Learning effects of thematic peer-review: A qualitative analysis of reflective journals on spiritual care

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Leeuwen, van L.J.; Tiesinga, L.J.; Jochemsen, H.

    2009-01-01

    This study describes the learning effects of thematic peer-review discussion groups (Hendriksen, 2000. Begeleid intervisie model, Collegiale advisering en probleemoplossing, Nelissen, Baarn.) on developing nursing students’ competence in providing spiritual care. It also discusses the factors that m

  16. 76 FR 80418 - Request for Information: Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Resulting From...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-12-23

    ... archiving publications and making them publically accessible be used to grow the economy and improve the... cons of centralized and decentralized approaches to managing public access to peer reviewed scholarly...

  17. Stimulating Critical Thinking in a Virtual Learning Community with Instructor Moderations and Peer Reviews

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Sacip Toker

    2011-12-01

    Full Text Available This mixed methods study investigated the dynamic impacts of instructor moderations and peer reviews on critical thinking (CT in a virtual learning community. Multiple data sets were collected from online discourses, participants’ written reflections, and learning artifacts, and analyzed and triangulated with both quantitative and qualitative methods. Both instructor moderations and peer reviews had great impacts on learner’s CT in multiple ways, and stimulated CT development throughout the semester. As learners grew with more CT skills, the needs for instructor moderations decreased; yet peer reviews peaked in terms of quantity, length, and depth of discussions. Peer reviews in this study also demonstrated effective questioning patterns, which were positively accepted by students being questioned or criticized, and resulted in changes and improvements in the final learning artifacts. Practical implications for online teaching and learning and community building are discussed, together with suggestions for future research.

  18. Peer Observation as teaching evaluation approach: An Attempt to review the research area

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Michek Stanislav

    2016-01-01

    Full Text Available This review sets out to map research relating to the concept of peer observation when teachers observe lesson of another teacher which is on same level. The review builds on journal papers included in the Web of Science and/or ERIC databases. The study uses documents analysis when the units of analysis are concepts of peer observation, research aims and research methods of studies. The review aims to answer the following questions: What are the objectives of studies focused on peer observation of teacher in the studies? Which methods and approaches do the studies use? What are the results of these studies? The authors conclude the review with a summary of its findings and a discussion. There are a number of research instruments and methods for investigating peer observation by qualitative approach, but the challenge now is to develop ways of quantitative research approach.

  19. Learning effects of thematic peer-review: A qualitative analysis of reflective journals on spiritual care

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Leeuwen, van L.J.; Tiesinga, L.J.; Jochemsen, H.

    2009-01-01

    This study describes the learning effects of thematic peer-review discussion groups (Hendriksen, 2000. Begeleid intervisie model, Collegiale advisering en probleemoplossing, Nelissen, Baarn.) on developing nursing students’ competence in providing spiritual care. It also discusses the factors that m

  20. A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Del Mar, Chris; Hoffmann, Tammy C

    2015-11-02

    Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task. This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into 'major' (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and 'minor' (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable. Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper's strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2009-01-01

    Scientific misconduct and fraud occur in science. The (anonymous) peer review process serves as goalkeeper of scientific quality rather than scientific integrity. In this brief paper we describe some limitations of the peer-review process. We describe the catastrophic facts of the 'Woo-Suk Hwang fraud case' and raise some ethical concerns about the issue. Finally, we pay attention to plagiarism, autoplagiarism and double publications. (Neth Heart J 2009;17:25-9.).

  2. Using anti-plagiarism software to promote academic honesty in the context of peer reviewed assignments

    OpenAIRE

    2008-01-01

    peer-reviewed A variety of free and commercial software applications designed to detect plagiarism from Internet sources has appeared in recent years. However, their effectiveness and impact on student behaviour has been assumed rather than confirmed. The study presented here explores the responses and perceptions of a group of first year students at an Irish university after their first contact with anti-plagiarism software in the context of peer-reviewed assignments. The results indicate...

  3. Advanced combustion, emission control, health impacts, and fuels merit review and peer evaluation

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None, None

    2006-10-01

    This report is a summary and analysis of comments from the Advisory Panel at the FY 2006 DOE National Laboratory Advanced Combustion, Emission Control, Health Impacts, and Fuels Merit Review and Peer Evaluation, held May 15-18, 2006 at Argonne National Laboratory. The work evaluated in this document supports the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program. The results of this merit review and peer evaluation are major inputs used by DOE in making its funding decisions for the upcoming fiscal year.

  4. Say yes to peer review: a collaborative approach to faculty development.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Blauvelt, Margaret J; Erickson, Cheryl L; Davenport, Nancy C; Spath, Mary L

    2012-01-01

    Student evaluations are relied on heavily to provide feedback for teaching improvement and professional growth. However, their use as the primary source of performance feedback may be limiting. To add another dimension to faculty evaluation, a peer-review process for both clinical and didactic teaching was implemented. The authors describe the initiation and development of a peer-review process as a means to ensure comprehensive and multidimensional evaluation.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Olthof, A W; van Ooijen, P M A

    2016-09-01

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

  6. Regulatory forum opinion piece: Clarification and simplification of the pathology peer review documentation process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tomlinson, Michael J; Leininger, Joel R

    2014-01-01

    The transparency and documentation of the peer review process have been discussed recently. Our position is that transparency is best achieved when peer review is a collaborative process, in which both parties are open-minded but both also realize that the study pathologist retains complete control over the findings (raw data) and over the content of the pathology report. For these reasons, we believe that histopathology raw data should be defined as the observations made by the study pathologist (printed and/or electronic formats) rather than as the tissue slides recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Also, because the study pathologist retains control over the histopathology raw data, any notes or tabulations of findings by the study pathologist and peer review pathologist during the peer review are interim notes and should not be included as an appendix to the pathology report though they may be retained if desired, as currently recommended. Because the histopathology raw data have not been created until completion of the peer review, the performance of a peer review should be documented in the study report, as currently recommended, but that it not be a GLP-compliant process.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-07-02

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

  8. Peer-reviewed forensic consultation in practice: multidisciplinary oversight in common expertise.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Welner, Michael; Davey, Emily E; Bernstein, Adam

    2014-09-01

    The fallibility of forensic science consultation is an ongoing and major justice concern. Prospective peer-reviewed forensic consultation has over 10 years of application in American criminal and civil courts, adapting from the traditional oversight of teaching hospitals, rules of evidence and discovery, conventions of testimony of expert witnesses, and attorneys' overall trial strategy. In systematizing heightened oversight, this process ensures greater accountability in forensic science consultation. The integration of peer reviewers' complementary expertise and experience enhances the sophistication and overall quality of assessment. Forensic examination frequently involves the interface of different specialties. Multidisciplinary peer review augments expert proficiency with that of professional peers having different vantage points from relevant scientific disciplines. This approach ensures greater sophistication of a case inquiry, built-in accountability, and streamlined processes when multiple experts are necessitated. Here, the authors present examples of several cases and the primary and secondary benefits of this collaborative, rigorous, cross-disciplinary exercise.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Hendy Abdoul

    Full Text Available 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

  10. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Biochemical and Products Platform Summary

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document discloses the comments provided by a review panel at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Biomass Program Peer Review held on November 15-16, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and the Biochemical and Products Platform Review held on August 7-9, 2007 in Denver, Colorado.

  11. 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.

  12. Evidence for peer support in rehabilitation for individuals with acquired brain injury: A systematic review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wobma, Ruth; Nijland, Rinske H M; Ket, Johannes C F; Kwakkel, Gert

    2016-11-11

    To systematically review the literature on evidence for the application of peer support in the rehabilitation of persons with acquired brain injury. PubMed, Embase.com, Ebsco/Cinahl, Ebsco/PsycInfo and Wiley/Cochrane Library were searched from inception up to 19 June 2015. Randomized controlled trials were included describing participants with acquired brain injury in a rehabilitation setting and peer supporters who were specifically assigned to this role. Two independent reviewers assessed metho-dological quality using the PEDro scale. Cohen's kappa was calculated to assess agreement between the reviewers. Two randomized controlled trials could be included, both focussing on patients with traumatic brain injury. The randomized controlled trials included a total of 126 participants with traumatic brain injury and 62 care-givers and suggest a positive influence of peer support for traumatic brain injury survivors and their caregivers in areas of social support, coping, behavioural control and physical quality of life. The evidence for peer support is limited and restricted to traumatic brain injury. Randomized controlled trials on peer support for patients with other causes of acquired brain injury are lacking. It is important to gain more insight into the effects of peer support and the influence of patient and peer characteristics and the intervention protocol.

  13. "I'm Not Here to Learn How to Mark Someone Else's Stuff": An Investigation of an Online Peer-to-Peer Review Workshop Tool

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wilson, Michael John; Diao, Ming Ming; Huang, Leon

    2015-01-01

    In this article, we explore the intersecting concepts of fairness, trust and temporality in relation to the implementation of an online peer-to-peer review Moodle Workshop tool at a Sydney metropolitan university. Drawing on qualitative interviews with unit convenors and online surveys of students using the Workshop tool, we seek to highlight a…

  14. Implementing Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) in a Large-lecture Science Course

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ward, A. S.; Bettis, E. A., III; Russell, J. E.; Van Horne, S.; Sipola, M.; Rocheford, M. K.; Colombo, M. R.

    2014-12-01

    Assessing writing assignments and providing students the opportunity to meaningfully revise the assignments are challenging for instructors of large enrollment science classes. We included two individual writing assignments and peer assessments as part of course assessment for a large Introduction to Environmental Science course. In order to facilitate the assessment, Calibrated Peer Review (CPR), a web-based application developed by UCLA that enables frequent writing assignments in any discipline and with any class size, was adopted. The CPR assignment process involved four steps: submitting a writing assignment, calibrating each student's review skills, reviewing peers' writing, and assessing one's own writing assignment (self-assessment). A rubric was provided to guide students through each writing assignment and the same rubric was used in calibration, review, and self-assessment scoring. Once the instructors uploaded the writing prompts, rubrics, sample writings and answer keys into the CPR system, the CPR software fully directed all student activity (writing assignment submission, calibrations, reviews, and self-assessment). Students were able to view their results within the CPR program, including their self-calibration scores, reviewing scores, peers' ratings and feedback, total earned scores, and self-assessment scores. Surveys independently administered at the conclusion of the CPR assignments indicated that sixty to seventy-five percent of the students perceived that CPR was helpful in their learning, improved their writing and evaluation skills, and that the process of reviewing other students' essays and their own essays was more helpful than the comments received from peers. These survey results are in agreement with the well-established educational research literature that shows the benefits of peer review and peer assessment to student learning. Our experience with CPR in a large enrollment science course indicates that thoughtful planning of the

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Richard L Kravitz

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

  16. Peer Victimization and Pediatric Obesity: A Review of the Literature

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gray, Wendy N.; Kahhan, Nicole A.; Janicke, David M.

    2009-01-01

    Childhood obesity is associated with a variety of medical and psychosocial consequences. Children who are obese are at an increased risk of being victims of weight-based stigmatization by their peers. Negative views toward obese individuals may be expressed through children's friendship selections and expressed levels of overt (e.g., pushing,…

  17. Implementing Student Peer Review: Opportunity versus Change Management

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pharo, Emma; De Salas, Kristy

    2009-01-01

    This paper reflects on the implementation of a peer-assessment innovation in a large first-year geography unit. While the innovation had been carefully researched, difficulties in the implementation drew the authors' attention to the need for more change management to be built into the design and development. Focusing specifically on the teacher…

  18. Reflections on a Transnational Peer Review of Teaching

    Science.gov (United States)

    Carolan, Lynne; Wang, Lijuan

    2012-01-01

    Peer observation of teaching often occurs at a local level or national level, seldom internationally. Victoria University, Australia, and Chinese institutions Henan University and Central University of Finance and Economics have a transnational partnership involving local students studying courses originating in Australia and Chinese students who…

  19. 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…

  20. Periodontal disease and pre-eclampsia : a systematic review

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Kunnen, Alina; van Doormaal, Jasper J.; Abbas, Frank; Aarnoudse, Jan G.; van Pampus, Maria; Faas, Marijke M.

    2010-01-01

    P>Aim This review evaluates the possible relationship between periodontal disease and pre-eclampsia, a major pregnancy complication. A generalized inflammatory response plays an important role in the pathogenesis of pre-eclampsia. Because periodontal disease is a low-grade inflammatory state, period

  1. Periodontal disease and pre-eclampsia : a systematic review

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Kunnen, Alina; van Doormaal, Jasper J.; Abbas, Frank; Aarnoudse, Jan G.; van Pampus, Maria; Faas, Marijke M.

    2010-01-01

    P>Aim This review evaluates the possible relationship between periodontal disease and pre-eclampsia, a major pregnancy complication. A generalized inflammatory response plays an important role in the pathogenesis of pre-eclampsia. Because periodontal disease is a low-grade inflammatory state,

  2. Periodontal disease and pre-eclampsia : a systematic review

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Kunnen, Alina; van Doormaal, Jasper J.; Abbas, Frank; Aarnoudse, Jan G.; van Pampus, Maria; Faas, Marijke M.

    2010-01-01

    P>Aim This review evaluates the possible relationship between periodontal disease and pre-eclampsia, a major pregnancy complication. A generalized inflammatory response plays an important role in the pathogenesis of pre-eclampsia. Because periodontal disease is a low-grade inflammatory state, period

  3. Peer-based health interventions for people with serious mental illness: A systematic literature review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cabassa, Leopoldo J; Camacho, David; Vélez-Grau, Carolina M; Stefancic, Ana

    2017-01-01

    Health interventions delivered by peer specialists or co-facilitated by peer specialists and health professionals can help improve the physical health of people with serious mental illness (SMI). Yet, the quality of the studies examining these health interventions and their impact on health outcomes remains unclear. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic literature review of peer-based health interventions for people with SMI. We rated the methodological quality of studies, summarized intervention strategies and health outcomes, and evaluated the inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in these studies. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to conduct our systematic literature review. Electronic bibliographic databases and manual searches were used to locate articles that were published in English in peer-reviewed journals between 1990 and 2015, described peer-based health interventions for people with SMI, and evaluated the impact of the interventions on physical health outcomes. Two independent reviewers used a standardized instrument to rate studies' methodological quality, abstracted study characteristics, and evaluated the effects of the interventions on different health outcomes. Eighteen articles were reviewed. Findings indicated that the strength of the evidence generated from these studies is limited due to several methodological limitations. Mixed and limited intervention effects were reported for most health outcomes. The most promising interventions were self-management and peer-navigator interventions. Efforts to strengthen the evidence of peer-based interventions require a research agenda that focuses on establishing the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions across different populations and settings. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  4. Expanding Capacity and Promoting Inclusion in Introductory Computer Science: A Focus on Near-Peer Mentor Preparation and Code Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pon-Barry, Heather; Packard, Becky Wai-Ling; St. John, Audrey

    2017-01-01

    A dilemma within computer science departments is developing sustainable ways to expand capacity within introductory computer science courses while remaining committed to inclusive practices. Training near-peer mentors for peer code review is one solution. This paper describes the preparation of near-peer mentors for their role, with a focus on…

  5. Peer Attachment: A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender and Age Differences and Associations with Parent Attachment

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gorrese, Anna; Ruggieri, Ruggero

    2012-01-01

    In adolescence, peers represent key actors within individual social network. Given the relevance of peer connections and the growing literature examining them, the purpose of this article was to review, through a meta-analytic approach, studies on adolescent and youth peer relationships within the theoretical framework of attachment. First, we…

  6. The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yeo, Sara K; Liang, Xuan; Brossard, Dominique; Rose, Kathleen M; Korzekwa, Kaine; Scheufele, Dietram A; Xenos, Michael A

    2016-05-26

    Using the "#arseniclife" controversy as a case study, we examine the roles of blogs and Twitter in post-publication review. The controversy was initiated by a scientific article about bacteria able to substitute arsenic for phosphorus in its genetic material. We present the debate chronologically, using prominent online media to reconstruct the events. Using tweets that discussed the controversy, we conducted quantitative sentiment analysis to examine skeptical and non-skeptical tones on Twitter. Critiques of and studies refuting the arsenic life hypothesis were publicized on blogs before formal publication in traditional academic spaces and were shared on Twitter, influencing issue salience among a range of audiences. This case exemplifies the role of new media in informal post-publication peer review, which can complement traditional peer review processes. The implications drawn from this case study for future conduct and transparency of both formal and informal peer review are discussed.

  7. DOE Hydrogen Program: 2006 Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Milliken, J.

    2006-09-01

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the FY 2006 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 16-19, 2006, in Arlington, Virginia. The projects evaluated support the Department of Energy and President Bush's Hydrogen Initiative. The results of this merit review and peer evaluation are major inputs used by DOE to make funding decisions. Project areas include hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; technology validation; safety, codes and standards; education; and systems analysis.

  8. DOE Hydrogen Program: 2007 Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Milliken, J.

    2007-09-01

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the FY 2007 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 14-18, 2007, in Washington, D.C. The projects evaluated support the Department of Energy and President Bush's Hydrogen Initiative. The results of this merit review and peer evaluation are major inputs used by DOE to make funding decisions. Project areas include hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; technology validation; safety, codes and standards; education; and systems analysis.

  9. DOE Hydrogen Program: 2005 Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Chalk, S. G.

    2005-09-01

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the FY 2005 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 23-26, 2005, in Arlington, Virginia. The projects evaluated support the Department of Energy and President Bush's Hydrogen Initiative. The results of this merit review and peer evaluation are major inputs used by DOE to make funding decisions. Project areas include hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; technology validation; safety, codes and standards; education; and systems analysis.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  11. Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication

    Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (English)

    2000-01-01

    @@2001 Sep 14-16 Barcelona, SPAIN Annette Flanagin JAMA 515 North State Street Chicago IL 60610 USA Phn: 001-312-464-2432 Fax: 001-312-464-5824 E-mail: jama-peer@ ama-assn. org Jane Smith BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square London, WC1H 9JR UK Phn: 44-171-383-6109 Fax: 44-171-383-6418 E-mail: jsmith @ bmj. Com

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kaufman, Regina R; Chevan, Julia

    2011-01-01

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

  13. Implementation of a Nursing Peer-Review Program in the Hospital Setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Garner, Jessica K

    2015-01-01

    Nursing peer review (NPR), a formal process by which nurses are referred for peer evaluation when patient care problems are identified, has gained acceptance as a method to improve nursing quality and safety. This article describes the development of a formal NPR program for acute care nurses, intended to validate and improve nursing practice. Nursing peer review is a systematic process of assessing and evaluating nursing care by peers against professional practice standards. The purpose of an NPR program is to provide a pathway whereby peers hold one another accountable for practice. Accountability is an important demonstrator of professionalism. Because nursing is a trusted profession, it is imperative that it demonstrate accountability. The NPR program was developed and implemented by a clinical nurse specialist. A literature review was conducted to assist program development including the processes of building an NPR committee and nurses for review. To trigger referrals to the NPR system, nursing indicators were identified. To diminish fear among nurses, education for staff members focused on the purpose and importance of the NPR process and the intent to strengthen practice. Nursing peer review committee members were also educated in the use of NPR principles including just culture, appreciative inquiry, and confidentiality. Upon implementation, nearly 200 referrals were received within the first 14 months; 85% met criteria for review. Nursing practice was identified as appropriate (ie, nursing actions were consistent with good practice) in 66% of the reviews. Trends in individual and system processes were identified for improvement. The clinical nurse specialist's role as NPR program coordinator provided an innovative way to impact nursing and organizational spheres of influence through program development and implementation. Future goals include sustaining/improving nursing awareness of the NPR process and identification of additional indicators to trigger

  14. Thank you to Virology Journal’s peer reviewers in 2012

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Wang Linfa

    2013-02-01

    Full Text Available Contributing reviewers The editors of Virology Journal would like to thank all our reviewers who have contributed to the journal in Volume 9 (2012. The success of any scientific journal depends on an effective and strict peer review process and Virology Journal could not operate without your contribution. We look forward to your continuous support to this journal either as an invited reviewer or a contributing author in the years to come.

  15. 2013 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2013-10-01

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2013 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 13-17, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; market transformation; and systems analysis.

  16. 2011 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2011-09-01

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2011 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 9-13, 2011, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; education; market transformation; and systems analysis.

  17. Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline: A Web-Based Reciprocal Peer Review System

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cho, Kwangsu; Schunn, Christian D.

    2007-01-01

    This paper describes how SWoRD (scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline), a web-based reciprocal peer review system, supports writing practice, particularly for large content courses in which writing is considered critical but not feasibly included. To help students gain content knowledge as well as writing and reviewing skills, SWoRD…

  18. Interactive Learning through Web-Mediated Peer Review of Student Science Reports

    Science.gov (United States)

    Trautmann, Nancy M.

    2009-01-01

    Two studies analyzed impacts of writing and receiving web-mediated peer reviews on revision of research reports by undergraduate science students. After conducting toxicology experiments, 77 students posted draft reports and exchanged double-blind reviews. The first study randomly assigned students to four groups representing full, partial, or no…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2011-01-01

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

  20. 2012 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2012-09-01

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2012 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 14-18, 2012, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; education; market transformation; and systems analysis.