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

Peer observation and feedback of resident teaching.

Science.gov (United States)

Snydman, Laura; Chandler, Daniel; Rencic, Joseph; Sung, Yung-Chi

2013-02-01

Resident doctors (residents) play a significant role in the education of medical students. Morning work rounds provide an optimal venue to assess resident teaching. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of peer observation of resident work rounds, to evaluate resident perceptions of peer observation and to evaluate resident perceptions of peer feedback.   Twenty-four internal medicine residents were simultaneously observed by an attending physician and a peer while teaching during work rounds (between August2008 and May 2009). At year-end, residents received a survey to characterise their attitudes towards peer observation and feedback. Twenty-one residents (87.5%) completed the survey. Half (52.4%) felt that participating in the peer observation study stimulated their interest in teaching during work rounds. Prior to participation in the study, fewer than half (42.9%) felt comfortable being observed by their peers, compared with 71.4 percent after participation (p=0.02). The proportion of residents who felt comfortable giving feedback to peers increased from 26.3 to 65.0percent (p=0.004), and the proportion of residents who felt comfortable receiving feedback from peers increased from 76.2 to 95.2 percent (p=0.02). Peer observation and feedback of resident teaching during work rounds is feasible and rewarding for the residents involved. Comfort with regards to being observed by peers, with receiving feedback from peers and with giving feedback to peers significantly increased after the study. Most residents reported changes in their teaching behaviour resulting from feedback. Residents felt that observing a peer teach on work rounds was one of the most useful activities to improve their own teaching on work rounds. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2013.

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...

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2003-02-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2016-01-01

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

Peer Review

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Avital, Michel

2018-01-01

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

o'Peer: open peer review

Science.gov (United States)

Brewer, J. H.

2014-12-01

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

The 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.

The changing face of peer review

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Irene Hames

2014-02-01

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

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…

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Alexandrov Georgii A

2006-09-01

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

Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A; Dobránszki, Judit

2015-01-01

Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers' money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2017-07-01

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

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...

o'Peer: open peer review

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Brewer, J H

2014-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W; Saitz, Richard

2015-02-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2018-01-01

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

The "peer" in "peer review"

Science.gov (United States)

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

2011-01-01

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

Publication misrepresentation among anesthesiology residency applicants.

Science.gov (United States)

Neuman, Stephanie A; Long, Timothy R; Rose, Steven H

2011-03-01

Publication misrepresentation has been documented among applicants for residency positions in several specialties. However, these data are not available for anesthesiology applicants. Our purpose in this study was to document the prevalence of publication misrepresentation among applicants to a single anesthesiology residency, to compare anesthesiology publication misrepresentation data with similar data in other specialties, and to determine how often publication misrepresentation leads to an unfair competitive advantage in the application process. Applications to the Mayo School of Graduate Medical Education anesthesiology core residency in Rochester, Minnesota, were reviewed for publication misrepresentations using Medline and PubMed databases, Mayo Clinic library databases, and/or review by a qualified medical librarian. Misrepresented publications underwent further review to identify fraudulent publications and/or citation errors that provide an unfair competitive advantage. The authors found that 2.4% of the applications (13 of 532) included fraudulent publications, 6.6% of the applications with at least 1 publication (13 of 197) included ≥1 that was fraudulent, and 2.9% of all cited publications (15 of 522) were fraudulent. In addition, 0.9% of the applications (5 of 532) contained a citation error that, although not grossly fraudulent, could have favorably affected the applicant's competitiveness for a residency position. Misrepresented publications were fairly common among anesthesiology residency applicants. However, only a small percentage of applicants listed misrepresented publications that were clearly fraudulent or contained a citation error that conferred a competitive advantage. Identification of fraudulent publications on Electronic Residency Application Service applications is important to maintain the integrity of the application process.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-12-01

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

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Spencer C Evans

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2018-01-01

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

45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

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

Peer-reviewed public health journals from Arabic-speaking countries: An updated snapshot.

OpenAIRE

Aboul-Enein, BH; Bernstein, J; Bowser, JE

2017-01-01

There is a positive association between availability of regional peer-reviewed public health information systems and progressive change in community and population health. The objective of this brief report was to identify public health journals in Arabic-speaking countries actively publishing as of 2016. We conducted an electronic search in several electronic database records for public health journals using a combination of search terms. We excluded journals that focused on human medicine, ...

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

Open evaluation (OE: A vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Nikolaus eKriegeskorte

2012-10-01

Full Text Available The two major functions of a scientific publishing system are to provide access to and evaluation of scientific papers. While open access (OA is becoming a reality, open evaluation (OE, the other side of coin, has received less attention. Evaluation steers the attention of the scientific community and thus the very course of science. It also influences the use of scientific findings in public policy. The current system of scientific publishing provides only journal prestige as an indication of the quality of new papers and relies on a non-transparent and noisy pre-publication peer review process, which delays publication by many months on average. Here I propose an OE system, in which papers are evaluated post-publication in an ongoing fashion by means of open peer review and rating. Through signed ratings and reviews, scientists steer the attention of their field and build their reputation. Reviewers are motivated to be objective, because low-quality or self-serving signed evaluations will negatively impact their reputation. A core feature of this proposal is a division of powers between the accumulation of evaluative evidence and the analysis of this evidence by paper evaluation functions (PEFs. PEFs can be freely defined by individuals or groups (e.g. scientific societies and provide a plurality of perspectives on the scientific literature. Simple PEFs will use averages of ratings, weighting reviewers (e.g. by H-factor and rating scales (e.g. by relevance to a decision process in different ways. Complex PEFs will use advanced statistical techniques to infer the quality of a paper. Papers with initially promising ratings will be more deeply evaluated. The continual refinement of PEFs in response to attempts by individuals to influence evaluations in their own favor will make the system ungameable. OA and OE together have the power to revolutionize scientific publishing and usher in a new culture of transparency, constructive criticism, and

Publication misrepresentation among neurosurgery residency applicants: an increasing problem.

Science.gov (United States)

Kistka, Heather M; Nayeri, Arash; Wang, Li; Dow, Jamie; Chandrasekhar, Rameela; Chambless, Lola B

2016-01-01

OBJECT Misrepresentation of scholarly achievements is a recognized phenomenon, well documented in numerous fields, yet the accuracy of reporting remains dependent on the honor principle. Therefore, honest self-reporting is of paramount importance to maintain scientific integrity in neurosurgery. The authors had observed a trend toward increasing numbers of publications among applicants for neurosurgery residency at Vanderbilt University and undertook this study to determine whether this change was a result of increased academic productivity, inflated reporting, or both. They also aimed to identify application variables associated with inaccurate citations. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed the residency applications submitted to their neurosurgery department in 2006 (n = 148) and 2012 (n = 194). The applications from 2006 were made via SF Match and those from 2012 were made using the Electronic Residency Application Service. Publications reported as "accepted" or "in press" were verified via online search of Google Scholar, PubMed, journal websites, and direct journal contact. Works were considered misrepresented if they did not exist, incorrectly listed the applicant as first author, or were incorrectly listed as peer reviewed or published in a printed journal rather than an online only or non-peer-reviewed publication. Demographic data were collected, including applicant sex, medical school ranking and country, advanced degrees, Alpha Omega Alpha membership, and USMLE Step 1 score. Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to identify predictors of misrepresentation. RESULTS Using univariate analysis, between 2006 and 2012 the percentage of applicants reporting published works increased significantly (47% vs 97%, p < 0.001). However, the percentage of applicants with misrepresentations (33% vs 45%) also increased. In 2012, applicants with a greater total of reported works (p < 0.001) and applicants from unranked US medical schools (those not

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

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

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.

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2013-12-01

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

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…

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 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.

The Peer Reviewed Literature on Undergraduate Education for Public Health in the United States, 2004-2014

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Connie J Evashwick

2014-11-01

Full Text Available The education of undergraduate college students in the field of public health has burgeoned over the past decade. Professional literature in peer-reviewed journals is one indicator of the status of a field of study and its related body of knowledge. It is also a mechanism for sharing information among professionals about challenges, issues, experiences and best practices.The purpose of the literature review conducted here was to describe the status of the peer reviewed literature over the past decade pertaining to the education of undergraduates about the field of public health in the U.S.A literature search was conducted of three data bases: PubMed, Scopus and ERIC. Inclusion criteria were publication date from January 1, 2004 through July 31, 2014; written in the English language; pertaining to undergraduate education in the U.S.; and a focus on public health as the primary discipline. Public health was searched as an overarching discipline; articles focused on sub-disciplines or other health professions disciplines were excluded.The search resulted in 158 articles. Each of the authors reviewed the abstracts for all articles and read full articles when necessary. The result was 23 articles that were then considered in depth. The articles were categorized according to their primary theme: curriculum, courses, learning objectives (N=14; evaluation of teaching method (N=3; case study (N=3; career path and advising (N=2; accreditation (N=1. Year of publication and journal were also examined.The results of the literature search lead to several observations about how the peer reviewed literature has been used to date and how it could be used to advance the emerging field of undergraduate education for public health.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2013-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2007-05-01

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

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2018-03-27

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

Peer-reviewed public health journals from Arabic-speaking countries: An updated snapshot.

Science.gov (United States)

Aboul-Enein, Basil H; Bernstein, Joshua; Bowser, Jacquelyn E

2017-02-01

There is a positive association between availability of regional peer-reviewed public health information systems and progressive change in community and population health. The objective of this brief report was to identify public health journals in Arabic-speaking countries actively publishing as of 2016. We conducted an electronic search in several electronic database records for public health journals using a combination of search terms. We excluded journals that focused on human medicine, veterinary medicine, nursing, and other discipline-specific or clinical health professions. We identified twenty-five public health journals for review. Five journals were interrupted or discontinued. Only three journals had a consistent, uninterrupted active publication history of greater than 20 years. Most journals were not in the regional native language. Introduction of regional public health-dedicated journals with in-print and electronic availability and also to be published in region-native languages may require interdisciplinary partnerships. Region-wide public health journals such as the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal could serve as an ideal model for the establishment of additional local and regional public health journals in Arabic-speaking countries.

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2018-01-01

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

Rate and factors influencing the conversion of abstracts presented at the argentinian congress of hypertension meetings to indexed full peer-reviewed publications.

Science.gov (United States)

Barochiner, J; Martínez, R; Choi, M; Espeche, W; Micali, R G; Tomat, A

2018-03-01

Publication rates vary significantly among different scientific meetings, with many abstracts never being published as peer-reviewed articles. This issue has never been investigated in the Hypertension field in Argentina. Our purpose was to determine the proportion of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings that were published as full articles in peer-reviewed indexed journals, the time lag to publication and the factors associated with successful publication. we conducted a PubMed search to identify peer-reviewed publications of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings between 2006 and 2015, assessing publication rate along with the time lag to publication. We also extracted information about several abstract characteristics and, for those that got published, we recorded the date of publication and journal name with its impact factor and H index. Predictors of publication were analyzed using a multivariable model. a total of 619 abstracts were presented between 2006 and 2015. The rate of conversion to full-text peer-reviewed articles by June 2017 was 28.1% (95%CI 24.7-31.8%), with a median time to publication of 15.7 months (IQR 8-30.9). On multivariable analysis, the independent predictors of publication were basic science category (OR 5 [95%CI 2.3-10.8], p<0.001), oral presentation (OR 2.8 [95%CI 1.6-4.9], p<0.001) and being an award winner for the presentation (OR 3 [95%CI 1.3-6.8], p=0.01). conversion rate to full peer-reviewed articles of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings is far from ideal, with potential areas where efforts should be concentrated to improve dissemination of knowledge. Copyright © 2018 SEH-LELHA. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

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…

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.

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…

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

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

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2013-06-17

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

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.

Incorporating resident research into the dermatology residency program

Science.gov (United States)

Wagner, Richard F; Raimer, Sharon S; Kelly, Brent C

2013-01-01

Programmatic changes for the dermatology residency program at The University of Texas Medical Branch were first introduced in 2005, with the faculty goal incorporating formal dermatology research projects into the 3-year postgraduate training period. This curriculum initially developed as a recommendation for voluntary scholarly project activity by residents, but it evolved into a program requirement for all residents in 2009. Departmental support for this activity includes assignment of a faculty mentor with similar interest about the research topic, financial support from the department for needed supplies, materials, and statistical consultation with the Office of Biostatistics for study design and data analysis, a 2-week elective that provides protected time from clinical activities for the purpose of preparing research for publication and submission to a peer-reviewed medical journal, and a departmental award in recognition for the best resident scholarly project each year. Since the inception of this program, five classes have graduated a total of 16 residents. Ten residents submitted their research studies for peer review and published their scholarly projects in seven dermatology journals through the current academic year. These articles included three prospective investigations, three surveys, one article related to dermatology education, one retrospective chart review, one case series, and one article about dermatopathology. An additional article from a 2012 graduate about dermatology education has also been submitted to a journal. This new program for residents was adapted from our historically successful Dermatology Honors Research Program for medical students at The University of Texas Medical Branch. Our experience with this academic initiative to promote dermatology research by residents is outlined. It is recommended that additional residency programs should consider adopting similar research programs to enrich resident education. PMID:23901305

Incorporating resident research into the dermatology residency program.

Science.gov (United States)

Wagner, Richard F; Raimer, Sharon S; Kelly, Brent C

2013-01-01

Programmatic changes for the dermatology residency program at The University of Texas Medical Branch were first introduced in 2005, with the faculty goal incorporating formal dermatology research projects into the 3-year postgraduate training period. This curriculum initially developed as a recommendation for voluntary scholarly project activity by residents, but it evolved into a program requirement for all residents in 2009. Departmental support for this activity includes assignment of a faculty mentor with similar interest about the research topic, financial support from the department for needed supplies, materials, and statistical consultation with the Office of Biostatistics for study design and data analysis, a 2-week elective that provides protected time from clinical activities for the purpose of preparing research for publication and submission to a peer-reviewed medical journal, and a departmental award in recognition for the best resident scholarly project each year. Since the inception of this program, five classes have graduated a total of 16 residents. Ten residents submitted their research studies for peer review and published their scholarly projects in seven dermatology journals through the current academic year. These articles included three prospective investigations, three surveys, one article related to dermatology education, one retrospective chart review, one case series, and one article about dermatopathology. An additional article from a 2012 graduate about dermatology education has also been submitted to a journal. This new program for residents was adapted from our historically successful Dermatology Honors Research Program for medical students at The University of Texas Medical Branch. Our experience with this academic initiative to promote dermatology research by residents is outlined. It is recommended that additional residency programs should consider adopting similar research programs to enrich resident education.

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…

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

2011-11-01

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

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

OpenAIRE

Doehring, C.; Sundrum, A.

2016-01-01

Homeopathy is widely used in livestock, especially in order to reduce the use of antibiotics, although it is often seen as controversial. A comprehensive literature review has been conducted to assess the efficacy of homeopathy in cattle, pigs and poultry. Only peer-reviewed publications dealing with homeopathic remedies, which could possibly replace or prevent the use of antibiotics in the case of infective diseases or growth promotion in livestock were included. Search results revealed a to...

How nursing home residents develop relationships with peers and staff: a grounded theory study.

Science.gov (United States)

Roberts, Tonya; Bowers, Barbara

2015-01-01

Social support and social relationships have been repeatedly identified as essential to nursing home resident quality of life. However, little is known about ways residents develop relationships with peers or staff. This study was conducted to explore the ways resident develop relationships with peers and staff in nursing homes. Fifteen cognitively intact nursing home residents from two facilities were interviewed for this grounded theory study. Sampling, interviewing, and analysis occurred in a cyclical process with results at each stage of the study informing decisions about data collection and analysis in the next. Unstructured interviews and field observations were conducted. Data were analyzed with open, axial, and selective coding. Residents developed relationships with peers and staff largely as an unintended consequence of trying to have a life in the nursing home. Having a life was a two-step process. First, life motivations (Being Self and Creating a Positive Atmosphere) influenced resident preferences for daily activities and interaction goals and subsequently their strategies for achieving and establishing both. Second, the strategies residents used for achieving their required daily activities (Passing Time and Getting Needs Met) and interaction goals then influenced the nature of interaction and the subsequent peer or staff response to these interactions. Residents defined relationships as friendly or unfriendly depending on whether peers or staff responded positively or negatively. There was considerable overlap in the ways peer and staff relationships developed and the results highlight the role of peer and staff responsiveness in relationship development. The results provide possible explanations for the success of interventions in the literature designed to improve staff responsiveness to residents. The results suggest that adapting these kinds of interventions for use with peers may also be successful. The conceptual model also presents a number

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1995-01-01

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

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1994-01-01

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

Peer Review of Best Practices

Science.gov (United States)

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

2017-12-01

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

Preresidency publication record and its association with publishing during paediatric residency.

Science.gov (United States)

Gupta, Ronish; Norris, Mark Lorne; Writer, Hilary

2016-05-01

To determine whether an association exists between the publication of journal articles before and during paediatrics residency. A retrospective search of PubMed was conducted for publications by all 567 Canadian paediatricians certified between 2009 and 2012, inclusive. Paediatricians were separated into groups based on the number of articles published preresidency (0 or ≥1) and during residency (0 or ≥1). The methodology was validated using a group of local paediatricians who were contacted to verify whether their publications were identified accurately. A total of 160 of 567 (28%) certified paediatricians had preresidency publications; of these, 93 (58%) subsequently published during their residency period. Among the remaining 407 (72%) paediatricians without preresidency publications, 129 (32%) published during residency. The association between publication before and during paediatric residency was statistically significant (OR 2.98 [95% CI 2.04 to 4.36]; Ppublication status with 87% and 90% accuracy, respectively. Individuals with previous publications were more likely to publish as residents; however, 42% of individuals with pre-residency publications did not publish as residents. Residency selection committees may find these data helpful in assessing the publication potential of their applicants. In addition, this information may assist in building more targeted and individualized research curricula within residency programs.

Mentored peer reviewing for PhD faculty and students.

Science.gov (United States)

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

2016-02-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2018-05-10

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

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

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

2013-01-01

The rate of conversion of abstracts presented at scientific meetings into peer-reviewed published manuscripts is an important metric for medical societies, because it facilitates translation of scientific knowledge into practice. We determined the rate and predictors of conversion of scientific...... abstracts presented at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress (CCC) from 2006 to 2010 into peer-reviewed article publications within 2 years of their initial presentation. Using a previously validated computer algorithm, we searched the International Statistical Institute Web of Science to identify peer...

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.

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

Pytynia, Kristen B

2017-06-01

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

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Weng, Naidong

2012-11-01

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

The AIRInforma experiment: peer-reviewed public dissemination of science in Italy

Science.gov (United States)

Forneris, Federico; Cassetta, Luca; Gravina, Teresita

2015-04-01

Public dissemination of science to the public is often negatively affected by biased, incorrect information distributed over the world wide web through social networks and weblogs. In Italy, the lack of correct scientific information has generated several important issues, raising concerns by the international scientific community in several occasions over the past five years. Our association AIRIcerca (International Association of Italian Researchers, http://www.airicerca.org) has recently started a novel scientific dissemination initiative to the general public in Italy. The project is based on 1) direct involvement of researchers (with accademic or industrial affiliation) in article preparation and publication and 2) introduction of a peer-reviewing system similar to that applied in conventional scientific publishing. Our initiative, named AIRInforma (http://informa.airicerca.org) has already published more than 10 original articles and 3 meeting reports, in Italian language, about various fields of scientific research, ranging from social sciences to evolutionary biology , mathematics and medicine . The editorial board is composed of approximately 20 Italian scientists working all over the world and voluntarily contributing to the AIRInforma initiative. Submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial board and, if suitable, they are assigned to four non-anonymous reviewers selected by the editorial board for accurate evaluation. Two reviewers are selected based on their specific expertise on the topic presented in the manuscript (expert reviewers), and two are specifically selected as working on distant fields (naive reviewers). The purpose of naive reviewers is to provide feedback on the efficacy and clarity of the information for the general public. So far, AIRInforma has established a novel channel of scientific communication in Italy, receiving excellent feedback and reaching more than 8000 new unique visitors every month on our website and

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

2014-01-01

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

Peer-Assisted Analysis of Resident Feedback Improves Clinical Teaching: A Case Report.

Science.gov (United States)

Mai, Christine L; Baker, Keith

2017-07-01

Anesthesiologists play an important role in educating future clinicians. Yet few residency programs incorporate teaching skills into faculty development. Consequently, many anesthesiologists have limited training to supervise and educate residents. In turn, these attendings may receive negative feedback and poor evaluations from residents without a means to effectively improve. Peer-assisted teaching between faculty members may serve as a strategy to improve teaching skills. We report a case of peer-assisted analysis of resident feedback to identify specific areas of concern that were targeted for improvement. This approach resulted in improved teaching scores and feedback for the faculty member.

Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-04-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2012-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-01-01

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

How peer-review constrains cognition

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Cowley, Stephen

2015-01-01

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

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.

Peer Review in Controversial Topics—A Case Study of 9/11

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

John D. Wyndham

2017-06-01

Full Text Available Beginning with an historical reminiscence, this paper examines the peer review process as experienced by authors currently seeking publication of their research in a highly controversial area. A case study of research into the events of 9/11 (11 September 2001 illustrates some of the problems in peer review arising from undue influences based on financial and political considerations. The paper suggests that ethical failures, rather than flaws in the process itself, are mainly responsible for perceived problems. The way forward lies in improved ethics and a more open process. In addition, editorial review boards and peer review strategies would help to improve the ethics of peer review in general.

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

Science.gov (United States)

Anderson, Claire; Blenkinsopp, Alison; Armstrong, Miriam

2004-01-01

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

Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Strickland, N.H.

2015-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Mann, Cindy; Delgado, Debbie; Horwood, Jeremy

2014-04-01

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

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......-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....

Ethics of reviewing scientific publications.

Science.gov (United States)

Napolitani, Federica; Petrini, Carlo; Garattini, Silvio

2017-05-01

The approval or rejection of scientific publications can have important consequences for scientific knowledge, so considerable responsibility lies on those who have to assess or review them. Today it seems that the peer review process, far from being considered an outdated system to be abandoned, is experiencing a new upturn. This article proposes criteria for the conduct of reviewers and of those who select them. While commenting on new emerging models, it provides practical recommendations for improving the peer-review system, like strengthening the role of guidelines and training and supporting reviewers. The process of peer review is changing, it is getting more open and collaborative, but those same ethical principles which guided it from its very origin should remain untouched and be firmly consolidated. The paper highlights how the ethics of reviewing scientific publications is needed now more than ever, in particular with regard to competence, conflict of interest, willingness to discuss decisions, complete transparency and integrity. Copyright © 2016 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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.

Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback.

Science.gov (United States)

Strickland, N H

2015-11-01

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

Peer review at the Health Information and Libraries Journal.

Science.gov (United States)

Grant, Maria J

2014-12-01

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

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

OpenAIRE

Head, A; Glen, N; Thompson, S

2009-01-01

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

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

OpenAIRE

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

2016-01-01

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

Peer Review and Academic Productivism from the View of Reviewers of Academic Journals in Management

OpenAIRE

Shigaki, Helena Belintani; Patrus, Roberto

2017-01-01

In a productivist culture, marked by the appreciation of the publication of scientific papers, the subject of peer review becomes relevant. The aim of this study was to reflect on how productivism is seen by the reviewers of scientific papers in the area of Administration, in the light of three specific objectives: to identify the motivations and external influences that teachers act as reviewers, to understand their assessment about the peer review system in Brazil, and to identify the possi...

Peer review in forensic science.

Science.gov (United States)

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

2017-08-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2016-08-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Mucke, Hermann A M

2011-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Grimaldo, Francisco; Marušić, Ana

2018-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Jenna Pack Sheffield

2013-06-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Wicherts, Jelte M

2016-01-01

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

40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

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…

Canadian pharmacy practice residents' projects: publication rates and study characteristics.

Science.gov (United States)

Hung, Michelle; Duffett, Mark

2013-03-01

Research projects are a key component of pharmacy residents' education. Projects represent both a large investment of effort for each resident (up to 10 weeks over the residency year) and a large body of research (given that there are currently over 150 residency positions in Canada annually). Publication of results is a vital part of the dissemination of information gleaned from these projects. To determine the publication rate for research projects performed under the auspices of accredited English-language hospital pharmacy residency programs in Canada and to describe the study characteristics of residency projects performed in Ontario from 1999/2000 to 2008/2009. Lists of residents and project titles for the period of interest were obtained from residency coordinators. PubMed, CINAHL, the Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, and Google were searched for evidence of publication of each project identified, as an abstract or presentation at a meeting, a letter to the editor, or a full-text manuscript. The library holdings of the University of Toronto were reviewed to determine study characteristics of the Ontario residency projects. For the objective of this study relating to publication rate, 518 projects were included. The overall publication rate was 32.2% (60 [35.9%] as abstracts and 107 [64.1%] as full-text manuscripts). Publication in pharmacy-specific journals (66 [61.7%] of 107 full-text manuscripts) was more frequent than publication in non-pharmacy-specific journals. The publication rate of projects as full-text manuscripts remained stable over time. Of the 202 Ontario residency projects archived in the University of Toronto's library, most were cohort studies (83 [41.1%]), and the most common topic was efficacy and/or safety of a medication (46 [22.8%]). Most hospital pharmacy residents' projects were unpublished, and the publication rate of projects as full-text manuscripts has not increased over time. Most projects were observational studies

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.

The "Near-Peer" Approach to Teaching Musculoskeletal Physical Examination Skills Benefits Residents and Medical Students.

Science.gov (United States)

Rosenberg, Casandra J; Nanos, Katherine N; Newcomer, Karen L

2017-03-01

The musculoskeletal physical examination (MSK PE) is an essential part of medical student training, and it is best taught in a hands-on, longitudinal fashion. A barrier to this approach is faculty instructor availability. "Near-peer" teaching refers to physicians-in-training teaching their junior colleagues. It is unknown whether near-peer teaching is effective in teaching this important physical examination skill. To investigate attitudes of medical students and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) residents regarding near-peer teaching in an MSK PE curriculum. Qualitative, anonymous paper and online surveys. Tertiary academic center with a medical school and PM&R training program. Ninety-nine second- and third-year medical students and 13 PM&R residents in their third or fourth postgraduate year. Attitudes of second- and third-year medical students were measured immediately after their MSK PE course. Resident attitudes were measured in a single cross-sectional sample. Student attitudes were assessed via a questionnaire with 5-point Likert scales and a free-text comment section. The resident questionnaire included a combination of multiple-choice questions, rankings, free-text responses, and Likert scales. All 99 students completed the questionnaire. The majority of students (n = 79 [80%]) reported that resident involvement as hands-on instructors of examination skills was "very useful," and 87 (88%) indicated that resident-led small discussion groups were "very helpful" or "somewhat helpful." Fifty-seven of 99 students (58%) reported that the resident-facilitated course was "much better" than courses without resident involvement. Twelve of 13 eligible residents completed the survey, and of those, 8 found teaching "very helpful" to their MSK knowledge, and 11 became "somewhat" or "much more confident" in clinical examination skills. Our study supports educational benefits to medical students and resident instructors in our MSK PE program. We recommend

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

Science.gov (United States)

Reiner, Bruce I

2017-12-01

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

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

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

2017-01-01

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

Will Public Pre-K Really Close Achievement Gaps? Gaps in Prekindergarten Quality between Students and across States

Science.gov (United States)

Valentino, Rachel

2018-01-01

Publicly funded pre-K is often touted as a means to narrow achievement gaps, but this goal is less likely to be achieved if poor and/or minority children do not, at a minimum, attend equal quality pre-K as their non-poor, non-minority peers. In this paper, I find large "quality gaps" in public pre-K between poor, minority students and…

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…

Peer Review of Teaching

OpenAIRE

Fernandez, Charles E.; Yu, Jenny

2007-01-01

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

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…

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 ...

The ethics of peer review in bioethics

Science.gov (United States)

Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

2014-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Qi, Xingshun; Deng, Han; Guo, Xiaozhong

2017-08-01

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

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…

A network of helping: Generalized reciprocity and cooperative behavior in response to peer and staff affirmations and corrections among therapeutic community residents.

Science.gov (United States)

Doogan, Nathan J; Warren, Keith

2017-01-01

Clinical theory in therapeutic communities (TCs) for substance abuse treatment emphasizes the importance of peer interactions in bringing about change. This implies that residents will respond in a more prosocial manner to peer versus staff intervention and that residents will interact in such a way as to maintain cooperation. The data consist of electronic records of peer and staff affirmations and corrections at four corrections-based therapeutic community units. We treat the data as a directed social network of affirmations. We sampled 100 resident days from each unit (n = 400) and used a generalized linear mixed effects network time series model to analyze the predictors of sending and receiving affirmations and corrections. The model allowed us to control for characteristics of individuals as well as network-related dependencies. Residents show generalized reciprocity following peer affirmations, but not following staff affirmations. Residents did not respond to peer corrections by increasing affirmations, but responded to staff corrections by decreasing affirmations. Residents directly reciprocated peer affirmations. Residents were more likely to affirm a peer whom they had recently corrected. Residents were homophilous with respect to race, age and program entry time. This analysis demonstrates that TC residents react more prosocially to behavioral intervention by peers than by staff. Further, the community exhibits generalized and direct reciprocity, mechanisms known to foster cooperation in groups. Multiple forms of homophily influence resident interactions. These findings validate TC clinical theory while suggesting paths to improved outcomes.

The Factors Influencing the Sense of Home in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review from the Perspective of Residents

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

M. D. Rijnaard

2016-01-01

Full Text Available Purpose. To provide an overview of factors influencing the sense of home of older adults residing in the nursing home. Methods. A systematic review was conducted. Inclusion criteria were (1 original and peer-reviewed research, (2 qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research, (3 research about nursing home residents (or similar type of housing, and (4 research on the sense of home, meaning of home, at-homeness, or homelikeness. Results. Seventeen mainly qualitative articles were included. The sense of home of nursing home residents is influenced by 15 factors, divided into three themes: (1 psychological factors (sense of acknowledgement, preservation of one’s habits and values, autonomy and control, and coping; (2 social factors (interaction and relationship with staff, residents, family and friends, and pets and activities; and (3 the built environment (private space and (quasi-public space, personal belongings, technology, look and feel, and the outdoors and location. Conclusions. The sense of home is influenced by numerous factors related to the psychology of the residents and the social and built environmental contexts. Further research is needed to determine if and how the identified factors are interrelated, if perspectives of various stakeholders involved differ, and how the factors can be improved in practice.

The ethics of peer review in bioethics.

Science.gov (United States)

Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

2014-10-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-01-01

Objective To prospectively test two simplified peer review processes, estimate the agreement between the simplified and official processes, and compare the costs of peer review. Design, participants and setting A prospective parallel study of Project Grant proposals submitted in 2013 to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. The official funding outcomes were compared with two simplified processes using proposals in Public Health and Basic Science. The two simplified processes were: panels of 7 reviewers who met face-to-face and reviewed only the nine-page research proposal and track record (simplified panel); and 2 reviewers who independently reviewed only the nine-page research proposal (journal panel). The official process used panels of 12 reviewers who met face-to-face and reviewed longer proposals of around 100 pages. We compared the funding outcomes of 72 proposals that were peer reviewed by the simplified and official processes. Main outcome measures Agreement in funding outcomes; costs of peer review based on reviewers’ time and travel costs. Results The agreement between the simplified and official panels (72%, 95% CI 61% to 82%), and the journal and official panels (74%, 62% to 83%), was just below the acceptable threshold of 75%. Using the simplified processes would save $A2.1–$A4.9 million per year in peer review costs. Conclusions Using shorter applications and simpler peer review processes gave reasonable agreement with the more complex official process. Simplified processes save time and money that could be reallocated to actual research. Funding agencies should consider streamlining their application processes. PMID:26137884

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

Science.gov (United States)

Li, Danielle; Agha, Leila

2015-04-24

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

7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

Potential Benefits of Incorporating Peer-to-Peer Interactions Into Digital Interventions for Psychotic Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Science.gov (United States)

Biagianti, Bruno; Quraishi, Sophia H; Schlosser, Danielle A

2018-04-01

Peer-to-peer interactions and support groups mitigate experiences of social isolation and loneliness often reported by individuals with psychotic disorders. Online peer-to-peer communication can promote broader use of this form of social support. Peer-to-peer interactions occur naturally on social media platforms, but they can negatively affect mental health. Recent digital interventions for persons with psychotic disorders have harnessed the principles of social media to incorporate peer-to-peer communication. This review examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of recent digital interventions in order to identify strategies to maximize benefits of online peer-to-peer communication for persons with psychotic disorders. An electronic database search of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database was conducted in February 2017 and yielded a total of 1,015 results. Eight publications that reported data from six independent trials and five interventions were reviewed. The technology supporting peer-to-peer communication varied greatly across studies, from online forums to embedded social networking. When peer-to-peer interactions were moderated by facilitators, retention, engagement, acceptability, and efficacy were higher than for interventions with no facilitators. Individuals with psychotic disorders were actively engaged with moderated peer-to-peer communication and showed improvements in perceived social support. Studies involving service users in intervention design showed higher rates of acceptability. Individuals with psychotic disorders value and benefit from digital interventions that include moderated peer-to-peer interactions. Incorporating peer-to-peer communication into digital interventions for this population may increase compliance with other evidence-based therapies by producing more acceptable and engaging online environments.

An Analysis of Future Publications, Career Choices, and Practice Characteristics of Research Presenters at an American College of Surgeons State Conference: A 15-Year Review.

Science.gov (United States)

Ahmad, Humera F; Jarman, Benjamin T; Kallies, Kara J; Shapiro, Stephen B

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires scholarly activity within general surgery residency programs. The association between in-training research presentations and postgraduation publications is unknown. We hypothesized that surgical trainee presentations at an American College of Surgeons (ACS) state chapter meeting resulted in peer-reviewed publications and future scholarly activity. The ACS Wisconsin state chapter meeting agendas from 2000 to 2014 were reviewed to identify all trainees who delivered podium presentations. A literature search was completed for subsequent publications. Program coordinators were queried and an electronic search was performed to determine practice location and type for each residency graduate. Wisconsin state chapter ACS meeting. General surgery residents, fellows, and medical students in Wisconsin. There were 288 podium presentations by trainees (76% residents, 20% medical students, and 4% fellows). Presentations were clinical (79.5%) and basic science (20.5%). There were 204 unique presenters; 25% presented at subsequent meetings. Of these unique presenters, 46% published their research and 31% published additional research after residency. Among presenters who completed residency or fellowship (N = 119), 34% practiced in a university setting, and 61% practiced in a community setting; 31% practiced in Wisconsin. When comparing clinical vs basic science presenters, there was no difference in fellowship completion (37% vs 44%; p = 0.190) or practice type (38% vs 46% in a university setting; p = 0.397). Repeat presenters were more likely to pursue a fellowship vs those presenting once (76% vs 37%; p = 0.001). Research presentations by surgical trainees at an ACS state chapter meeting frequently led to peer-reviewed publications. Presenters were likely to pursue research opportunities after residency. Repeat presenters were more likely to pursue a fellowship. ACS Wisconsin chapter meetings provide an

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Vivian M Nguyen

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Geithner, Christina A; Pollastro, Alexandria N

2016-03-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2018-04-01

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

An analysis of abstracts presented to the College on Problems of Drug Dependence meeting and subsequent publication in peer review journals

Science.gov (United States)

Valderrama-Zurián, Juan Carlos; Bolaños-Pizarro, Máxima; Bueno-Cañigral, Francisco Jesús; Álvarez, F Javier; Ontalba-Ruipérez, José Antonio; Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael

2009-01-01

Background Subsequent publication rate of abstracts presented at meetings is seen as an indicator of the interest and quality of the meeting. We have analyzed characteristics and rate publication in peer-reviewed journals derived from oral communications and posters presented at the 1999 College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) meeting. Methods All 689 abstracts presented at the 1999 CPDD meeting were reviewed. In order to find the existence of publications derived from abstracts presented at that meeting, a set of bibliographical searches in the database Medline was developed in July 2006. Information was gathered concerning the abstracts, articles and journals in which they were published. Results 254 out of 689 abstracts (36.9%) gave rise to at least one publication. The oral communications had a greater likelihood of being published than did the posters (OR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.80-3.55). The average time lapse to publication of an article was 672.97 days. The number of authors per work in the subsequent publications was 4.55. The articles were published in a total of 84 journals, of which eight were indexed with the subject term Substance-Related Disorders. Psychopharmacology (37 articles, 14.5%) was the journal that published the greatest number of articles subsequent to the abstracts presented at the 1999 CPDD meeting. Conclusion One out of every three abstracts presented to the 1999 CPDD meeting were later published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Medline. The subsequent publication of the abstracts presented in the CPDD meetings should be actively encouraged, as this maximizes the dissemination of the scientific research and therefore the investment. PMID:19889211

Technology enhanced peer learning and peer assessment

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

2016-01-01

This paper explores the application of learning designs featuring formalised and structured technology enhanced peer learning. These include student produced learning elements, peer review discussions and peer assessment in the BSc/MSc level summer course Restoration of European Ecosystems and Fr...... be a huge benefit from developing learning design patterns that facilitate informal peer learning and reinforce knowledge sharing practices.......This paper explores the application of learning designs featuring formalised and structured technology enhanced peer learning. These include student produced learning elements, peer review discussions and peer assessment in the BSc/MSc level summer course Restoration of European Ecosystems...... and Freshwaters (REEF), the Master thesis preparation seminars for the Master of Public Health (MPH) and the MOOC course Global Environmental Management (GEM). The application of student produced learning elements and peer review discussions is investigated by analyzing quotes from course evaluations...

Peer Reviewer

OpenAIRE

Baru Mansjur, Mansjur

2016-01-01

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

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.

How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-01-01

Delays in peer reviewed publication may have consequences for both assessment of scientific prowess in academia as well as communication of important information to the knowledge receptor community. We present an analysis on the perspectives of authors publishing in conservation biology journals regarding their opinions on the importance of speed in peer-review as well as how to improve review times. Authors were invited to take part in an online questionnaire, of which the data was subjected to both qualitative (open coding, categorizing) and quantitative analyses (generalized linear models). We received 637 responses to 6,547 e-mail invitations sent. Peer-review speed was generally perceived as slow, with authors experiencing a typical turnaround time of 14 weeks while their perceived optimal review time was six weeks. Male and younger respondents seem to have higher expectations of review speed than females and older respondents. The majority of participants attributed lengthy review times to reviewer and editor fatigue, while editor persistence and journal prestige were believed to speed up the review process. Negative consequences of lengthy review times were perceived to be greater for early career researchers and to have impact on author morale (e.g. motivation or frustration). Competition among colleagues was also of concern to respondents. Incentivizing peer-review was among the top suggested alterations to the system along with training graduate students in peer-review, increased editorial persistence, and changes to the norms of peer-review such as opening the peer-review process to the public. It is clear that authors surveyed in this study viewed the peer-review system as under stress and we encourage scientists and publishers to push the envelope for new peer-review models. PMID:26267491

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

Great Expectations of Public Service Delegation: A Systematic Review

NARCIS (Netherlands)

Overman, Sjors

2016-01-01

Politicians use a variety of expectations to justify the delegation of public services to public, semi-public or private organizations. This article reveals expectations of delegation, as well as its correlates. Empirical evidence is drawn from a systematic review of 250 peer-reviewed articles

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2012-01-01

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

Technology enhanced peer learning and peer assessment

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

2016-01-01

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

Quality Assurance Peer Review Chart Rounds in 2011: A Survey of Academic Institutions in the United States

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Lawrence, Yaacov Richard; Whiton, Michal A.; Symon, Zvi; Wuthrick, Evan J.; Doyle, Laura; Harrison, Amy S.; Dicker, Adam P.

2012-01-01

Purpose: In light of concerns regarding the quality of radiation treatment delivery, we surveyed the practice of quality assurance peer review chart rounds at American academic institutions. Methods and Materials: An anonymous web-based survey was sent to the chief resident of each institution across the United States. Results: The response rate was 80% (57/71). The median amount of time spent per patient was 2.7 minutes (range, 0.6–14.4). The mean attendance by senior physicians and residents was 73% and 93%, respectively. A physicist was consistently present at peer review rounds in 66% of departments. There was a close association between attendance by senior physicians and departmental organization: in departments with protected time policies, good attendance was 81% vs. 31% without protected time (p = 0.001), and in departments that documented attendance, attending presence was 69% vs. 29% in departments without documentation (p 75% of institutions, whereas dosimetric details (beams, wedges), isodose coverage, intensity-modulated radiation therapy constraints, and dose–volume histograms were always peer reviewed in 63%, 59%, 42%, and 50% of cases, respectively. Chart rounds led to both minor (defined as a small multileaf collimator change/repeated port film) and major (change to dose prescription or replan with dosimetry) treatment changes. Whereas at the majority of institutions changes were rare (<10% of cases), 39% and 11% of institutions reported that minor and major changes, respectively, were made to more than 10% of cases. Conclusion: The implementation of peer review chart rounds seems inconsistent across American academic institutions. Brachytherapy and radiosurgical procedures are rarely reviewed. Attendance by senior physicians is variable, but it improves when scheduling clashes are avoided. The potential effect of a more thorough quality assurance peer review on patient outcomes is not known.

Can a resident's publication record predict fellowship publications?

Science.gov (United States)

Prasad, Vinay; Rho, Jason; Selvaraj, Senthil; Cheung, Mike; Vandross, Andrae; Ho, Nancy

2014-01-01

Internal medicine fellowship programs have an incentive to select fellows who will ultimately publish. Whether an applicant's publication record predicts long term publishing remains unknown. Using records of fellowship bound internal medicine residents, we analyzed whether publications at time of fellowship application predict publications more than 3 years (2 years into fellowship) and up to 7 years after fellowship match. We calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios for every cutoff number of application publications, and plot a receiver operator characteristic curve of this test. Of 307 fellowship bound residents, 126 (41%) published at least one article 3 to 7 years after matching, and 181 (59%) of residents do not publish in this time period. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve is 0.59. No cutoff value for application publications possessed adequate test characteristics. The number of publications an applicant has at time of fellowship application is a poor predictor of who publishes in the long term. These findings do not validate the practice of using application publications as a tool for selecting fellows.

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…

28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

Nevada Risk Assessment/Management Program scientific peer review

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

1997-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Doehring, C; Sundrum, A

2016-12-17

Homeopathy is widely used in livestock, especially in order to reduce the use of antibiotics, although it is often seen as controversial. A comprehensive literature review has been conducted to assess the efficacy of homeopathy in cattle, pigs and poultry. Only peer-reviewed publications dealing with homeopathic remedies, which could possibly replace or prevent the use of antibiotics in the case of infective diseases or growth promotion in livestock were included. Search results revealed a total number of 52 trials performed within 48 publications fulfilling the predefined criteria. Twenty-eight trials were in favour of homeopathy, with 26 trials showing a significantly higher efficacy in comparison to a control group, whereas 22 showed no medicinal effect. Cure rates for the treatments with antibiotics, homeopathy or placebo varied to a high degree, while the remedy used did not seem to make a big difference. Looking at all the studies, no study was repeated under comparable conditions. Consequently, the use of homeopathy currently cannot claim to have sufficient prognostic validity where efficacy is concerned. When striving for high therapeutic success in treatment, the potential of homeopathy in replacing or reducing antibiotics can only be validated if evidence of efficacy is confirmed by randomised controlled trials under modified conditions. British Veterinary Association.

The Factors Influencing the Sense of Home in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review from the Perspective of Residents.

NARCIS (Netherlands)

M.D. Rijnaard; Joost van Hoof; H. Verbeek; H.C. Beerens; S.L. Molony; W. Pocornie; Eveline Wouters; B.M. Janssen; A. Eijkelenboom

2016-01-01

Purpose. To provide an overview of factors influencing the sense of home of older adults residing in the nursing home. Methods. A systematic review was conducted. Inclusion criteria were (1) original and peer-reviewed research, (2) qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research, (3) research

MELCOR Peer Review

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

1992-03-01

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

NEA international peer reviews of post-accident protection policy

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Lazo, T.

2011-01-01

overview of the review process and the main results of this NEA service to member countries. In addition to being of value to the organisation that invites the review, the NEA peer review teams felt that their reviews had provided each of them with useful insights that could be of value in their own national approaches. In this context, the NEA is grateful to the ASN and the STUK for having requested these reviews. In order to allow all NEA members to take advantage of the extensive thinking undertaken in France and Finland on the important topic of post-accident consequence management, the results of these reviews will be published as reports of the NEA Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health and made widely available

What Health and Aged Care Culture Change Models Mean for Residents and Their Families: A Systematic Review.

Science.gov (United States)

Petriwskyj, Andrea; Parker, Deborah; Brown Wilson, Christine; Gibson, Alexandra

2016-04-01

A range of commercialized programs are increasingly being adopted which involve broad culture change within care organizations to implement person-centered care. These claim a range of benefits for clients; however, the published evidence for client and family outcomes from culture change is inconclusive and the evidence for these specific models is difficult to identify. The purpose of this review was to identify and evaluate the peer-reviewed evidence regarding consumer outcomes for these subscription-based models. The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute procedure. The review considered peer-reviewed literature that reported on studies conducted with health and aged care services, their staff, and consumers, addressed subscription-based person-centered culture change models, and were published in English up to and including 2015. The review identified 19 articles of sufficient quality that reported evidence relating to consumer outcomes and experience. Resident outcomes and family and resident satisfaction and experiences were mixed. Findings suggest potential benefits for some outcomes, particularly related to quality of life and psychiatric symptoms, staff engagement, and functional ability. Although residents and families identified some improvements in residents' lives, both also identified problematic aspects of the change related to staff adjustment and staff time. Outcomes for these models are at best comparable with traditional care with limited suggestions that they result in poorer outcomes and sufficient potential for benefits to warrant further investigation. Although these models may have the potential to benefit residents, the implementation of person-centered principles may affect the outcomes. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Quality assurance of pre-operative assessment--a review of quality assurance activities related to pre-operative assessment in nine hospitals in The Netherlands

NARCIS (Netherlands)

Klazinga, N. S.; Helsloot, R.

1989-01-01

Pre-operative assessment of patients for surgery is one of the most prevalent topics for quality assurance by peer-review in Dutch hospitals. This article describes the experiences with pre-operative assessment in nine hospitals. It is discussed why preoperative assessment is performed, what tests

Burnout and interventions in pediatric residency: A literature review

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Tara F. McKinley

2017-09-01

Full Text Available Despite an increase in interest in issues related to burnout in medical education and mandates from the national residency accrediting body, available literature is sparse in pediatrics, a medical discipline that requires special empathy and compassion, as well as enhanced communication skills to effectively care for children and their families. Burnout prevalence ranges from 17 to 67.8% of pediatric residents in recent studies. There is little that details the pathogenesis of burnout in these residents and little that compares them with those in other medical disciplines. This comprehensive literature review describes all that is published on burnout and burnout interventions since 2005 in pediatrics and other primary care oriented specialty residents, as well as key papers from pre-2005. This review, with its focus on the available information and evidence-based intervention strategies, identifies four areas for focus for future interventions and directions. It should serve as a useful resource to program directors, medical educators and graduate medical education leadership who are committed to preventing and/or treating burnout in their residents and molding these young physicians to be able to maintain resilience through their careers. This review should also be useful to investigators exploring burnout in other health care professionals.

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…

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.

The Use of Online Posts to Identify Barriers to and Facilitators of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Comparison to a Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature.

Science.gov (United States)

Hannaford, Alisse; Lipshie-Williams, Madeleine; Starrels, Joanna L; Arnsten, Julia H; Rizzuto, Jessica; Cohen, Phillip; Jacobs, Damon; Patel, Viraj V

2018-04-01

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) remains an under-utilized HIV prevention tool among men who have sex with men (MSM). To more comprehensively elucidate barriers and facilitators to PrEP use among US MSM, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed published articles and content analysis of online posts about PrEP. We searched peer-reviewed databases (Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar) using MESH headings and keywords about PrEP and/or HIV prevention from 2005 to 2015. We included original studies among MSM in the US that reported on barriers, facilitators, or other factors related to PrEP use. We also searched online posts and associated comments (news articles, opinion pieces, blogs and other social media posts) in diverse venues (Facebook, Slate Outward, Huffington Post Gay Voices, Queerty, and My PrEP Experience blog) to identify posts about PrEP. We used content analysis to identify themes and compare potential differences between the peer-reviewed literature and online posts. We identified 25 peer-reviewed articles and 28 online posts meeting inclusion criteria. We identified 48 unique barriers and 46 facilitators to using PrEP. These 94 themes fit into six overarching categories: (1) access (n = 14), (2) attitudes/beliefs (n = 24), (3) attributes of PrEP (n = 13), (4) behaviors (n = 11), (5) sociodemographic characteristics (n = 8), and (6) social network (n = 6). In all categories, analysis of online posts resulted in identification of a greater number of unique themes. Thirty-eight themes were identified in the online posts that were not identified in the peer-reviewed literature. We identified barriers and facilitators to PrEP in online posts that were not identified in a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. By incorporating data both from a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles and from online posts, we have identified salient and novel information about barriers to and facilitators of PrEP use. Traditional

Resident self-other assessor agreement: influence of assessor, competency, and performance level.

Science.gov (United States)

Lipsett, Pamela A; Harris, Ilene; Downing, Steven

2011-08-01

To review the literature on self-assessment in the context of resident performance and to determine the correlation between self-assessment across competencies in high- and low-performing residents and assessments performed by raters from a variety of professional roles (peers, nurses, and faculty). Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected anonymous self-assessment and multiprofessional (360) performance assessments by competency and overall. University-based academic general surgical program. Sixty-two residents rotating in general surgery. Mean difference for each self-assessment dyad (self-peer, self-nurse, and self-attending physician) by resident performance quartile, adjusted for measurement error, correlation coefficients, and summed differences across all competencies. Irrespective of self-other dyad, residents asked to rate their global performance overestimated their skills. Residents in the upper quartile underestimated their specific skills while those in the lowest-performing quartile overestimated their abilities when compared with faculty, peers, and especially nurse raters. Moreover, overestimation was greatest in competencies related to interpersonal skills, communication, teamwork, and professionalism. Rater, level of performance, and the competency being assessed all influence the comparison of the resident's self-assessment and those of other raters. Self-assessment of competencies related to behavior may be inaccurate when compared with raters from various professions. Residents in the lowest-performing quartile are least able to identify their weakness. These data have important implications for residents, program directors, and the public and suggest that strategies that help the lowest-performing residents recognize areas in need of improvement are needed.

7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2018-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-01-01

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

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

Conducting qualitative research in the context of pre-existing peer and collegial relationships.

Science.gov (United States)

McDermid, Fiona; Peters, Kath; Jackson, Debra; Daly, John

2014-05-01

To highlight issues and challenges faced in recruitment and interviewing during a study that sought to explore the transition of nurses into academic life and the associated ethical implications. This paper explores the challenges faced in conducting research where the potential participants are peers and workplace colleagues. There are advantages when conducting research with those among whom a pre-existing relationship is shared. However, difficulties can also arise. A methodological review was undertaken. Key database searches included CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar using the keywords as search terms. Studies were included if they described in detail issues surrounding qualitative interviewing of peers and colleagues. Management of the issues involved is discussed, with emphasis on boundaries, trust and rapport, the use of self-disclosure and maintaining confidentiality. Research involving peers and colleagues has received relatively little consideration in the literature. There are difficulties associated with interviewing participants with whom the researcher has a pre-existing and ongoing relationship in the same organisation. To ensure ethical conduct, strategies can be used to mitigate negative situations such as issues surrounding dual roles, practising reflexivity, trust and rapport, self-disclosure and confidentiality. It is imperative that dual roles are declared and acknowledged. Researchers need to be mindful of the difficulties that may occur and prioritise participants' confidentiality and privacy.

Peer review statement

Science.gov (United States)

2018-03-01

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

Sealed source peer review plan

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Feldman, Alexander; Leonard, Lee; Burns, Ron

2009-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2010-06-01

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

[The impact of the annual scientific meetings of the Israel Society of Rheumatology as measured by publication rates of the abstracts in peer-reviewed journals].

Science.gov (United States)

Perez, Shira; Hashkes, Philip J; Uziel, Yosef

2004-04-01

We aimed to examine the impact and quality of the research presented in the Israel Society of Rheumatology (ISR) annual scientific meetings by measuring publication rates of the abstracts in peer-reviewed journals and investigating the factors that influenced publication. We examined the outcome of all 79 abstracts submitted to the ISR for the 1998-2000 annual meetings. A MEDLINE search of all abstracts, by authors, topics and keywords was performed. Senior authors of abstracts not found to be published in this search were interviewed regarding publication and factors influencing submission. We described the effect of variable factors on the rate of publication. As of September 2002, 63 (80%) abstracts were published in peer-reviewed journals or are currently in-press. Most abstracts were published in prominent journals (with a high impact factor). The majority of the abstracts (61%) were published in rheumatologic journals, 65% of the studies originated from tertiary centers and 19% of the studies were multicenter. The most common diseases studied were antiphospholipid syndrome (20%), systemic lupus erythematosus (19%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%). Most of the studies were of disease pathogenesis (35%) and clinical manifestations (33%). The most common study designs were basic science (34%). An overall 57% of the studies reported "positive" results and 9% reported "negative" results. None of the factors studied were associated with publication or non-publication. The main cause cited by authors for not publishing their abstract was lack of time to prepare a full paper or a desire to further expand the study. Within this group of 16 authors of abstracts, 11 authors still plan to submit a paper. The ISR annual meetings have an important clinical scientific impact as measured by the high rate of abstracts published as full length articles in leading peer-reviewed journals.

75 FR 4062 - Peer Review Best Practices Workshop

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-26

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

28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents.

Science.gov (United States)

Dyrbye, Liselotte; Shanafelt, Tait

2016-01-01

To summarise articles reporting on burnout among medical students and residents (trainees) in a narrative review. MEDLINE was searched for peer-reviewed, English language articles published between 1990 and 2015 reporting on burnout among trainees. The search used combinations of Medical Subject Heading terms medical student, resident, internship and residency, and burnout, professional. Reference lists of articles were reviewed to identify additional studies. A subset of high-quality studies was selected. Studies suggest a high prevalence of burnout among trainees, with levels higher than in the general population. Burnout can undermine trainees' professional development, place patients at risk, and contribute to a variety of personal consequences, including suicidal ideation. Factors within the learning and work environment, rather than individual attributes, are the major drivers of burnout. Limited data are available regarding how to best address trainee burnout, but multi-pronged efforts, with attention to culture, the learning and work environment and individual behaviours, are needed to promote trainees' wellness and to help those in distress. Medical training is a stressful time. Large, prospective studies are needed to identify cause-effect relationships and the best approaches for improving the trainee experience. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Bibliometric analysis of poison center-related research published in peer-review journals.

Science.gov (United States)

Forrester, M B

2016-07-01

Poison centers advance knowledge in the field of toxicology through publication in peer-review journals. This investigation describes the pattern of poison center-related publications. Cases were poison center-related research published in peer-review journals during 1995-2014. These were identified through searching the PubMed database, reviewing the tables of contents of selected toxicology journals, and reviewing abstracts of various national and international meetings. The following variables for each publication were identified: year of publication, journal, type of publication (meeting abstract vs. other, i.e. full article or letter to the editor), and the country(ies) of the poison center(s) included in the research. Of the 3147 total publications, 62.1% were meeting abstracts. There were 263 publications in 1995-1999, 536 in 2000-2004, 999 in 2005-2009, and 1349 in 2010-2014. The publications were in 234 different journals. The journals in which the highest number of research was published were Clinical Toxicology (69.7%), Journal of Medical Toxicology (2.2%), and Veterinary and Human Toxicology (2.1%). The research was reported from 62 different countries. The countries with the highest number of publications were the United States (67.9%), United Kingdom (6.5%), Germany (3.9%), France (2.5%), and Italy (2.4%). The number of publications increased greatly over the 20 years. Although the publications were in a large number of journals, a high proportion of the publications were in one journal. While the research came from a large number of countries, the preponderance came from the United States. © The Author(s) 2015.

"Thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions": compliance and conflict in authors' replies to referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Hugh Gosden

2001-04-01

Full Text Available Peer reviews of research papers submitted to journals are an "occluded" genre (Swales, 1996 - referees are usually anonymous and the confidential reports themselves are not part of the official record of research publication. Thus, compared to the published, readily available genres of the academy, there are few opportunities to study gatekeeping discourse such as peer reviews, nor are there many opportunities for novice researchers to practice framing appropriate and effective point-by-point replies to criticisms. This paper is part of a study based on the analysis and functional description of comments from a corpus of referees' reports and authors' replies. The data highlight the importance of authors being able to recognize and interpret the relative interactional/interpersonal vs. technical/ideational orientation of requested revisions, in order to revise successfully their papers after peer review. Research on publication productivity in the sciences has emphasized the importance of early productivity as a strong predictor of future publication (Fox, 1983. When young scientists take up their first academic position, publication levels are initially more affected by the productivity of the pre-doctoral years than by the prestige of the new department and institution. In a "reinforcing process of advantage" (Fox, 1983:293, those who have published early will often continue to do so for several years until the supportive research environment of their present location will more strongly affect continued productivity.

7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

Peer-review: An IOP Publishing Perspective

Science.gov (United States)

Smith, Timothy

2015-03-01

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

VoiceThread as a Peer Review and Dissemination Tool for Undergraduate Research

Science.gov (United States)

Guertin, L. A.

2012-12-01

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

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2017-01-01

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

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Maciej J Mrowinski

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

7 CFR 3400.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

Peer 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…

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

Science.gov (United States)

Deveugele, Myriam; Silverman, Jonathan

2017-11-01

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

7 CFR 3401.13 - Composition of peer review groups.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

Training Effects on Computer-Mediated Peer Review

Science.gov (United States)

Liou, Hsien-Chin; Peng, Zhong-Yan

2009-01-01

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

[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.

An automated electronic system for managing radiation treatment plan peer review reduces missed reviews at a large, high-volume academic center.

Science.gov (United States)

Gabriel, Peter E; Woodhouse, Kristina D; Lin, Alexander; Finlay, Jarod C; Young, Richard B; Volz, Edna; Hahn, Stephen M; Metz, James M; Maity, Amit

Assuring quality in cancer care through peer review has become increasingly important in radiation oncology. In 2012, our department implemented an automated electronic system for managing radiation treatment plan peer review. The purpose of this study was to compare the overall impact of this electronic system to our previous manual, paper-based system. In an effort to improve management, an automated electronic system for case finding and documentation of review was developed and implemented. The rates of missed initial reviews, late reviews, and missed re-reviews were compared for the pre- versus postelectronic system cohorts using Pearson χ 2 test and relative risk. Major and minor changes or recommendations were documented and shared with the assigned clinical provider. The overall rate of missed reviews was 7.6% (38/500) before system implementation versus 0.4% (28/6985) under the electronic system (P automated system. Missed re-reviews occurred in 23.1% (3/13) of courses in the preelectronic system cohort and 6.6% (10/152) of courses in the postelectronic system cohort (P = .034). Late reviews were more frequent during high travel or major holiday periods. Major changes were recommended in 2.2% and 2.8% in the pre- versus postelectronic systems, respectively. Minor changes were recommended in 5.3% of all postelectronic cases. The implementation of an automated electronic system for managing peer review in a large, complex department was effective in significantly reducing the number of missed reviews and missed re-reviews when compared to our previous manual system. Copyright © 2016 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Protected Time for Research During Orthopaedic Residency Correlates with an Increased Number of Resident Publications.

Science.gov (United States)

Williams, Benjamin R; Agel, Julie A; Van Heest, Ann E

2017-07-05

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires orthopaedic residency programs to promote scholarship and research, which manifest differently among programs. We assess the impact of protected research time during orthopaedic residency on the number of resident publications. Rotation schedules and resident names were collected from 125 ACGME-accredited U.S. orthopaedic residency programs. Protected research time was classified as 1 of 3 types: (1) block time, (2) longitudinal time, or (3) no dedicated time. In April 2016, we searched residents in postgraduate year (PGY)-3 to PGY-5 on pubmed.gov to generate all orthopaedic publications with a PubMed identifier published during residency. Each publication's 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 5-Year Journal Impact Factor and resident first authorship were noted. The number of PubMed identifiers for each program was summed and was divided by the number of residents in PGY-3 to PGY-5, giving a mean number of publications per resident. The relationship between output and program research time was compared using t tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA). A total of 1,690 residents were included, with an overall mean number (and standard deviation) of 1.2 ± 2.4 publications per resident. Eighty-seven programs reported block time, 14 programs reported longitudinal time, and 24 programs reported no time. There was a significant difference (p = 0.02) in the mean number of publications per resident when compared between programs with protected time (1.1 ± 1.2 publications) and programs with no protected time (0.6 ± 0.5 publication). One-way ANOVA demonstrated a significant mean difference across the 3 groups (p publications than block time at 1.0 ± 1.0 publication or no time at 0.6 ± 0.5 publication, a difference that persisted when adjusted to include only impact factors of >0 and exclude case reports (p = 0.0015). Both the presence of and the type of dedicated research time correlate

The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.

Science.gov (United States)

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

2011-01-01

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

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.

A narrative review of undergraduate peer-based healthcare ethics teaching.

Science.gov (United States)

Hindmarch, Thomas; Allikmets, Silvia; Knights, Felicity

2015-12-12

This study explores the literature in establishing the value of undergraduate peer-based healthcare ethics teaching as an educational methodology. A narrative review of the literature concerning peer-based ethics teaching was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS databases, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched for studies of peer-based ethics or professionalism teaching. Selected studies related peer-based teaching to ethics education outcomes. Ten publications were identified. Selected studies were varied in their chosen intervention methodology and analysis. Collectively, the identified studies suggest peer-based ethics education is an effective and valued educational methodology in training healthcare professionals. One paper suggests peer-based ethics teaching has advantages over traditional didactic methods. Peer-based ethics teaching also receives positive feedback from student participants. However, the limited literature base demonstrates a clear need for more evaluation of this pedagogy. The current literature base suggests that undergraduate peer based healthcare ethics teaching is valuable in terms of efficacy and student satisfaction. We conclude that the medical community should invest in further study in order to capitalise upon the potential of peer-based ethics teaching in undergraduate healthcare education.

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

Science.gov (United States)

Vian, Taryn; Ashigbie, Paul G.

2015-01-01

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

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

OpenAIRE

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

2017-01-01

With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors' workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. ...

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

Science.gov (United States)

Lippi, Giuseppe

2018-02-01

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

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…

Peer Review in a Social Policy Course: Lessons Learned

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Shauna P. Acquavita

2013-04-01

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

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)

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

Science.gov (United States)

Fox, Matthew P; Lash, Timothy L

2017-05-15

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

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

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

NONE

1995-10-01

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

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

1995-10-01

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

Using just-in-time teaching and peer instruction in a residency program's core curriculum: enhancing satisfaction, engagement, and retention.

Science.gov (United States)

Schuller, Mary C; DaRosa, Debra A; Crandall, Marie L

2015-03-01

To assess use of the combined just-in-time teaching (JiTT) and peer instruction (PI) instructional strategy in a residency program's core curriculum. In 2010-2011, JiTT/PI was piloted in 31 core curriculum sessions taught by 22 faculty in the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine's general surgery residency program. JiTT/PI required preliminary and categorical residents (n=31) to complete Web-based study questions before weekly specialty topic sessions. Responses were examined by faculty members "just in time" to tailor session content to residents' learning needs. In the sessions, residents answered multiple-choice questions (MCQs) using clickers and engaged in PI. Participants completed surveys assessing their perceptions of JiTT/PI. Videos were coded to assess resident engagement time in JiTT/PI sessions versus prior lecture-based sessions. Responses to topic session MCQs repeated in review sessions were evaluated to study retention. More than 70% of resident survey respondents indicated that JiTT/PI aided in the learning of key points. At least 90% of faculty survey respondents reported positive perceptions of aspects of the JiTT/PI strategy. Resident engagement time for JiTT/PI sessions was significantly greater than for prior lecture-based sessions (z=-2.4, P=.016). Significantly more review session MCQ responses were correct for residents who had attended corresponding JiTT/PI sessions than for residents who had not (chi-square=13.7; df=1; P<.001). JiTT/PI increased learner participation, learner retention, and the amount of learner-centered time. JiTT/PI represents an effective approach for meaningful and active learning in core curriculum sessions.

Educating the Public Health Workforce: A Scoping Review

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Donghua Tao

2018-02-01

Full Text Available The aim of this scoping review was to identify and characterize the recent literature pertaining to the education of the public health workforce worldwide. The importance of preparing a public health workforce with sufficient capacity and appropriate capabilities has been recognized by major organizations around the world (1. Champions for public health note that a suitably educated workforce is essential to the delivery of public health services, including emergency response to biological, manmade, and natural disasters, within countries and across the globe. No single repository offers a comprehensive compilation of who is teaching public health, to whom, and for what end. Moreover, no international consensus prevails on what higher education should entail or what pedagogy is optimal for providing the necessary education. Although health agencies, public or private, might project workforce needs, the higher level of education remains the sole responsibility of higher education institutions. The long-term goal of this study is to describe approaches to the education of the public health workforce around the world by identifying the peer-reviewed literature, published primarily by academicians involved in educating those who will perform public health functions. This paper reports on the first phase of the study: identifying and categorizing papers published in peer-reviewed literature between 2000 and 2015.

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2012-04-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Moustafa, Khaled

2015-08-01

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

The mechanisms underpinning peer support: a literature review.

Science.gov (United States)

Watson, Emma

2017-12-20

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

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…

Peer relations, adolescent behavior, and public health research and practice.

Science.gov (United States)

Crosnoe, Robert; McNeely, Clea

2008-01-01

Peer relations are central to adolescent life and, therefore, are crucial to understanding adolescents' engagement in various behaviors. In recent years, public health research has increasingly devoted attention to the implications of peer relations for the kinds of adolescent behaviors that have a direct impact on health. This article advocates for a continuation of this trend. With this aim, we highlight key themes in the rich literature on the general developmental significance of adolescent-peer relations, provide an overview of how these themes have been incorporated into public health research and practice, and suggest future avenues for peer-focused public health research that can inform adolescent health promotion in the United States.

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Dixon, Earle C.; Peterson, Kathleen

2003-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

2018-01-01

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

Detailed prospective peer review in a community radiation oncology clinic.

Science.gov (United States)

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

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

Peer Influence, Peer Status, and Prosocial Behavior: An Experimental Investigation of Peer Socialization of Adolescents' Intentions to Volunteer.

Science.gov (United States)

Choukas-Bradley, Sophia; Giletta, Matteo; Cohen, Geoffrey L; Prinstein, Mitchell J

2015-12-01

Peer influence processes have been documented extensively for a wide range of maladaptive adolescent behaviors. However, peer socialization is not inherently deleterious, and little is known about whether adolescents influence each other's prosocial behaviors, or whether some peers are more influential than others towards positive youth outcomes. This study addressed these questions using an experimental "chat room" paradigm to examine in vivo peer influence of prosocial behavior endorsement. A school-based sample of 304 early adolescents (55% female, 45% male; M(age) = 12.68) believed they were interacting electronically with same-gender grademates (i.e., "e-confederates"), whose peer status was experimentally manipulated. The participants' intent to engage in prosocial behaviors was measured pre-experiment and in subsequent "public" and "private" experimental sessions. Overall, the adolescents conformed to the e-confederates' prosocial responses in public; yet, these peer influence effects were moderated by the peer status of the e-confederates, such that youth more strongly conformed to the high-status e-confederates than to the low-status ones. There also was some evidence that these peer influence effects were maintained in the private session, indicating potential internalization of prosocial peer norms. These findings help bridge the positive youth development and peer influence literatures, with potential implications for campaigns to increase prosocial behaviors.

Rate of Unverifiable Publications Among Ophthalmology Residency Applicants Invited to Interview.

Science.gov (United States)

Tamez, Heather M; Tauscher, Robert; Brown, Eric N; Wayman, Laura; Mawn, Louise A

2018-04-19

Unverifiable publications in applications for ophthalmology residencies could be a serious concern if they represent publication dishonesty. To determine the rate of unverifiable publications among applicants offered an interview. Retrospective review of 322 ophthalmology residency applications for entering classes 2012 to 2017 at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. Full-length publications reported in the applications were searched in PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and directly on the journal's website. Applications were deemed unverifiable if there was no record of the publication by any of these means or if substantial discrepancies existed, such as incorrect authorship, incorrect journal, or a meaningful discrepancy in title or length (full-length article vs abstract). Inability to locate publication with search, incorrect author position, applicant not listed as an author, article being an abstract and not a published paper, substantial title discrepancy suggesting an alternative project, and incorrect journal. Of the 322 applicants offered interviews during the 6-year study period, 22 (6.8%) had 24 unverifiable publications. Two hundred thirty-nine of these applicants (74.2%) reported at least 1 qualifying publication; of this group, 22 (9.2%) had an unverifiable publication. The applications with unverifiable publications were evenly distributed across the years of the study (range, 2-6 per cycle; Pearson χ25 = 3.65; P = .60). Two applicants had 2 unverifiable publications each. Two of the 22 applicants (9.1%) with unverifiable publications were graduates of medical schools outside the United States. Among the unverifiable publications, the most common reason was inability to locate the publication (13 [54%]). Additional issues included abstract rather than full-length publication (5 [20.8%]), incorrect author position (4 [16.7%]), applicant not listed as an author on the publication (1 [4.2%]), and substantial title

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2016-01-01

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

Peer Review as a Strategy for Improving Students' Writing Process

Science.gov (United States)

Baker, Kimberly M.

2016-01-01

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

The 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…

Characteristics of Successful Internal Medicine Resident Research Projects: Predictors of Journal Publication Versus Abstract Presentation.

Science.gov (United States)

Atreya, Auras R; Stefan, Mihaela; Friderici, Jennifer L; Kleppel, Reva; Fitzgerald, Janice; Rothberg, Michael B

2018-02-06

To identify the characteristics of successful research projects at an internal medicine residency program with an established research curriculum. The authors collected data about all research projects initiated by or involving medicine residents from 2006 to 2013 at Baystate Medical Center, using departmental files and institutional review board applications. Resident and mentor characteristics were determined using personnel files and Medline searches. Using multivariable models, the authors identified predictors of successful completion of projects using adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs). The primary outcome was manuscript publication by resident and secondary outcome was either publication or regional/national presentation. Finally, residents were surveyed to identify barriers and/or factors contributing to project completion. Ninety-four research projects were identified: 52 (55.3%) projects achieved the primary outcome and 72 (76.5%) met the secondary outcome, with overlap between categories. Most study designs were cross-sectional (41, 43.6%) or retrospective cohort (30, 31.9%). After adjustment, utilization of the epidemiology/biostatistical core (PR = 2.09; 95% CI: 1.36, 3.21), established publication record of resident (PR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.14, 2.07), and resident with U.S. medical education (PR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.90) were associated with successful completion of projects. Mentor publication record (PR = 3.13) did not retain significance due to small sample size. Most respondents (65%) cited "lack of time" as a major project barrier. Programs seeking to increase resident publications should consider an institutional epidemiology/biostatistical core available to all residency research projects, and residents should choose experienced mentors with a track record of publications.

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Susu Nousala

2011-08-01

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

The value of peer reviews to nuclear plant safety

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Subalusky, W.T. Jr.

1994-01-01

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

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

OpenAIRE

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

2015-01-01

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

2016 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

Building Technologies Office

2016-12-01

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

Radioactive waste management: International peer reviews

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Warnecke, E.; Bonne, A.

1995-01-01

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

A Brief Introduction on Peer Review: New Possibilities

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Sean Scanlan

2013-06-01

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

Online peer support interventions for chronic conditions: a scoping review protocol.

Science.gov (United States)

Munce, Sarah Elizabeth Patricia; Shepherd, John; Perrier, Laure; Allin, Sonya; Sweet, Shane N; Tomasone, Jennifer R; Nelson, Michelle L A; Guilcher, Sara J T; Hossain, Saima; Jaglal, Susan

2017-09-24

Peer support is receiving increasing attention as both an effective and cost-effective intervention method to support the self-management of chronic health conditions. Given that an increasing proportion of Canadians have internet access and the increasing implementation of web-based interventions, online peer support interventions are a promising option to address the burden of chronic diseases. Thus, the specific research question of this scoping review is the following: What is known from the existing literature about the key characteristics of online peer support interventions for adults with chronic conditions? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use the methodological frameworks used by Arksey and O'Malley as well as Levac and colleagues for the current scoping review. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must report on adults (≥18 years of age) with one of the Public Health Agency of Canada chronic conditions or HIV/AIDS. We will limit our review to peer support interventions delivered through online formats. All study designs will be included. Only studies published from 2012 onwards will be included to ensure relevance to the current healthcare context and feasibility. Furthermore, only English language studies will be included. Studies will be identified by searching a variety of databases. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts identified by the literature search for inclusion (ie, level 1 screening), the full text articles (ie, level 2 screening) and then perform data abstraction. Abstracted data will include study characteristics, participant population, key characteristics of the intervention and outcomes collected. This review will identify the key features of online peer support interventions and could assist in the future development of other online peer support programmes so that effective and sustainable programmes can be developed. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the

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.

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…

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Kwon, Hyuk; Min, Byung Joo

2007-01-01

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

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

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

2007-10-15

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Calabrese, Edward J

2018-06-06

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

The Journal of Earth System Science Education: Peer Review for Digital Earth and Digital Library Content

Science.gov (United States)

Johnson, D.; Ruzek, M.; Weatherley, J.

2001-05-01

The Journal of Earth System Science Education is a new interdisciplinary electronic journal aiming to foster the study of the Earth as a system and promote the development and exchange of interdisciplinary learning resources for formal and informal education. JESSE will serve educators and students by publishing and providing ready electronic access to Earth system and global change science learning resources for the classroom and will provide authors and creators with professional recognition through publication in a peer reviewed journal. JESSE resources foster a world perspective by emphasizing interdisciplinary studies and bridging disciplines in the context of the Earth system. The Journal will publish a wide ranging variety of electronic content, with minimal constraints on format, targeting undergraduate educators and students as the principal readership, expanding to a middle and high school audience as the journal matures. JESSE aims for rapid review and turn-around of resources to be published, with a goal of 12 weeks from submission to publication for resources requiring few changes. Initial publication will be on a quarterly basis until a flow of resource submissions is established to warrant continuous electronic publication. JESSE employs an open peer review process in which authors and reviewers discuss directly the acceptability of a resource for publication using a software tool called the Digital Document Discourse Environment. Reviewer comments and attribution will be available with the resource upon acceptance for publication. JESSE will also implement a moderated peer commentary capability where readers can comment on the use of a resource or make suggestions. In the development phase, JESSE will also conduct a parallel anonymous review of content to validate and ensure credibility of the open review approach. Copyright of materials submitted remains with the author, granting JESSE the non-exclusive right to maintain a copy of the resource

2017 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

None, None

2017-11-01

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

A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.

Science.gov (United States)

Dadkhah, Mehdi; Kahani, Mohsen; Borchardt, Glenn

2017-08-15

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

The MELCOR peer review process and findings

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

1991-01-01

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

Survey of faculty perceptions regarding a peer review system.

Science.gov (United States)

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

2014-04-01

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

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…

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

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

2010-02-15

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

7 CFR 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...

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

Science.gov (United States)

2012-03-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2014-01-01

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

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…

The Effectiveness of Public Simulated Oral Examinations in Preparation for the American Board of Surgery Certifying Examination: A Systematic Review.

Science.gov (United States)

Pennell, Christopher; McCulloch, Peter

2015-01-01

The purpose of this study was to determine whether American Board of Surgery Certifying Examination (CE) performance is improved among residents who prepare using simulated oral examinations (SOEs). EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched using predefined search terms. No language restrictions were imposed and the latest search date was in November 2014. Included studies must have reported on residents training in a general surgery residency in the United States who used SOEs to prepare for the CE and have measured their performance against those without exposure to SOEs. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed and a fixed effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the net effect of SOEs on CE performance. Overall, 4 of 25 abstracts reviewed met inclusion criteria and are included in this review. The most common simulation format included public examinations in front of resident peers during scheduled education sessions. All 4 included studies trended toward improved performance with SOEs and in 2 of these studies the improvement was statistically significant. Overall, 3 studies were of adequate quality to perform a meta-analysis and demonstrated a relative risk for first-attempt CE success of 1.22 (95% CI: 1.07-1.39, p = 0.003) for residents preparing with SOEs compared to those without SOEs. The published literature evaluating SOEs is limited and generally of fair quality. A modest improvement in CE performance was identified when public SOEs were used as an educational tool aimed to improve professionalism and communication skills, encourage reading at home, and provide a regular review of clinically relevant topics. Copyright © 2015 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

What effects have resident work-hour changes had on education, quality of life, and safety? A systematic review.

Science.gov (United States)

Harris, Joshua D; Staheli, Greg; LeClere, Lance; Andersone, Diana; McCormick, Frank

2015-05-01

More than 15 years ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified medical error as a problem worthy of greater attention; in the wake of the IOM report, numerous changes were made to regulations to limit residents' duty hours. However, the effect of resident work-hour changes remains controversial within the field of orthopaedics. We performed a systematic review to determine whether work-hour restrictions have measurably influenced quality-of-life measures, operative and technical skill development, resident surgical education, patient care outcomes (including mortality, morbidity, adverse events, sentinel events, complications), and surgeon and resident attitudes (such as perceived effect on learning and training experiences, personal benefit, direct clinical experience, clinical preparedness). We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Google Scholar using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were any English language peer-reviewed articles that analyzed the effect(s) of orthopaedic surgery resident work-hour restrictions on patient safety, resident education, resident/surgeon quality of life, resident technical operative skill development, and resident surgeon attitudes toward work-hour restrictions. Eleven studies met study inclusion criteria. One study was a prospective analysis, whereas 10 studies were of level IV evidence (review of surgical case logs) or survey results. Within our identified studies, there was some support for improved resident quality of life, improved resident sleep and less fatigue, a perceived negative impact on surgical operative and technical skill, and conflicting evidence on the topic of resident education, patient outcomes, and variable attitudes toward the work-hour changes. There is a paucity of high-level or clear evidence evaluating the effect of the changes to resident work

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2015-01-01

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

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…

The gatekeepers of modern physics: periodicals and peer review in 1920s Britain.

Science.gov (United States)

Clarke, Imogen

2015-03-01

This essay analyzes the processes behind the publication of physics papers in two British journals in the 1920s: the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series A and the Philosophical Magazine. On the surface, it looked as though the Philosophical Magazine was managed very informally, while the Proceedings had in place a seemingly rigid system of committee approval and peer review. This essay shows, however, that in practice the two journals were both influenced by networks of expertise that afforded small groups of physicists considerable control over the content of these prestigious scientific publications. This study explores the nature of peer review, suggesting how a historical approach can contribute to contemporary debates. In studying these relationships, the essay also considers the interplay of "classical" and "modern" ideas and physicists in 1920s Britain and cautions against an anachronistic approach to this classification.

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.

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Jacob, G.R.

1986-01-01

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

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.

International Peer Reviews of Design Basis

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Hughes, Peter

2013-01-01

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

A dedicated scholarly research program in an adult and pediatric neurology residency program.

Science.gov (United States)

Robbins, Matthew S; Haut, Sheryl R; Lipton, Richard B; Milstein, Mark J; Ocava, Lenore C; Ballaban-Gil, Karen; Moshé, Solomon L; Mehler, Mark F

2017-04-04

To describe and assess the effectiveness of a formal scholarly activity program for a highly integrated adult and pediatric neurology residency program. Starting in 2011, all graduating residents were required to complete at least one form of scholarly activity broadly defined to include peer-reviewed publications or presentations at scientific meetings of formally mentored projects. The scholarly activity program was administered by the associate residency training director and included an expanded journal club, guided mentorship, a required grand rounds platform presentation, and annual awards for the most scholarly and seminal research findings. We compared scholarly output and mentorship for residents graduating within a 5-year period following program initiation (2011-2015) and during the preceding 5-year preprogram baseline period (2005-2009). Participation in scholarship increased from the preprogram baseline (24 of 53 graduating residents, 45.3%) to the postprogram period (47 of 57 graduating residents, 82.1%, p Neurology.

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.

A 15-year review of the Stanford Internal Medicine Residency Program: predictors of resident satisfaction and dissatisfaction

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Kahn JS

2017-08-01

Full Text Available James S Kahn,1–3 Ronald M Witteles,3,4 Kenneth W Mahaffey,3–5 Sumbul A Desai,2,3 Errol Ozdalga,2,3 Paul A Heidenreich1,3 1Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, 2Division of Primary Care and Population Health, 3Department of Medicine, 4Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, 5Stanford Center for Clinical Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA Introduction: Satisfaction with training and with educational experiences represents important internal medicine (IM programmatic goals. Graduates from IM residency programs are uniquely poised to provide insights into their educational and training experiences and to assess whether these experiences were satisfactory and relevant to their current employment. Methods: We surveyed former IM residents from the training program held during the years 2000–2015 at the Department of Medicine, Stanford University. The first part of the survey reviewed the IM residency program and the second part sought identifying data regarding gender, race, ethnicity, work, relationships, and financial matters. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the residency experience. Results: Of the 405 individuals who completed the Stanford IM residency program in the study period, we identified 384 (95% former residents with a known email address. Two hundred and one (52% former residents responded to the first part and 185 (48% answered both the parts of the survey. The mean age of the respondents was 36.9 years; 44% were female and the mean time from IM residency was 6.1 (±4.3 years. Fifty-eight percent reported extreme satisfaction with their IM residency experience. Predictors associated with being less than extremely satisfied included insufficient outpatient experience, insufficient international experience, insufficient clinical research experience, and insufficient time spent with family and peers. Conclusion: The residents expressed an overall high satisfaction rate with

Cycling with an amputation: A systematic review.

Science.gov (United States)

Dyer, Bryce

2016-10-01

Cycling with any form of limb amputation has progressed from an activity of leisure or rehabilitation to elite level competition as part of the Paralympic Games programme. While it is often proposed that research into sport with an amputation can be extremely limited, this study intended to identify the volume, type and historical strategy in this area. This study comprises a documented systematic literature review of cycling undertaken with any form of limb amputation. This study used four online search engines to identify relevant peer-reviewed literature. These included SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Scopus and MEDLINE. Google Scholar was also used as a secondary source. The initial results were then subjected to a set of pre-defined inclusion criteria. The resulting publications were then analysed for content and thematic commonality. The review identified 20 articles which met pre-defined inclusion criteria. The identified peer-reviewed publications were dated from the period 2004 to 2014. Three clear themes emerged from the historical research. There was both a paucity of peer-reviewed literature with respect to cycling with an amputation and the design of adaptive or assistive technology to replace limb loss. However, publications have been rising substantially over the last 5 years. This review study established the historical strategy and content of cycling with an amputation and identified the existing research themes. This will assist in summarising the current level of knowledge and help signpost such work in the future. © The International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics 2015.

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…

The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012: literature review of the logistical planning and operational challenges for public health.

Science.gov (United States)

Enock, K E; Jacobs, J

2008-11-01

To undertake a review of the literature relating to public health planning and interventions at previous summer Olympic and Paralympic Games and other relevant major summer sporting events or mass gatherings, with a focus on official publications and peer-reviewed articles. Literature review. A literature review was undertaken using all biomedical databases and a freetext search using Google to widen the search beyond peer-reviewed publications. Search terms used were: Olympics; Paralympics; mass gatherings; mass gathering medicine; sporting events; weather; planning; and organisation. Citations within articles were searched to identify additional references that would inform this review. This literature review concentrates on the public health aspects of population care at mass gatherings, particularly the Olympic and Paralympic Games which are set over several weeks, focusing on surveillance, prevention and health service quality. The literature identified 10 areas of public health planning: public health command centre and communication; surveillance, assessment and control; environmental health and safety; infectious disease outbreaks; implications of weather conditions; health promotion; travel information; economic assessments; public transport and reduction of asthma events; and preparing athletes for potential allergies. The following themes emerged as crucial factors for the success of any public health interventions at Olympic and Paralympic Games: detailed planning of deliverables; pre-identification of critical success factors; management of risk; detailed contingency planning; and full testing of all plans prior to the event. The 2012 Olympic Games will provide an exciting challenge for public health providers and systems. Preparation requires early detailed planning of policies, procedures and on-site health promotion events, in addition to helping to set up the surveillance and monitoring systems that will capture public health activity alongside

QA REVIEWS: HOW THEY DIFFER FROM PEER REVIEWS

Science.gov (United States)

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

Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

Science.gov (United States)

Vorobel, Oksana; Kim, Deoksoon

2014-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2012-01-01

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

An Analysis of Publication Productivity During Residency for 1506 Neurosurgical Residents and 117 Residency Departments in North America.

Science.gov (United States)

Khan, Nickalus R; Saad, Hassan; Oravec, Chesney S; Norrdahl, Sebastian P; Fraser, Brittany; Wallace, David; Lillard, Jock C; Motiwala, Mustafa; Nguyen, Vincent N; Lee, Siang Liao; Jones, Anna V; Ajmera, Sonia; Kalakoti, Piyush; Dave, Pooja; Moore, Kenneth A; Akinduro, Olutomi; Nyenwe, Emmanuel; Vaughn, Brandy; Michael, L Madison; Klimo, Paul

2018-05-30

Bibliometrics is defined as the study of statistical and mathematical methods used to quantitatively analyze scientific literature. The application of bibliometrics in neurosurgery continues to evolve. To calculate a number of publication productivity measures for almost all neurosurgical residents and departments within North America. These measures were correlated with survey results on the educational environment within residency programs. During May to June 2017, data were collected from departmental websites and Scopus to compose a bibliometric database of neurosurgical residents and residency programs. Data related to authorship value and study content were collected on all articles published by residents. A survey of residency program research and educational environment was administered to program directors and coordinators; results were compared with resident academic productivity. The median number of publications in residency was 3; median h-index and Resident index were 1 and 0.17 during residency, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in academic productivity among male neurosurgical residents compared with females. The majority of articles published were tier 1 clinical articles. Residency program research support was significantly associated with increased resident productivity (P productivity. This study represents the most comprehensive bibliometric assessment of neurosurgical resident academic productivity during training to date. New benchmarks for individual and department academic productivity are provided. A supportive research environment for neurosurgical residents is associated with increased academic productivity, but a scholarly activity requirement was, surprisingly, not shown to have a positive effect.

Independent peer review of nuclear safety computer codes

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

1993-01-01

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

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.

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…

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

2013-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

2013-01-01

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

Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network

Science.gov (United States)

Lee, Christopher

2011-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Reporting negative actions or findings taken by peer review organizations or private accreditation entities. 60.10 Section 60.10 Public Welfare DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GENERAL ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL PRACTITIONER DATA BANK FOR ADVERSE...

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.

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.

Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review

Science.gov (United States)

Sandewall, Erik

2011-01-01

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

The Strategic Combination of Open-Access Peer-Review, Mainstream Media and Social Media to Improve Public Climate Literacy (Invited)

Science.gov (United States)

Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D. A.; Jacobs, P.

2013-12-01

The Skeptical Science website began in 2007, with the goal of refuting climate misinformation with peer-reviewed science. It achieved this by embracing a diversity of message formats and delivery methods. Myth rebuttals are available at beginner, intermediate and advanced levels, spanning from long, technical treatments to tweetable one-liners. Content has been translated into 20 different languages and made available via the web, an iPhone app and books while adopted by third parties in textbooks, university and MOOC curricula, books, Senate testimonies and TV documentaries. While social media has been a fruitful medium, we experimented with a new model in 2013, employing the strategic combination of open-access peer-review, mainstream media outreach and social media marketing. This strategy was adopted with the release of a paper quantifying the level of scientific consensus in published climate papers, resulting in broad mainstream media attention as well as acknowledgement from key public figures such as Al Gore, the UK Minister for Energy Edward Davey and President Obama. Our approach was informed by psychological research into both the importance of scientific consensus and how to reduce the influence of misconceptions. While multiple methods of delivery are important, equally important is the construction of the messages themselves. I will examine the science of crafting compelling messages and how combination with diverse message delivery can lead to impactful outcomes.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2011-01-01

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

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Gemma Elizabeth Derrick

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2011-04-06

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

Writing for publication in medical education: the benefits of a faculty development workshop and peer writing group.

Science.gov (United States)

Steinert, Yvonne; McLeod, Peter J; Liben, Stephen; Snell, Linda

2008-01-01

Although educational innovations in medical education are increasing in number, many educators do not submit their ideas for publication. The goal of this initiative was to assist faculty members write about their educational innovations. Twenty-four faculty members participated in this intervention, which consisted of a half-day workshop, three peer writing groups, and independent study. We assessed the impact of this intervention through post-workshop evaluations, a one-year follow-up questionnaire, tracking of manuscript submissions, and an analysis of curriculum vitae. The workshop evaluations and one-year follow-up demonstrated that participants valued the workshop small groups, self-instructional workbook, and peer support and feedback provided by the peer writing groups. One year later, nine participants submitted a total of 14 manuscripts, 11 of which were accepted for publication. In addition, 10 participants presented a total of 38 abstracts at educational meetings. Five years later, we reviewed the curriculum vitae of all participants who had published or presented their educational innovation. Although the total number of publications remained the same, the number of educationally-related publications and presentations at scientific meetings increased considerably. A faculty development workshop and peer writing group can facilitate writing productivity and presentations of scholarly work in medical education.

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Shannon Tushingham

Full Text Available Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that women continue to be underrepresented in publication output in the sciences. This is true even in female-rich fields such as archaeology. Since most gender-related publication studies rely on data from peer-reviewed journals, it would be instructive, though challenging, to also track publication output in non-refereed and professional or industry venues, which tend to be more accessible to those working in extra-academic settings. This comparison is important in fields such as archaeology in which the vast majority (approximately 90% of practitioners in the USA work for private sector cultural resource management firms and federal and state agencies. To understand the dynamics of who publishes where, we compiled a new dataset tracking over 40 years of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed publications that publish articles on the archaeology of California (an American Indian cultural area including southwest Oregon, most of the state of California, and Baja Mexico and the Great Basin culture area (spanning eight western USA states. Historic gender differences in the publishing output of authors identified as men versus those identified as women were revealed by articles published between 1974 and 2016 in two refereed journals, the Journal of California Anthropology/ Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology and California Archaeology, and in one un-refereed venue, the Society for California Archaeology Proceedings. Although multiple independent measures indicate that women are contributing and active members of the discipline, publishing records yield more variable results. Specifically, while women have historic and increasingly robust levels of participation in the non-peer-reviewed Proceedings, they remain vastly underrepresented in the two peer-reviewed journals, which are widely regarded as more prestigious and influential. We argue that this "peer review gap" is influenced by

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

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.

Peer influence on pre-adolescent girls' snack intake: effects of weight status.

Science.gov (United States)

Salvy, Sarah-Jeanne; Romero, Natalie; Paluch, Rocco; Epstein, Leonard H

2007-07-01

Although most eating occurs in a social context, the effects of peer influence on child eating have not been the object of systematic experimental study. The present study assesses the effects of peer influence on lean and overweight pre-adolescent girls' snack intake as a function of the co-eaters' weight status. The weight status of the participants was varied by studying weight discordant dyads (i.e., one lean and one overweight participant) and weight concordant dyads (i.e., both members of the dyads were either lean or overweight). Results from the random regression model indicate that overweight girls eating with an overweight peer consumed more kilocalories than overweight participants eating with a normal-weight peer. Normal-weight participants eating with overweight peers ate similar amounts as those eating with lean eating companions. The regression model improved when the partners' food intake was entered in the model, indicating that the peers' intake was a significant predictor of participants' snack consumption. This study underscores differences in responses to the social environment between overweight and non-overweight youths.

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

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

1988-02-01

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

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…

Impact of co-investigators on pharmacy resident research publication

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Stranges PM

2017-06-01

Full Text Available Objective: To explore influences of co-investigators on the successful publication of a pharmacy residency project. Methods: We analyzed published and non-published research presented at a regional pharmacy conference. Abstracts were matched 1:1 based on state and abstract year. We assessed university affiliation, number, degree, and H-Index of co-investigators on the abstract. Descriptive and inferential analyses were used to identify variables associated with resident publication. Results: University-affiliated programs (p=0.015, highest H-Index of a non-physician co-investigator (p=0.002, and positive H-Index (≥1 of a non-physician co-investigator (p=0.017 were significant predictors of resident publication on univariate analyses. There were no differences in the number of co-investigators (p=0.051, projects with physician co-investigators (p=1.000, or projects with Doctor of Philosophy (PhD or Master of Science (MS co-investigators (p=0.536 between published and non-published projects. Multivariate analysis found that the highest H-index of non-physician co-investigator remained significant as a predictor to resident publication (odds ratio (OR 1.09, 95% Confidence Interval (CI 1.01-1.17. Conclusions: The quality of co-investigators, as measured by an increasing H-Index, is associated with the successful publication of residency projects. More emphasis may need to be placed on resident research co-investigator selection and training to prepare pharmacy residents for research and scholarly activity.

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.

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

Liesegang, Thomas J

2013-09-01

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

Disparities in public and private pre-primary and primary schools ...

African Journals Online (AJOL)

International Journal of Development and Management Review ... essential for educational planning; their disparities in public and private pre-primary and ... teaching as a career especially in the private schools where they constitute only 35.

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2016-01-01

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

Radioactive waste isolation in salt: peer review of Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation's Socioeconomic Program Plan

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Winter, R.; Fenster, D.; O'Hare, M.; Zillman, D.; Harrison, W.; Tisue, M.

1984-02-01

The ONWI Socioeconomic Program Plan spells out DOE's approach to analyzing the socioeconomic impacts from siting, constructing, and operating radioactive waste repositories and discusses mitigation strategies. The peer review indicated the following modifications should be made to the Plan: encourage active public participation in the decision-making processes leading to repository site selection; clearly define mechanisms for incorporating the concerns of local residents, state and local governments, and other potentially interested parties into the early stages of the site selection process; place significantly greater emphasis on using primary socioeconomic data during the site selection process, reversing the current overemphasis on secondary data collection, description of socioeconomic conditions at potential locations, and development of analytical methodologies; recognize that mitigation mechanisms other than compensation and incentives may be effective; as soon as potential sites are identified, the US Department of Energy (DOE) should begin discussing impact mitigation agreements with local officials and other interested parties; and comply fully with the pertinent provisions of NWPA

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.

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

Science.gov (United States)

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

2017-10-18

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

Goodrich, Andrew

2018-01-01

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

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

2017-11-01

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

On pre-test sensitisation and peer assessment to enhance learning gain in science education

NARCIS (Netherlands)

Bos, Floor/Floris

2009-01-01

*The main part of this thesis focuses on designing, optimising, and studying the embedding of two types of interventions: pre-testing and peer assessment, both supported by or combined with ICT-tools. * Pre-test sensitisation is used intentionally to boost the learning gain of the main intervention,

2017 Project Peer Review Report

Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

None, None

2018-02-06

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

Optimal allocation of reviewers for peer feedback

DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

Wind, David Kofoed; Jensen, Ulf Aslak; Jørgensen, Rasmus Malthe

2017-01-01

feedback to be effective students should give and receive useful feedback. A key challenge in peer feedback is allocating the feedback givers in a good way. It is important that reviewers are allocated to submissions such that the feedback distribution is fair - meaning that all students receive good......Peer feedback is the act of letting students give feedback to each other on submitted work. There are multiple reasons to use peer feedback, including students getting more feedback, time saving for teachers and increased learning by letting students reflect on work by others. In order for peer...... indicated the quality of the feedback. Using this model together with historical data we calculate the feedback-giving skill of each student and uses that as input to an allocation algorithm that assigns submissions to reviewers, in order to optimize the feedback quality for all students. We test...

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.

Public education and enforcement research study (PEERS).

Science.gov (United States)

2013-08-01

In 2001, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) established the Public Education and Enforcement Research Study (PEERS) to test the effectiveness of various education and enforcement (E&E) techniques to i...

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-01-01

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

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…

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

Science.gov (United States)

Fulkerson, Tiffany; Hill, Katheryn

2017-01-01

Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that women continue to be underrepresented in publication output in the sciences. This is true even in female-rich fields such as archaeology. Since most gender-related publication studies rely on data from peer-reviewed journals, it would be instructive, though challenging, to also track publication output in non-refereed and professional or industry venues, which tend to be more accessible to those working in extra-academic settings. This comparison is important in fields such as archaeology in which the vast majority (approximately 90%) of practitioners in the USA work for private sector cultural resource management firms and federal and state agencies. To understand the dynamics of who publishes where, we compiled a new dataset tracking over 40 years of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed publications that publish articles on the archaeology of California (an American Indian cultural area including southwest Oregon, most of the state of California, and Baja Mexico) and the Great Basin culture area (spanning eight western USA states). Historic gender differences in the publishing output of authors identified as men versus those identified as women were revealed by articles published between 1974 and 2016 in two refereed journals, the Journal of California Anthropology/ Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology and California Archaeology, and in one un-refereed venue, the Society for California Archaeology Proceedings. Although multiple independent measures indicate that women are contributing and active members of the discipline, publishing records yield more variable results. Specifically, while women have historic and increasingly robust levels of participation in the non-peer-reviewed Proceedings, they remain vastly underrepresented in the two peer-reviewed journals, which are widely regarded as more prestigious and influential. We argue that this “peer review gap” is influenced by variation in the

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…

Peer review for USI A-46 and the seismic IPE

International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

Smith, P.; Johnson, H.

1993-01-01

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

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Stephen A. Bustin

2016-03-01

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

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....

A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education.

Science.gov (United States)

Secomb, Jacinta

2008-03-01

The purpose of this review is to provide a framework for peer teaching and learning in the clinical education of undergraduate health science students in clinical practice settings and make clear the positive and negative aspects of this teaching and learning strategy. The practice of using peers incidentally or purposefully in the clinical education of apprentice or undergraduate health science students is a well-established tradition and commonly practiced, but lacks definition in its implementation. The author conducted a search of health science and educational electronic databases using the terms peer, clinical education and undergraduate. The set limitations were publications after 1980 (2005 inclusive), English language and research papers. Selection of studies occurred: based on participant, intervention, research method and learning outcomes, following a rigorous critical and quality appraisal with a purposefully developed tool. The results have been both tabled and collated in a narrative summary. Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria, representing five countries and four health science disciplines. This review reported mostly positive outcomes on the effectiveness of peer teaching and learning; it can increase student's confidence in clinical practice and improve learning in the psychomotor and cognitive domains. Negative aspects were also identified; these include poor student learning if personalities or learning styles are not compatible and students spending less individualized time with the clinical instructor. Peer teaching and learning is an effective educational intervention for health science students on clinical placements. Preclinical education of students congruent with the academic timetable increases student educational outcomes from peer teaching and learning. Strategies are required prior to clinical placement to accommodate incompatible students or poor student learning. The findings from this systematic review, although not

Laughter and the Management of Divergent Positions in Peer Review Interactions

Science.gov (United States)

Raclaw, Joshua; Ford, Cecilia E.

2017-01-01

In this paper we focus on how participants in peer review interactions use laughter as a resource as they publicly report divergence of evaluative positions, divergence that is typical in the give and take of joint grant evaluation. Using the framework of conversation analysis, we examine the infusion of laughter and multimodal laugh-relevant practices into sequences of talk in meetings of grant reviewers deliberating on the evaluation and scoring of high-level scientific grant applications. We focus on a recurrent sequence in these meetings, what we call the score-reporting sequence, in which the assigned reviewers first announce the preliminary scores they have assigned to the grant. We demonstrate that such sequences are routine sites for the use of laugh practices to navigate the initial moments in which divergence of opinion is made explicit. In the context of meetings convened for the purposes of peer review, laughter thus serves as a valuable resource for managing the socially delicate but institutionally required reporting of divergence and disagreement that is endemic to meetings where these types of evaluative tasks are a focal activity. PMID:29170594

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.

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.

The effect of peer influence and selection processes on adolescent alcohol use: a systematic review of longitudinal studies.

Science.gov (United States)

Leung, Rachel K; Toumbourou, John W; Hemphill, Sheryl A

2014-01-01

Adolescent alcohol use remains an important public health concern. One of the most salient and consistent predictors for drinking behaviour among young people is peer influence. A systematic review of longitudinal studies that examined the effect of peer influence on adolescent alcohol use between January 1997 and February 2011 is presented. Twenty-two studies fulfilled inclusion criteria and were reviewed. All but one study confirmed affiliation with alcohol-using or deviant peers as prospective predictors for the development of adolescent alcohol use. Findings revealed that existing longitudinal studies that have used multivariate analytic techniques to segregate peer influence (whereby adolescents start drinking after exposure to alcohol-using friends) and peer selection (whereby adolescents that start drinking without alcohol-using friends subsequently seek out drinking peers) effects consistently report significant peer influence effects. However, studies are unable to elucidate the relative contribution and developmental sequence of peer influence and selection. Existing research is synthesised to model the developmental influence of peer processes on adolescent alcohol use. Future research directions are recommended to inform better designed investigations that can lead to more effective endeavours to address peer processes in prevention efforts.

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

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…

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

Science.gov (United States)

Fitzgerald, Amanda; Fitzgerald, Noelle; Aherne, Cian

2012-08-01

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

IRIS Toxicological Review of Tert-Butyl Alcohol (Tert-Butanol) (Public Comment Draft)

Science.gov (United States)

EPA is developing an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of tert-butyl Alcohol (tert-butanol) and has released the public comment draft assessment for public comment and external peer review. When final, the assessment will appear on the IRIS databa...

Peer education training for sexual health and well-being in public ...

African Journals Online (AJOL)

Objective: To evaluate the effects of a high school peer educator training programme on the sexual behaviour and related psychosocial outcomes of peer educators. Method: A total of 728 students from 15 randomly selected public high schools in the Western Cape, South Africa, with a peer education programme and 15 ...

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.…

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

Science.gov (United States)

2010-07-01

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

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…

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

Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

Alexei V. Shestopal

2014-01-01

Full Text Available The article considers peer review as the main procedure for demarcating scientific knowledge from other kinds thereof, which do not meet the criteria set for research results. The authors examine the history of peer review, which has first been used in early scientific journals and then has become one of the key approaches to distributing funds for research in science foundations, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation. The article also considers the role of peer review in the legal process, wherein observance of this procedure can be seen as the main criteria, which separates scientific evidence from mere testimony. The description of the main elements of the peer review procedure is based on the "Statement of principles for scientific merit review" the summary of the results of the Global Summit on Merit Review, which brought together heads of science funding organizations from more than 50 countries. The Statement listed the following principles: expert assessment, transparency, impartiality, appropriateness, confidentiality, integrity and ethical considerations. Although these principles are seen as a way to guarantee efficient peer review one has to consider the peculiarities of a particular research area, first of all the differences between social and natural sciences. Accordingly the article gives an overview of key traits of peer review in the social sciences and humanities. The authors also consider the main procedural elements - preparation of individual reviews, consideration by panels, anonymity of reviewers. Finally the article addresses the problems of peer review such as non-transparent process, elitism in selecting reviewers, conservativeness of decisions, and possible ways of handling these problems.

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.

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.

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…

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

Science.gov (United States)

Cowley, Stephen J

2015-01-01