WorldWideScience

Sample records for rigorous peer-review process

  1. 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.

  2. Lessons learned from a rigorous peer-review process for building the Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness (CLEAN) collection of high-quality digital teaching materials

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gold, A. U.; Ledley, T. S.; McCaffrey, M. S.; Buhr, S. M.; Manduca, C. A.; Niepold, F.; Fox, S.; Howell, C. D.; Lynds, S. E.

    2010-12-01

    The topic of climate change permeates all aspects of our society: the news, household debates, scientific conferences, etc. To provide students with accurate information about climate science and energy awareness, educators require scientifically and pedagogically robust teaching materials. To address this need, the NSF-funded Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN) Pathway has assembled a new peer-reviewed digital collection as part of the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) featuring teaching materials centered on climate and energy science for grades 6 through 16. The scope and framework of the collection is defined by the Essential Principles of Climate Science (CCSP 2009) and a set of energy awareness principles developed in the project. The collection provides trustworthy teaching materials on these socially relevant topics and prepares students to become responsible decision-makers. While a peer-review process is desirable for curriculum developer as well as collection builder to ensure quality, its implementation is non-trivial. We have designed a rigorous and transparent peer-review process for the CLEAN collection, and our experiences provide general guidelines that can be used to judge the quality of digital teaching materials across disciplines. Our multi-stage review process ensures that only resources with teaching goals relevant to developing climate literacy and energy awareness are considered. Each relevant resource is reviewed by two individuals to assess the i) scientific accuracy, ii) pedagogic effectiveness, and iii) usability/technical quality. A science review by an expert ensures the scientific quality and accuracy. Resources that pass all review steps are forwarded to a review panel of educators and scientists who make a final decision regarding inclusion of the materials in the CLEAN collection. Results from the first panel review show that about 20% (~100) of the resources that were initially considered for inclusion

  3. Demystifying the peer-review process - workshop

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  4. Peer 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…

  5. 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

  6. Peer-Review of Digital Educational Resources--A Rigorous Review Process Developed by the Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN)

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gold, Anne U.; Ledley, Tamara Shapiro; Buhr, Susan M.; Fox, Sean; McCaffrey, Mark; Niepold, Frank; Manduca, Cathy; Lynds, Susan E.

    2012-01-01

    Educators seek to develop 21st century skills in the classroom by incorporating educational materials other than textbooks into their lessons, such as digitally available activities, videos, and visualizations. A problem that educators face is that no review process similar to the formal adoption processes used for K-12 textbooks or the…

  7. 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…

  8. Quality Assurance for Distance Education: A Faculty Peer Review Process.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ross, Kathryn R.; Batzer, Lyn; Bennington, Elaine

    2002-01-01

    Discusses the need for quality assurance in distance education; describes evaluation criteria; and reports how Ivy Tech State College (Indiana) created a peer review process as a formative evaluation tool to assure the quality of its distance education courses. Explains roles of the participants and evaluation of the peer review prototype. (LRW)

  9. The JSC Engineering Directorate Product Peer Review Process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jenks, Kenneth C.

    2009-01-01

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

  10. 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.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Joanna Richardson

    2014-02-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rangachari, P K

    2010-09-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  14. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Wicherts, J.M.

    2016-01-01

    Background Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the

  15. Addressing Clinical Faculty Need: Creating a Process and Evaluation for Peer Review of Practice

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jean Y. Moon

    2014-01-01

    Full Text Available Objectives: To describe the evolving process and evaluate the perceived value of peer review for clinical faculty. Methods: Using a 5-point Likert scale, clinical faculty rated the value of an electronic peer review process by completing an electronic 30 item survey across six areas of clinical faculty practice-related activity. Based on feedback, modifications were made and faculty were re-surveyed the following year. Results: Initially, 78% of faculty found peer review to be beneficial, mostly in the area of practice development and portions of practice dissemination. After modifications, 45% found peer review to be beneficial. Conclusions: Clinical faculty are challenged to leverage their practice into teaching and scholarly activities; however, clinical faculty often need feedback to accomplish this. Although the peer review process was designed to address perceived needs of clinical faculty, the process is dynamic and needs further refinement. Overall, clinical faculty find value in a peer review process. This evaluation of peer review illustrates the challenges to provide feedback across six key areas of clinical faculty activity.   Type: Original Research

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gregorius, Stefanie; Dean, Laura; Cole, Donald C; Bates, Imelda

    2017-01-01

    Background:  Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary research capacity. We need a better understanding of how such decisions are made and their effectiveness. Methods:  An award-making institution planned to fund 10 UK-Africa research consortia. Over two annual rounds, 34 out of 78 eligible applications were shortlisted and reviewed by at least five external reviewers before final selections were made by a face-to-face panel. We used an innovative approach involving structured, overt observations of award-making panel meetings and semi-structured interviews with panel members to explore how assessment criteria concerning research quality and capacity strengthening were applied during the peer review process. Data were coded and analysed using pre-designed matrices which incorporated categories relating to the assessment criteria. Results:  In general the process was rigorous and well-managed. However, lack of clarity about differential weighting of criteria and variations in the panel's understanding of research capacity strengthening resulted in some inconsistencies in use of the assessment criteria. Using the same panel for both rounds had advantages, in that during the second round consensus was achieved more quickly and the panel had increased focus on development aspects. Conclusion:  Grant assessment panels for such complex research applications need to have topic- and context-specific expertise. They must also understand research capacity issues and have a flexible but equitable and transparent approach. This study has

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2012-12-01

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

  3. On the peer review process and its implications for future PRAs

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Kastenberg, W.E.

    1989-01-01

    A Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is an effort to quantify nuclear power plant safety in terms of the frequency and consequences of severe accidents. Even though risk analysis can be considered a mature field, the results of recent PRA's are not as robust as they should be because of uncertainty. Some of the major contributors to the uncertainty regarding our current state of knowledge with respect to PRA are: System behavior is subjected to human intervention (and behavior) which is difficult to quantify. Phenomena encountered during severe accidents are difficult to model because they involve multi-component, multi-phase physico-chemical effects in ill-defined geometries. System behavior due to severe external events (e.g., earthquakes, fires) is difficult to model and quantify. Various aspects of plant design and operation are omitted from consideration such as design errors, plant aging and partial operation of engineered safety features. NUREG-1150, have been subject to peer review. The objective of this paper is to discuss the Peer Review of the Draft Reactor Risk Reference Document, and its implications of the future. We begin with a discussion of the objectives of a peer review, peer review committees, and the comments of a peer review committee. We then discuss a major aspect of the NUREG-1150 Peer Review dealing with uncertainty and expert opinion. Given these discussions, some implications for future PRA's will be presented. The goal is to initiate dialogue so that the PRA process as well as its bottom line results achieve credibility in the technical community

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Varonis, Evageline Marlos

    2014-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

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

  8. Bruce NGS B risk assessment (BBRA) peer review process

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Kaasalainen, S.; Crocker, W.P.; Webb, W.A.

    2001-01-01

    Risk-informed decision making is considered an effective approach to managing the risk of nuclear power plant operation in a competitive market. Hence, increased reliance on the station probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) to provide risk perspective inputs is inevitable. With increased reliance on the PRAs it is imperative that PRAs have the characteristics necessary to provide the required information. Recognizing the increased requirements on nuclear power plant PRAs the nuclear industry in the United States has expended significant effort over the past few years defining the required characteristics of a PRA for various applications. More recently several owners groups have drafted guidelines for PRA certification and several U.S. utilities have had their PRAs certified. During the year 2000 Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear (OPG,N) subjected the PRA of one of its stations to the U.S. style certification process. The PRA selected for this process was the Bruce B Risk Assessment (BBRA). BBRA was chosen for this process since it is the first OPG, N PRA to be used for risk-informed applications. However, the strengths of the BBRA identified from the certification process and the lessons learned are also largely applicable to the other OPG, N plant PRAs due to the use of similar methods and tools

  9. 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.

  10. Collaborative peer review process as an informal interprofessional learning tool: Findings from an exploratory study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kwon, Jae Yung; Bulk, Laura Yvonne; Giannone, Zarina; Liva, Sarah; Chakraborty, Bubli; Brown, Helen

    2018-01-01

    Despite numerous studies on formal interprofessional education programes, less attention has been focused on informal interprofessional learning opportunities. To provide such an opportunity, a collaborative peer review process (CPRP) was created as part of a peer-reviewed journal. Replacing the traditional peer review process wherein two or more reviewers review the manuscript separately, the CPRP brings together students from different professions to collaboratively review a manuscript. The aim of this study was to assess whether the CPRP can be used as an informal interprofessional learning tool using an exploratory qualitative approach. Eight students from Counselling Psychology, Occupational and Physical Therapy, Nursing, and Rehabilitation Sciences were invited to participate in interprofessional focus groups. Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. Two key themes emerged, revealing that the CPRP created new opportunities for interprofessional learning and gave practice in negotiating feedback. The results reveal that the CPRP has the potential to be a valuable interprofessional learning tool that can also enhance reviewing and constructive feedback skills.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mandala, Mahender Arjun

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

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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...

  15. 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…

  16. Implementation and evaluation of a peer review process for advanced practice nurses in a university hospital setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bergum, Shelly K; Canaan, Talitha; Delemos, Christi; Gall, Elizabeth Funke; McCracken, Bonnie; Rowen, Dave; Salvemini, Steve; Wiens, Kimberly

    2017-07-01

    Over the past decade, implementation of the peer review process for the development of the advanced practice nurse (APN) has been emphasized. However, little exists in the literature regarding APN peer review. The peer review process is intended to help demonstrate competency of care, enhance quality improvement measures, and foster the professional growth of the APN. APNs serving on a professional governance council within a university teaching hospital developed a model of peer review for APNs. Nine months after the tool was implemented, an anonymous follow-up survey was conducted. A follow-up request was sent 4 weeks later to increase the number of respondents. Likert scales were used to elicit subjective data regarding the process. Of 81 APNs who participated in the survey, more than half (52%) felt that the process would directly improve their professional practice. Survey results show that the peer review process affected APN professional practice positively. Additional research might include pathways for remediation and education of staff, evaluation of alternate methods to improve application to clinical practice, and collection of outcome data. The models presented provide a foundation for future refinement to accommodate different APN practice settings. ©2017 American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Premchaiswadi, Wichian; Porouhan, Parham

    2015-01-01

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

  18. A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Glonti, Ketevan; Cauchi, Daniel; Cobo, Erik; Boutron, Isabelle; Moher, David; Hren, Darko

    2017-10-22

    The primary functions of peer reviewers are poorly defined. Thus far no body of literature has systematically identified the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. A clear establishment of these can lead to improvements in the peer review process. The purpose of this scoping review is to determine what is known on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers. We will use the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and subsequently adapted by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The scoping review will include all study designs, as well as editorials, commentaries and grey literature. The following eight electronic databases will be searched (from inception to May 2017): Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Two reviewers will use inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the 'Population-Concept-Context' framework to independently screen titles and abstracts of articles considered for inclusion. Full-text screening of relevant eligible articles will also be carried out by two reviewers. The search strategy for grey literature will include searching in websites of existing networks, biomedical journal publishers and organisations that offer resources for peer reviewers. In addition we will review journal guidelines to peer reviewers on how to perform the manuscript review. Journals will be selected using the 2016 journal impact factor. We will identify and assess the top five, middle five and lowest-ranking five journals across all medical specialties. This scoping review will undertake a secondary analysis of data already collected and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in peer review in biomedical research. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the

  19. An examination of gender differences in the American Fisheries Society peer-review process

    Science.gov (United States)

    Handley, Grace; Frantz, Cynthia M; Kocovsky, Patrick; DeVries, Dennis R.; Cooke, Steven J.; Claussen, Julie

    2015-01-01

    This study investigated the possibility of gender differences in outcomes throughout the peer review process of American Fisheries Society (AFS) journals. For each manuscript submitted to four AFS journals between January 2003 and December 2010, we collated information regarding the gender and nationality of authors, gender of associate editor, gender of reviewers, reviewer recommendations, associate editor's decision, and publication status of the manuscript. We used hierarchical linear modeling to test for differences in manuscript decision outcomes associated with author, reviewer, and associate editor gender. Gender differences were present at some but not every stage of the review process and were not equal among the four journals. Although there was a small gender difference in decision outcomes, we found no evidence of bias in editors’ and reviewers’ recommendations. Our results support the conclusion that the current single-blind review system does not result in bias against female authors within AFS journals.

  20. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

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

  1. 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...

  2. 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.

  3. 2014 Water Power Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2014-08-18

    The Water Power Peer Review Meeting was held February 24-28, 2014 in Arlington, VA. Principle investigators from the Energy Department National Laboratories, academic, and industry representatives presented the progress of their DOE-funded research. This report documents the formal, rigorous evaluation process and findings of nine independent reviewers who examined the technical, scientific, and business results of 96 projects of the Water Power Program, as well as the productivity and management effectiveness of the Water Power Program itself.

  4. 2014 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2014-10-01

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

  5. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-01-01

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

  7. Connecting Technological Innovation in Artificial Intelligence to Real-world Medical Practice through Rigorous Clinical Validation: What Peer-reviewed Medical Journals Could Do

    Science.gov (United States)

    2018-01-01

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is projected to substantially influence clinical practice in the foreseeable future. However, despite the excitement around the technologies, it is yet rare to see examples of robust clinical validation of the technologies and, as a result, very few are currently in clinical use. A thorough, systematic validation of AI technologies using adequately designed clinical research studies before their integration into clinical practice is critical to ensure patient benefit and safety while avoiding any inadvertent harms. We would like to suggest several specific points regarding the role that peer-reviewed medical journals can play, in terms of study design, registration, and reporting, to help achieve proper and meaningful clinical validation of AI technologies designed to make medical diagnosis and prediction, focusing on the evaluation of diagnostic accuracy efficacy. Peer-reviewed medical journals can encourage investigators who wish to validate the performance of AI systems for medical diagnosis and prediction to pay closer attention to the factors listed in this article by emphasizing their importance. Thereby, peer-reviewed medical journals can ultimately facilitate translating the technological innovations into real-world practice while securing patient safety and benefit.

  8. Connecting Technological Innovation in Artificial Intelligence to Real-world Medical Practice through Rigorous Clinical Validation: What Peer-reviewed Medical Journals Could Do.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Park, Seong Ho; Kressel, Herbert Y

    2018-05-28

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is projected to substantially influence clinical practice in the foreseeable future. However, despite the excitement around the technologies, it is yet rare to see examples of robust clinical validation of the technologies and, as a result, very few are currently in clinical use. A thorough, systematic validation of AI technologies using adequately designed clinical research studies before their integration into clinical practice is critical to ensure patient benefit and safety while avoiding any inadvertent harms. We would like to suggest several specific points regarding the role that peer-reviewed medical journals can play, in terms of study design, registration, and reporting, to help achieve proper and meaningful clinical validation of AI technologies designed to make medical diagnosis and prediction, focusing on the evaluation of diagnostic accuracy efficacy. Peer-reviewed medical journals can encourage investigators who wish to validate the performance of AI systems for medical diagnosis and prediction to pay closer attention to the factors listed in this article by emphasizing their importance. Thereby, peer-reviewed medical journals can ultimately facilitate translating the technological innovations into real-world practice while securing patient safety and benefit.

  9. 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...

  10. Conflicting Incentives Risk Analysis: A Case Study of the Normative Peer Review Process

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Gaute Wangen

    2015-07-01

    Full Text Available This paper presents an approach to conduct risk assessments of complex incentive systems, using a case study of the normative Peer Review Process (PRP. This research centers on appliances and adaptations of the Conflicting Incentives Risk Analysis (CIRA. First as an approach to Root Cause Analysis of a known incident, and then for a full assessment of the incentives in the PRP together with possible risk treatments. CIRA uses an alternative notion of risk, where risk modeling is in terms of conflicting incentives between the risk owner and the stakeholders concerning the execution of actions. Compared to traditional risk assessment approaches, CIRA provides an insight into the underlying incentives behind a risk, and not just the technical vulnerability, likelihood and consequence. The main contributions of this work are an approach to obtain insight into incentives as root causes, and an approach to detecting and analyzing risks from incentives in the normative PRP. This paper also discusses risk treatments in terms of incentives to make the PRP more robust, together with a discussion of how to approach risk analysis of incentives.

  11. 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.

  12. 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...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-01-01

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

  14. 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. ...

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. Identifying preventable trauma death: does autopsy serve a role in the peer review process?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Scantling, Dane; Teichman, Amanda; Kucejko, Robert; McCracken, Brendan; Eakins, James; Burns, Richard

    2017-07-01

    Missing life-threatening injuries is a persistent concern in any trauma program. Autopsy is a tool routinely utilized to determine an otherwise occult cause of death in many fields of medicine. It has been adopted as a required component of the trauma peer review (PR) process by both the American College of Surgeons and the Pennsylvania Trauma Foundation. We hypothesized that autopsy would not identify preventable deaths for augmentation of the PR process. A retrospective chart review using our institutional trauma registry of all trauma deaths between January 2012 and December 2015 was performed. Per the protocol of our level 1 center, all trauma deaths are referred to the medical examiner (ME) and reviewed as part of the trauma PR process. All autopsy results are evaluated with relation to injury severity score (ISS), trauma injury severity score (TRISS), nature of death, and injuries added by autopsy. ME reports are reviewed by the trauma medical director and referred back to the trauma PR committee if warranted. Trauma injury severity score methodology determines the probability of survival (Ps) given injuries identified. A patient with Ps of ≥0.5 is expected to survive their injuries. Cohorts were created based on when in the hospitalization death occurred: 48 h, or late death. A comparison was conducted between the ISS and Ps calculated during trauma workup and on autopsy using chi-square and Fischer's exact tests. A total of 173 patient deaths were referred to the ME with 123 responses received. Average length of stay was 2.61 d. Twenty-six patients had autopsy declined by the ME, 25 received an external examination only, and 72 received a full autopsy. Autopsy identified one case that was reconsidered in PR (P = 0.603) and added diagnoses, but not injuries, to one patient in the early death group (P = 1) and two in the late death group (P = 0.4921). No preventable cause of death was uncovered, and educational use was minimal. Autopsy did identify

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jennifer R. Brigati

    2015-02-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brigati, Jennifer R; Swann, Jerilyn M

    2015-05-01

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

  20. 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

  1. Reliability of the peer-review process for adverse event rating.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Alan J Forster

    Full Text Available Adverse events are poor patient outcomes caused by medical care. Their identification requires the peer-review of poor outcomes, which may be unreliable. Combining physician ratings might improve the accuracy of adverse event classification.To evaluate the variation in peer-reviewer ratings of adverse outcomes; determine the impact of this variation on estimates of reviewer accuracy; and determine the number of reviewers who judge an adverse event occurred that is required to ensure that the true probability of an adverse event exceeded 50%, 75% or 95%.Thirty physicians rated 319 case reports giving details of poor patient outcomes following hospital discharge. They rated whether medical management caused the outcome using a six-point ordinal scale. We conducted latent class analyses to estimate the prevalence of adverse events as well as the sensitivity and specificity of each reviewer. We used this model and Bayesian calculations to determine the probability that an adverse event truly occurred to each patient as function of their number of positive ratings.The overall median score on the 6-point ordinal scale was 3 (IQR 2,4 but the individual rater median score ranged from a minimum of 1 (in four reviewers to a maximum median score of 5. The overall percentage of cases rated as an adverse event was 39.7% (3798/9570. The median kappa for all pair-wise combinations of the 30 reviewers was 0.26 (IQR 0.16, 0.42; Min = -0.07, Max = 0.62. Reviewer sensitivity and specificity for adverse event classification ranged from 0.06 to 0.93 and 0.50 to 0.98, respectively. The estimated prevalence of adverse events using a latent class model with a common sensitivity and specificity for all reviewers (0.64 and 0.83 respectively was 47.6%. For patients to have a 95% chance of truly having an adverse event, at least 3 of 3 reviewers are required to deem the outcome an adverse event.Adverse event classification is unreliable. To be certain that a case

  2. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schmalbach, Cecelia E

    2016-07-01

    Current otolaryngology literature and future scientific direction rely heavily on a rigorous peer review process. Just as manuscripts warrant thoughtful review with constructive feedback to the authors, the same can be said for critiques written by novice peer reviewers. Formal scientific peer review training programs are lacking. Recognizing this knowledge gap, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery is excited to offer its new Resident Reviewer Development Program. All otolaryngology residents who are postgraduate year 2 and above and in excellent academic standing are eligible to participate in this mentored program, during which they will conduct 6 manuscript reviews under the direction of a seasoned reviewer in his or her subspecialty area of interest. By completing reviews alongside a mentor, participants gain the required skills to master the peer review process-a first step that often leads to journal editorial board and associate editor invitations. © American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2016.

  4. 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.

  5. 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…

  6. A quick guide to writing a solid peer review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Nicholas, Kimberly A.; Gordon, Wendy S.

    2011-07-01

    Scientific integrity and consensus rely on the peer review process, a defining feature of scientific discourse that subjects the literature forming the foundation of credible knowledge in a scientific field to rigorous scrutiny. However, there is surprisingly little training in graduate school on how to develop this essential skill [Zimmerman et al., 2011] or discussion of best practices to ensure that reviewers at all levels efficiently provide the most useful review. Even more challenging for the novice peer reviewer is that journals also vary widely in their review guidelines. Nonetheless, the goals of peer review are crystal clear: to ensure the accuracy and improve the quality of published literature through constructive criticism. To make the peer review process as efficient and productive as possible, you may want to consider a few useful approaches to tackling major steps throughout your review, from contemplating a review request and reading and assessing the manuscript to writing the review and interacting with the journal's editors (see Figure 1). These tips are particularly relevant for graduate students or other first-time reviewers, but they may also be useful to experienced reviewers and to journal editors seeking to enhance their publication's processes.

  7. 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

  8. Thanking our peer reviewers

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Storey Alan

    2013-03-01

    Full Text Available Contributing reviewers As 2013 commences I would like to take a moment to reflect and recognize the peer reviewers that made the previous year possible. Listed below are those people who reviewed for Molecular Cancer last year. All are generous individuals who donated their time to assessing and improving our authors’ submissions. Your combined efforts have been invaluable to the editorial staff in maintaining the continued success of the journal in the Open Access forum. The editors of Molecular Cancer would like to thank all the reviewers who contributed to the journal in Volume 11 (2012 by participating in the review process - taking time out of your busy schedules and even to volunteer - without your critical insights, hard work and support for the journal we wouldn’t be able to do what we do.

  9. 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…

  10. 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…

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

    2016-01-01

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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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)

  16. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Reiner, Bruce I

    2017-12-01

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

  18. 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...

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. The Impact of Colleague Peer Review on the Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Process in the Radical Treatment of Lung Cancer.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rooney, K P; McAleese, J; Crockett, C; Harney, J; Eakin, R L; Young, V A L; Dunn, M A; Johnston, R E; Hanna, G G

    2015-09-01

    Modern radiotherapy uses techniques to reliably identify tumour and reduce target volume margins. However, this can potentially lead to an increased risk of geographic miss. One source of error is the accuracy of target volume delineation (TVD). Colleague peer review (CPR) of all curative-intent lung cancer plans has been mandatory in our institution since May 2013. At least two clinical oncologists review plans, checking treatment paradigm, TVD, prescription dose tumour and critical organ tolerances. We report the impact of CPR in our institution. Radiotherapy treatment plans of all patients receiving radical radiotherapy were presented at weekly CPR meetings after their target volumes were reviewed and signed off by the treating consultant. All cases and any resultant change to TVD (including organs at risk) or treatment intent were recorded in our prospective CPR database. The impact of CPR over a 13 month period from May 2013 to June 2014 is reported. One hundred and twenty-two patients (63% non-small cell lung carcinoma, 17% small cell lung carcinoma and 20% 'clinical diagnosis') were analysed. On average, 3.2 cases were discussed per meeting (range 1-8). CPR resulted in a change in treatment paradigm in 3% (one patient proceeded to induction chemotherapy, two patients had high-dose palliative radiotherapy). Twenty-one (17%) had a change in TVD and one (1%) patient had a change in dose prescription. In total, 6% of patients had plan adjustment after review of dose volume histogram. The introduction of CPR in our centre has resulted in a change in a component of the treatment plan for 27% of patients receiving curative-intent lung radiotherapy. We recommend CPR as a mandatory quality assurance step in the planning process of all radical lung plans. Copyright © 2015 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

  4. PROSPER guidelines: Guidelines for peer review and for plant self-assessment of operational experience feedback process

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2003-01-01

    Effective use of operational performance information is an important element in any plant operator's arrangements for enhancing the operational safety of a nuclear power plant (NPP). This has been recognized in the IAEA Safety Fundamental, The Safety of Nuclear Installations (Safety Series No. 110). Under the technical aspects of safety, one of the principles of operation and maintenance is that the operating organization and the regulatory body shall establish complementary programmes to analyse operating experience to ensure that lessons are learned and acted upon. Such experience shall be shared with relevant national and international bodies. The Convention on Nuclear Safety, which entered into force in July 1996, also recognized the importance of operational experience feedback as a tool of high importance for the safety of nuclear plant operation and its further enhancement. It follows that the arrangements and results achieved under the operation experience feedback process in Member States will be covered by the national report under the Convention and will be subject to periodical review. These principles are further expanded in the IAEA Safety Standards Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Operation (Safety Standard Series No. NS-R-2, year 2000) under the Feedback of The IAEA-led Peer Review of the effectiveness of the Operational Safety Performance Experience Review process (PROSPER) and associated guidelines have been developed to provide advice and assistance to utilities or individual power plants to strengthen and enhance the effectiveness of operational experience programmes in achieving these fundamental objectives. The objectives of the former IAEA Assessment of Significant Safety Events Team (ASSET) service have been expanded to include an evaluation of the effective use of all operating performance information available to the plant (e.g. external operating experience, internal low-level and near miss event reports and other relevant operating

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. Report of the peer review mission of national operational safety experience feedback process to the Ukraine 11-15 November 1996 Kiev

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1996-01-01

    At the invitation of the Nuclear Regulatory Administration of Ukraine (NRA), the IAEA carried out a Peer review mission of national operational safety experience feedback process at Kiev from 11 to 15 November 1996. The objective of this mission was to provide the host country, represented by the regulatory body, with independent and comprehensive review of current status of operational safety experience feedback (OSEF) process with respect to the IAEA's recommendations and international practices. The mission concluded that principal arrangements of operational feedback process in Ukraine are, at present, in force and brought positive results since their introduction. The mission also noted several good practices in these activities. 1 tab

  9. 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…

  10. 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…

  11. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-11-01

    All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the editors of the 26th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems proceedings. Reviews were conducted by expert referees from the International Technical Committee to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. The members of the Scientific Committee who selected and reviewed the papers included in the Proceedings of the 26th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems are: Yulin WU Tsinghua University China François AVELLAN EPFL-LMH Switzerland (principal) Xingqi LUO Xi'an University of Sci & Tech China Martin BÖHLE Kaiserslautern University Germany Gerard BOIS Arts et Métiers ParisTech France Luca D'AGOSTINO University of Pisa Italy Eduard EGUSQUIZA Polytechnical University Catalonia Spain Richard FISHER Voith Hydro Inc USA Regiane FORTES-PATELLA Institute Polytechnique de Grenoble France Aleksandar GAJIC University of Belgrade Serbia Wei YANG China Agriculture University China YinLu YOUNG University of Michigan USA Adrian LUNGU Dunarea de Jos University of Galati Romania Arpad FAY University of Miskolcz Hungary José GONZÁLEZ Universidad de Oviedo Spain Baoshan ZHU Tsinghua University China Hongxun CHEN Shanghai University China Chisachi KATO University of Tokyo Japan Zhenyue MA Dalian University of Sci & Tech China Honggang FAN Tsinghua University China François GUIBAULT Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Canada Pengcheng GUO Xian University of Technology China Leqing WANG Zhejiang University China Toshiaki IKOHAGI Tohoku University Japan Jiandong YANG Wuhan University China Jianzhong ZHOU Huazhong University of Sci & Tech China Jinwei LI NULL China Rennian LI Lanzhou University of Sci & Tech China Houlin LIU NULL China Juan LIU Tsinghua University China Shuhong LIU Tsinghua University China Xianwu LUO Tsinghua University China Michihiro NISHI Tsinghua

  12. 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

  13. [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.

  14. Peer review statement

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-08-01

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

  15. CONTAIN independent peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Boyack, B.E.; Corradini, M.L.; Khatib-Rahbar, M.; Loyalka, S.K.; Smith, P.N.

    1995-01-01

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

  16. CONTAIN independent peer review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    1995-01-01

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

  17. 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…

  18. 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.

  19. 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…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  1. Review of UCN 3,4 PSA model based on NEI PRA peer review process guidance, rev.0

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Yang, Joon Eon; Kang, D. I.; Kim, K. Y.; Lee, Y. H.; Jang, S. C.; Ha, J. J.; Han, S. H.; Han, S. J.; Hwang, M. J.

    2003-05-01

    Recently, under the de-regulation environment, nuclear industry has attempted various approaches to improve the economics of Nuclear Power Plants (NPP). One of these efforts is the Risk Informed/Performance-Based Operation (RIPBO). This approach uses the risk and performance information to manage the resources effectively and efficiently that are used in the operation of NPP. In RIPBO, PSA quality is one of the most important things. The nuclear industry and regulatory body of U.S.A have developed a measure to evaluate the quality of PSA. NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) has developed a guidance called 'NEI PRA Peer Review Guidance,' and NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Committee) and ASME have developed the 'PRA Standard.' In Korea, several projects are on going now, such as the extension of AOT/STI of RPS/ESFAS, Risk-Informed In-Service Inspection (RI-ISI). However, in Korea, there have been no attempts to evaluate the quality of PSA model itself. Therefore, we cannot be sure about the quality of PSA whether or not the present PSA model can be used for the risk-informed applications such as mentioned above. We can say that the evaluation of PSA model quality is the basis for the RIPBO. In this report, we have evaluated the quality of PSA model for Ulchin 3 and 4 units based on the NEI guidance. We, also, have derived what items are to be improved to upgrade the quality of PSA model and how it can be improved. This report can be used as the base of RIPBO work in Korea. The review result based on ASME Standard is published as the separated technical report of KAERI

  2. 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…

  3. Publications and the peer review system

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  4. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yang, Yu-Fen

    2011-01-01

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. Relevance of First-Tier, Peer-Reviewed Journals in the Tenure and Promotion Process at Non-Doctoral Granting Engineering Institutions

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Amanda S. Florio

    2012-02-01

    Full Text Available The IEEE (formerly the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is the world's largest professional society dedicated to the advancement of technology. While it is indeed growing into multiple technology areas, the IEEE is still first an organization of electrical, electronics, and computer engineering professionals. It has over 400,000 members and publishes nearly 100, first-tier, peer-reviewed journals. As such a large purveyor of scholarly works, engineering faculty at almost all academic institutions (doctoral granting and non-doctoral granting are familiar with the IEEE. For this reason, the IEEE makes an excellent case study for the relevance of first-tier, peer-reviewed journals in the tenure and promotion process at non-doctoral granting engineering institutions. In our work, we surveyed editors of the 97 IEEE journals. 93% of respondents indicated that 10% or less of their submissions were from non-academic institutions. None (0% of the respondents believed that the number of non-doctoral granting institution submissions would be increasing over the next three years. In fact, a majority of the respondents (55% see the number of non-doctoral granting institution submissions decreasing in the same time frame. To correlate this data, we examined a sample of 2,099 articles published in the first issue of each IEEE journal in 2009. 357 (17% of these 2,099 articles were authored by individuals from academic institutions in the United States. Of the 357, only 35 were published by individuals from non-doctoral granting institutions (1.7%, with only 8 (0.38% from institutions where a bachelor degree is the highest offered.

  9. Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Lutz Bornmann

    Full Text Available Does peer review fulfill its declared objective of identifying the best science and the best scientists? In order to answer this question we analyzed the Long-Term Fellowship and the Young Investigator programmes of the European Molecular Biology Organization. Both programmes aim to identify and support the best post doctoral fellows and young group leaders in the life sciences. We checked the association between the selection decisions and the scientific performance of the applicants. Our study involved publication and citation data for 668 applicants to the Long-Term Fellowship programme from the year 1998 (130 approved, 538 rejected and 297 applicants to the Young Investigator programme (39 approved and 258 rejected applicants from the years 2001 and 2002. If quantity and impact of research publications are used as a criterion for scientific achievement, the results of (zero-truncated negative binomial models show that the peer review process indeed selects scientists who perform on a higher level than the rejected ones subsequent to application. We determined the extent of errors due to over-estimation (type I errors and under-estimation (type 2 errors of future scientific performance. Our statistical analyses point out that between 26% and 48% of the decisions made to award or reject an application show one of both error types. Even though for a part of the applicants, the selection committee did not correctly estimate the applicant's future performance, the results show a statistically significant association between selection decisions and the applicants' scientific achievements, if quantity and impact of research publications are used as a criterion for scientific achievement.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. Results of a peer review process: the distribution of codes by examining dentists in the Republic of Ireland 2006-2007.

    LENUS (Irish Health Repository)

    Lynch, Liam

    2009-02-01

    The Health Service Executive (HSE) appointed 20 examining dentists in April 2006 under contract for one year as part of a probity assurance initiative by peer review in the Dental Treatment Services Scheme (DTSS) in the Republic of Ireland.

  13. 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.

  14. Peer Review: Has It a Future?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Soh, Kay Cheng

    2013-01-01

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

  15. Pre-University Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is a significant component in scientific research. Introducing peer review into inquiry processes may be regarded as an aim to develop student understanding regarding quality in inquiries. This study examines student understanding in inquiry peer reviews among pre-university chemistry students, aged 16-17, when they enact a design of a…

  16. 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…

  17. 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.

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

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    White, Kiri; Boehm, Emilia; Chester, Andrea

    2014-01-01

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

  20. Adapting Peer Review to an Online Course: An Exploratory Case Study

    Science.gov (United States)

    Knight, Linda V.; Steinbach, Theresa A.

    2011-01-01

    With demonstrated benefits to higher level learning, peer review in the classroom has been well researched and popular since at least the 1990s. However, little or no prior studies exist into the peer review process for online courses. Further, we found no prior research specifically addressing the operational aspects of online peer review. This…

  1. 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.

  2. Resources from waste peer reviews : peer reviews and responses

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    McNeill, C.I. [United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY (United States). Environment and Energy Group; Hamilton, D.A. [Lewis and Zimmerman Associates Inc., Tacoma, WA (United States); Nilsen, C. [Altus Group, Vancouver, BC (Canada); Dawson, R.N. [Stantec Consulting Ltd., Surrey, BC (Canada)

    2008-02-29

    The Resources from Waste Integrated Resource Management (IRM) study was commissioned by the British Columbia Ministry of Community Services to examine the feasibility of using solid and liquid waste to create energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water and recover nutrients. The Ministry of Community Services wanted to know if IRM could be applied province-wide as well as to the Capital Region District (CRD). The study assessed the potential contribution that the IRM approach can make to achieve the province's climate change agenda and Green Cities Program. This document provided comments on the IRM study report by 4 peer reviewers who generally agreed about the usefulness of the IRM concept. However, there were differences of opinion about how best to apply the concept and about potential costs and revenues. IRM is a concept and process that mimics ecological cycles of reuse and offers a means to address future challenges regarding climate change and population growth. In its optimal deployment, IRM can potentially result in zero waste. The reviewers indicated that IRM has the potential to be a viable solution to water, solid and liquid waste management that should be less expensive, result in fewer environmental impacts, and provide greater flexibility than traditional approaches to waste management. The advent of a graduated carbon tax on fossil based fuels will add value over time to the IRM model because it can generate significant amounts of non-fossil-based energy sources and contribute to GHG reduction targets. All the technologies presented in the IRM study are well-established, currently operational and in use in various jurisdictions. It was concluded, however, that further work is needed to evaluate IRM before it can be adopted without reservation. refs.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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...

  6. 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…

  7. 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...

  8. 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…

  9. Peer Review of Launch Environments

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wilson, Timmy R.

    2011-01-01

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

  10. A rigorous semantics for BPMN 2.0 process diagrams

    CERN Document Server

    Kossak, Felix; Geist, Verena; Kubovy, Jan; Natschläger, Christine; Ziebermayr, Thomas; Kopetzky, Theodorich; Freudenthaler, Bernhard; Schewe, Klaus-Dieter

    2015-01-01

    This book provides the most complete formal specification of the semantics of the Business Process Model and Notation 2.0 standard (BPMN) available to date, in a style that is easily understandable for a wide range of readers - not only for experts in formal methods, but e.g. also for developers of modeling tools, software architects, or graduate students specializing in business process management. BPMN - issued by the Object Management Group - is a widely used standard for business process modeling. However, major drawbacks of BPMN include its limited support for organizational modeling, i

  11. 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.

  12. Commercial Lighting Solutions, Webtool Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Jones, Carol C.; Meyer, Tracy A.

    2009-06-17

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

  13. Healthcare system intervention for prevention of birth injuries – process evaluation of self-assessment, peer review, feedback and agreement for change

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-01

    Background Patient safety is fundamental in high quality healthcare systems but despite an excellent record of perinatal care in Sweden some children still suffer from substandard care and unnecessary birth injuries. Sustainable patient safety improvements assume changes in key actors’ mental models, norms and culture as well as in the tools, design and organisation of work. Interventions positively affecting team mental models on safety issues are a first step to enhancing change. Our purpose was to study a national intervention programme for the prevention of birth injuries with the aim to elucidate how the main interventions of self-assessment, peer review, feedback and written agreement for change affected the teams and their mental model of patient safety, and thereby their readiness for change. Knowledge of relevant considerations before implementing this type of patient safety intervention series could thereby be increased. Methods Eighty participants in twenty-seven maternity units were interviewed after the first intervention sequence of the programme. A content analysis using a priori coding was performed in order to relate results to the anticipated outcomes of three basic interventions: self-assessment, peer review and written feedback, and agreement for change. Results The self-assessment procedure was valuable and served as a useful tool for elucidating strengths and weaknesses and identifying areas for improvement for a safer delivery in maternity units. The peer-review intervention was appreciated, despite it being of less value when considering the contribution to explicit outcome effects (i.e. new input to team mental models and new suggestions for actions). The feedback report and the mutual agreement on measures for improvements reached when signing the contract seemed exert positive pressures for change. Conclusions Our findings are in line with several studies stressing the importance of self-evaluation by encouraging a thorough review of

  14. Healthcare system intervention for prevention of birth injuries – process evaluation of self-assessment, peer review, feedback and agreement for change

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Nyström Monica E

    2012-08-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Patient safety is fundamental in high quality healthcare systems but despite an excellent record of perinatal care in Sweden some children still suffer from substandard care and unnecessary birth injuries. Sustainable patient safety improvements assume changes in key actors’ mental models, norms and culture as well as in the tools, design and organisation of work. Interventions positively affecting team mental models on safety issues are a first step to enhancing change. Our purpose was to study a national intervention programme for the prevention of birth injuries with the aim to elucidate how the main interventions of self-assessment, peer review, feedback and written agreement for change affected the teams and their mental model of patient safety, and thereby their readiness for change. Knowledge of relevant considerations before implementing this type of patient safety intervention series could thereby be increased. Methods Eighty participants in twenty-seven maternity units were interviewed after the first intervention sequence of the programme. A content analysis using a priori coding was performed in order to relate results to the anticipated outcomes of three basic interventions: self-assessment, peer review and written feedback, and agreement for change. Results The self-assessment procedure was valuable and served as a useful tool for elucidating strengths and weaknesses and identifying areas for improvement for a safer delivery in maternity units. The peer-review intervention was appreciated, despite it being of less value when considering the contribution to explicit outcome effects (i.e. new input to team mental models and new suggestions for actions. The feedback report and the mutual agreement on measures for improvements reached when signing the contract seemed exert positive pressures for change. Conclusions Our findings are in line with several studies stressing the importance of self-evaluation by

  15. 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

  16. Survey of faculty perceptions regarding a peer review system.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-04-01

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

  17. The Biosphere International Peer Review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Van Luik, Abraham

    2002-01-01

    Abe van Luik (US DOE- YM, USA), ended the presentation by giving feedback from the IAEA peer review on the biosphere modelling strategy developed by the DOE Yucca Mountain Site Characterisation Office (YMSCO). This review was based on available international standards and guidance. The peer review team was constituted of both experts from regulatory and waste management organisations and national advisory committees. The implementation of the review consisted of an examination of biosphere reports mainly regarding the modelling and question and answer exchanges. The final report was submitted in April 2000. It contained twenty-three recommendations within two broad classifications; one concerning the regulatory framework, the other one regarding the framework to increase stakeholders' confidence in modelling. The three main categories of recommendations were outlined, namely (i) the DOE' s Biosphere assessment Approach, (ii) the definition of the biosphere system, and (iii) the model development, data and results. Regarding in particular the treatment of the uncertainties in the biosphere, it was viewed as a key issue during the review and thus it will be re-evaluated in the future performance assessment. The summary highlighted most of the recommendations received are to be acted on, and are to be included in the License Application plan for biosphere modelling

  18. Adding value to the learning process by online peer review activities: towards the elaboration of a methodology to promote critical thinking in future engineers

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-09-01

    Considering the results of research on the benefits and difficulties of peer review, this paper describes how teaching faculty, interested in endorsing the acquisition of communication and critical thinking (CT) skills among engineering students, has been implementing a learning methodology throughout online peer review activities. While introducing a new methodology, it is important to weight the advantages found and the conditions that might have restrained the activity outcomes, thereby modulating its overall efficiency. Our results show that several factors are decisive for the success of the methodology: the use of specific and detailed orientation guidelines for CT skills, the students' training on how to deliver a meaningful feedback, the opportunity to counter-argument, the selection of good assignments' examples, and the constant teacher's monitoring of the activity. Results also tackle other aspects of the methodology such as the thinking skills evaluation tools (grades and tests) that most suit our reality. An improved methodology is proposed taking in account the encountered limitations, thus offering the possibility to other interested institutions to use/test and/or improve it.

  19. The role of the peer review process in the clean up of low-level and historic radioactive waste in the municipalities of Port Hope and Clarington, Ontario, Canada

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Al-Haydari, D.

    2011-01-01

    This paper describes the role of the Municipal Peer Review Team (MPRT) for the Municipalities of Port Hope (Port Hope Project) and Clarington (Port Granby Project) for the clean-up of low level and historic radioactive waste. The purpose of the MPRT is to provide the municipalities with a team of experts to help assist their participation in the cleanup process. The peer review process has enabled the Municipalities of Port Hope and Clarington to participate in the decision-making processes as equal parties with the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office and the Regulatory Authorities. Furthermore, the peer review process has stressed the need for a proactive management approach for low-level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soil clean-ups. With the work of the MPRT, the Port Hope Project has been granted a facility licence (August, 2009). Both Projects have completed the detailed design phase, where the MPRT played a major role in the review of design documentation. The MPRT has developed an excellent working relationship with the Municipal staff and Mayors of Port Hope and Clarington. The MPRT effectively manages the 'people aspects' of the Port Hope and Port Granby Projects for the municipalities and assists in building transparency and trust in all Project activities. Collaborative, multi-disciplinary dialogue has been a key element to project success. Furthermore, the MPRT has become familiar with the local residents from attending community events and public meetings and has become a trusted source on all things Project related. (author)

  20. Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Liaw, Lucy; Freedman, Jane E; Becker, Lance B; Mehta, Nehal N; Liscum, Laura

    2017-08-04

    The biomedical research enterprise depends on the fair and objective peer review of research grants, leading to the distribution of resources through efficient and robust competitive methods. In the United States, federal funding agencies and foundations collectively distribute billions of dollars annually to support biomedical research. For the American Heart Association, a Peer Review Subcommittee is charged with establishing the highest standards for peer review. This scientific statement reviews the current literature on peer review practices, describes the current American Heart Association peer review process and those of other agencies, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of American Heart Association peer review practices, and recommends best practices for the future. © 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.

  1. Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando

    2018-01-01

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

  2. Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Fernandez-Llimos F

    2018-03-01

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

  3. WANO peer review. Organization and benefits as seen by WANO

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Haferburg, Manfred

    2010-01-01

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

  4. 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.

  5. Paired peer review of university classroom teaching in a school of nursing and midwifery.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bennett, Paul N; Parker, Steve; Smigiel, Heather

    2012-08-01

    Peer review of university classroom teaching can increase the quality of teaching but is not universally practiced in Australian universities. To report an evaluation of paired peer-review process using both paper and web based teaching evaluation tools. Twenty university teachers in one metropolitan Australian School of Nursing and Midwifery were randomly paired and then randomly assigned to a paper based or web-based peer review tool. Each teacher reviewed each other's classroom teaching as part of a peer review program. The participants then completed an 18 question survey evaluating the peer review tool and paired evaluation process. Responses were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. Regardless of the tool used, participants found this process of peer review positive (75%), collegial (78%), supportive (61%) and non-threatening (71%). Participants reported that the peer review will improve their own classroom delivery (61%), teaching evaluation (61%) and planning (53%). The web-based tool was found to be easier to use and allowed more space than the paper-based tool. Implementation of a web-based paired peer review system can be a positive method of peer review of university classroom teaching. Pairing of teachers to review each other's classroom teaching is a promising strategy and has the potential to improve teaching in teaching universities. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  6. A peer review of the Hanford Site Permanent Isolation Surface Barrier Development Program

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Wing, N.R.

    1992-09-01

    A panel of technical experts was organized to peer review the Hanford Site Permanent Isolation Surface Barrier Development Program (BDP) and to provide a specific review of a preconceptual prototype barrier design initiated during fiscal year (FY) 1990. The technical peer review of the BDP and the prototype is being conducted in three phases, two of which have been completed. This document presents the peer review panel's findings on the first two phases of the peer review process. Biointrusion and water intrusion control are discussed, along with design life, vegetation, and climate impact

  7. How operational issues impact science peer review

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2006-06-01

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

  8. 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.)

  9. 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…

  10. Proposals for the writing of peer reviews in lexicography

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Bergenholtz, Henning; Gouws, Rufus

    2015-01-01

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

  11. Thank You to Our 2017 Peer Reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2018-02-01

    Science operates best by sharing accurate new knowledge in clear ways. In order to check our assumptions, our methods, and our interpretations of the observations, experiments, analyses, and calculations that we do, we ask others to look at our work. We call this peer review—other experts who were not involved in a given study read and critically evaluate the descriptions of our work. They look for completeness, accuracy, whether work is new, and how clearly we have written the descriptions. We continue to be humbled by the time, effort, and careful insights that our colleagues share with each other through the process of peer review. In 2017, JGR Planets benefited from more than 610 reviews provided by 398 of our peers for papers submitted to the journal. Thank you all for your awesome efforts toward advancing planetary science now and for the future.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Strickland, N H

    2015-11-01

    that cannot be permanently archived. It must provide automated feedback to the original author. Peer feedback, as part of everyday reporting, should enhance daily learning for radiologists. Software requirements for everyday peer feedback differ from those needed for a formal peer review process, which might only be necessary in the setting of a formal GMC enquiry into a particular radiologist's reporting competence, for example. Copyright © 2015 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Strickland, N.H.

    2015-01-01

    that cannot be permanently archived. It must provide automated feedback to the original author. Peer feedback, as part of everyday reporting, should enhance daily learning for radiologists. Software requirements for everyday peer feedback differ from those needed for a formal peer review process, which might only be necessary in the setting of a formal GMC enquiry into a particular radiologist's reporting competence, for example.

  14. 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…

  15. NIH Peer Review: Scored Review Criteria and Overall Impact

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lindner, Mark D.; Vancea, Adrian; Chen, Mei-Ching; Chacko, George

    2016-01-01

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. Funding decisions are made largely based on the outcome of a peer review process that is intended to provide a fair, equitable, timely, and unbiased review of the quality, scientific merit, and potential impact of the research. There have…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Garousi, V.

    2010-01-01

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

  17. Effectiveness of Guided Peer Review of Student Essays in a Large Undergraduate Biology Course

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kelly, Lauren

    2015-01-01

    Instructors and researchers often consider peer review an integral part of the writing process, providing myriad benefits for both writers and reviewers. Few empirical studies, however, directly address the relationship between specific methodological changes and peer review effectiveness, especially outside the composition classroom. To…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2012-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Beddoes, Kacey

    2014-01-01

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

  20. 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...

  1. Science, Policy, and Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kennedy, D.

    2006-12-01

    These are intense times at the convergence between science and public policy. Because issues like climate change, stem cell research and environmental protection are being contested in choppy political water, political interests are being deployed to challenge science and researchers, and also to generate pseudo- scientific claims made in the interest of particular policy ends. In a number of cases reported in Science, administration officials have silenced their own employees, or withheld data selectively from draft reports. Added to that challenge to integrity, there is a new statutory environment that adds some complexity of its own. Beginning with the Data Quality Act, more familiarly the "Shelby Amendment," research results with significant economic impacts through regulation are now available through the Freedom of Information Act. Its successor, the Data Quality Act -- which opens a route of challenge to information released by government or gathered by others and used in advice or regulation has exposed scientists not only to having their primary data reanalyzed for the purposes of others, but to charges of research misconduct. These influences have made journal peer review more challenging in several ways, and I will outline some case examples.

  2. Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Parikh, Laura I; Benner, Rebecca S; Riggs, Thomas W; Hazen, Nicholas; Chescheir, Nancy C

    2017-02-01

    To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation. We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression. There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, Ppeer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2.60-3.12]). Peer review quality differs based on obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty. Obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty and reviewer experience have implications for manuscript rejection recommendation. Reviewer assignment is pivotal to maintaining a rigorous manuscript selection process.

  3. An evidence based protocol for peer review of radiographer musculoskeletal plain film reporting

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Stephenson, Paul; Hannah, April; Jones, Helen; Edwards, Rosemary; Harrington, Kate; Baker, Sally-Anne; Fitzgerald, Nicole; Belfield, Jane

    2012-01-01

    Aims: Medical image interpretation by non-medically trained staff continues to court controversy. This article aims to show that any potential risks associated with radiographer reporting can be monitored and mitigated if a robust peer review system is introduced. A search of the evidence base illustrates a paucity of guidance on how reporting radiographers should be audited or how a peer review process should be implemented. A practical framework for designing a reporting radiographer peer review process is provided. Methods: Following a literature review, key issues faced when designing a peer review protocol were identified. The following questions are answered: How frequent should peer review take place? How many reports should be reviewed? How are reports selected for review? Who should peer review the radiographer reports? How should radiographer's reporting performance be measured? What standard of reporting is acceptable? Results: Details are provided of the process that has been used for over three years at a busy inner-city teaching hospital for auditing musculoskeletal plain film radiographer reporting. The peer review method presented is not intended to produce robust statistical data; it is a practical method of locally assessing the reporting competency. As such, our protocol should be viewed as part of a larger programme for continuing professional development. Conclusion: It is hoped that this practical protocol will encourage radiology departments to engage in a programme of peer review for reporting radiographers.

  4. 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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Naemi Luckner

    2015-08-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pytynia, Kristen B

    2017-06-01

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

  7. Effects of rigor status during high-pressure processing on the physical qualities of farm-raised abalone (Haliotis rufescens).

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hughes, Brianna H; Greenberg, Neil J; Yang, Tom C; Skonberg, Denise I

    2015-01-01

    High-pressure processing (HPP) is used to increase meat safety and shelf-life, with conflicting quality effects depending on rigor status during HPP. In the seafood industry, HPP is used to shuck and pasteurize oysters, but its use on abalones has only been minimally evaluated and the effect of rigor status during HPP on abalone quality has not been reported. Farm-raised abalones (Haliotis rufescens) were divided into 12 HPP treatments and 1 unprocessed control treatment. Treatments were processed pre-rigor or post-rigor at 2 pressures (100 and 300 MPa) and 3 processing times (1, 3, and 5 min). The control was analyzed post-rigor. Uniform plugs were cut from adductor and foot meat for texture profile analysis, shear force, and color analysis. Subsamples were used for scanning electron microscopy of muscle ultrastructure. Texture profile analysis revealed that post-rigor processed abalone was significantly (P abalone meat was more tender than pre-rigor processed meat, and post-rigor processed foot meat was lighter in color than pre-rigor processed foot meat, suggesting that waiting for rigor to resolve prior to processing abalones may improve consumer perceptions of quality and market value. © 2014 Institute of Food Technologists®

  8. Science and Technology Peer Review: GPRA

    National Research Council Canada - National Science Library

    Kostoff, Ronald

    2003-01-01

    This report describes practical issues for federal agencies to consider if they choose program peer review for internal purposes and/ or to contribute to satisfying the requirements of the Government...

  9. NCI Consumers Guide to Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  10. 2013 Bioenergy Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None, None

    2014-02-01

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

  11. EERE Peer Review Guide - August 2004

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None

    2009-01-18

    Provides guidance in establishing formal in-progress peer review that provides intellectually fair expert evaluation of EERE research, development, demonstration, & deployment (supporting business administration) programs, both retrospective and pr

  12. Geothermal Technologies Program Overview - Peer Review Program

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    2011-06-06

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

  13. 2017 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None, None

    2017-11-01

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

  14. 2016 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Building Technologies Office

    2016-12-01

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

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Martin Almquist

    Full Text Available Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS, after surveying authors' and reviewers' opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process.In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale.The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9% responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%. Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40% received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75 versus 2.84 (± 0.71, P<0.001.Open online peer review is feasible in this setting, but it attracts few reviews, of lower quality than conventional peer reviews.

  19. A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Almquist, Martin; von Allmen, Regula S; Carradice, Dan; Oosterling, Steven J; McFarlane, Kirsty; Wijnhoven, Bas

    2017-01-01

    Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), after surveying authors' and reviewers' opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process. In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale. The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9%) responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%). Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40%) received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75) versus 2.84 (± 0.71), Ponline peer review is feasible in this setting, but it attracts few reviews, of lower quality than conventional peer reviews.

  20. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2012-07-01

    There is an ongoing discussion on the provenance of toxicity testing data regarding how best to ensure its validity and credibility. A central argument is whether journal peer-review procedures are superior to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards employed for compliance with regulatory mandates. We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards. We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations. Some contend that peer review is a coherent, consistent evaluative procedure providing quality control for experimental data generation, analysis, and reporting sufficient to reliably establish relative merit, whereas GLP is seen as merely a tracking process designed to thwart investigator corruption. This view is not supported by published analyses pointing to subjectivity and variability in peer-review processes. Although GLP is not designed to establish relative merit, it is an internationally accepted quality assurance, quality control method for documenting experimental conduct and data. Neither process is completely sufficient for establishing relative scientific soundness. However, changes occurring both in peer-review processes and in regulatory guidance resulting in clearer, more transparent communication of scientific information point to an emerging convergence in ensuring information quality. The solution to determining relative merit lies in developing a well-documented, generally accepted weight-of-evidence scheme to evaluate both peer-reviewed and GLP information used in regulatory decision making where both merit and specific relevance inform the process.

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Bloomquist, Douglas D.

    2000-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Reiner, Bruce I

    2018-02-01

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

  10. Impact of peer review audit on occupational health report quality.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lalloo, D; Demou, E; Macdonald, E B

    2015-08-01

    In a previous report, we described the implementation of a formal process for peer review of occupational health (OH) reports and a method of assessment of the outcomes of this process. The initial audit identified that 27% of OH reports required modifications. To assess formally, following implementation of this process, if changes in practice had occurred, i.e. whether fewer deficiencies were being identified in reports. We repeated a prospective internal audit of all peer reviewed OH reports between September and November 2011. We used an abbreviated assessment form, based on questions 4-8 and 10-12 of the modified SAIL (Sheffield Assessment Instrument for Letters), with four possible outcomes: no action, no changes made to report following discussion with author, changes made without discussion with author and changes made following discussion with author. One hundred seventy-three reports by 10 clinicians were audited. The audit identified a 13% reduction in OH reports requiring modifications (from 27 to 14%) compared with the previous cycle. Where modifications were required, 8% of these were related to minor typographical, spelling and grammar errors and 6% were for more complex reasons. Implementation of this process also produced a reduction in clinical complaints about OH reports from customers, from three in the preceding year to none 2 years later. Peer review improved the standard of OH reports and was associated with a reduction in customer complaints about reports. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cowley, Stephen J

    2015-01-01

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

  12. Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations. FY 1979 peer review summaries and related documentation

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1980-06-01

    The NNWSI FY 1979 Project Plan (NVO-196-9) describes the accomplishment plan and objectives of the FY 1979 investigations. Three critical tasks and one critical subtask were selected by Project management for in-depth external peer review at meetings held at the DOE/NV in Las Vegas. The four technical peer review meetings held during FY 1979 were conducted to obtain an external assessment of the sufficiency and quality of the four selected critical investigative segments of the NNWSI. Peer reviewers representing appropriate fields of expertise were invited to attend each meeting. Within about two weeks of each meeting, the invited reviewers summarized their impressions of the technical activities presented to them and transmitted their summaries and recommendations to DOE/NV by letter. This document is a compilation, according to the individual meetings, of all correspondence between reviewers and Project personnel that is relevant to the technical activities of the NNWSI. The section for each meeting briefly summarizes the major activities of the NNWSI being reviewed and the effects of the reviewers comments and recommendations on Project planning. Each section also includes a list of the invited peer reviewers, a meeting agenda, and a copy of all technical correspondence relating to the review meeting. General impressions of the overall peer review process and improvements to be incorporated into future peer review activities are discussed in the next section as an introduction to the four subsequent sections which are devoted to the individual FY 1979 peer reviews

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cowley, Stephen J.

    2015-01-01

    Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting ‘impact’: as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose. Endorsing the consensus, I offer a reframing: while a normative social process, peer-review also shapes the writing of a scientific paper. In so far as ‘cognition’ describes enabling conditions for flexible behavior, the practices of peer-review thus constrain knowledge-making. To pursue cognitive functions of peer-review, however, manuscripts must be seen as ‘symbolizations’, replicable patterns that use technologically enabled activity. On this bio-cognitive view, peer-review constrains knowledge-making by writers, editors, reviewers. Authors are prompted to recursively re-aggregate symbolizations to present what are deemed acceptable knowledge claims. How, then, can recursive re-embodiment be explored? In illustration, I sketch how the paper’s own content came to be re-aggregated: agonistic review drove reformatting of argument structure, changes in rhetorical ploys and careful choice of wordings. For this reason, the paper’s knowledge-claims can be traced to human activity that occurs in distributed cognitive systems. Peer-review is on the frontline in the knowledge sector in that it delimits what can count as knowing. Its systemic nature is therefore crucial to not only discipline-centered ‘real’ science but also its ‘post-academic’ counterparts. PMID:26579064

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Stephen John Cowley

    2015-11-01

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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gusic, Maryellen; Hageman, Heather; Zenni, Elisa

    2013-10-01

    The system used by academic health centres to evaluate teaching must be valued by the large number of faculty staff that teach in clinical settings. Peer review can be used to evaluate and enhance clinical teaching. The objective of this study was to determine the perceptions of clinical faculty about the effects of participating in peer review. Faculty members were observed teaching in a clinical setting by trained peer observers. Feedback was provided using a checklist of behaviours and descriptive comments. Afterwards, semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess the faculty member's perception about the process. Notes from the interviews were analysed using a grounded theory approach. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of all the institutions involved. Three themes emerged from the interviews with faculty members: (1) they found the process to be valuable - they received information that affirmed "good" teaching behaviours, and were prompted to be more focused on their teaching; (2) they were motivated to enhance their teaching by being more deliberate, interactive and learner-centred; and (3) they were inspired to explore other opportunities to improve their teaching skills. Peer review is a process that promotes the open discussion and exchange of ideas. This conversation advances clinical teaching skills and allows high-quality teaching behaviours to be strengthened. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  19. A Study of Technical Engineering Peer Reviews at NASA

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chao, Lawrence P.; Tumer, Irem Y.; Bell, David G.

    2003-01-01

    This report describes the state of practices of design reviews at NASA and research into what can be done to improve peer review practices. There are many types of reviews at NASA: required and not, formalized and informal, programmatic and technical. Standing project formal reviews such as the Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the technical, engineering peer reviews that support teams' work on such projects are informal, some times ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. The goal of this work is to identify best practices and lessons learned from NASA's experience, supported by academic research and methodologies to ultimately improve the process. This research has determined that the organization, composition, scope, and approach of the reviews impact their success. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) can identify key areas of concern before or in the reviews. Product definition tools like the Project Priority Matrix, engineering-focused Customer Value Chain Analysis (CVCA), and project or system-based Quality Function Deployment (QFD) help prioritize resources in reviews. The use of information technology and structured design methodologies can strengthen the engineering peer review process to help NASA work towards error-proofing the design process.

  20. Calibrated peer review assignments for the earth sciences

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2009-01-01

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

  1. Implementing Head and Neck Contouring Peer Review without Pathway Delay: The On-demand Approach.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fong, C; Sanghera, P; Good, J; Nightingale, P; Hartley, A

    2017-12-01

    Peer review of contour volume is a priority in the radiotherapy treatment quality assurance process for head and neck cancer. It is essential that incorporation of peer review activity does not introduce additional delays. An on-demand peer review process was piloted to assess the feasibility and efficiency of this approach, as compared with a historic scheduled weekly approach. Between November 2016 and April 2017 four head and neck clinicians in one centre took part in an on-demand peer review process. Cases were of radical or adjuvant intent of any histology and submitted on a voluntary basis. The outcome of contour peer review would be one of unchanged (UC), unchanged with variation or discretion noted (UV), minor change (M) or significant change (S). The time difference between the completion of the on-demand peer review was compared with the time difference to a hypothetical next Monday or Tuesday weekly peer review meeting. The time taken to review each case was also documented in the latter period of the pilot project. In total, 62 cases underwent peer review. Peer review on-demand provided dosimetrists with an average of an extra two working days available per case to meet treatment start dates. The proportion of cases with outcomes UC, UV, M and S were 45%, 16%, 26% and 13%, respectively. The mean peer review time spent per case was 17 min (12 cases). The main reason for S was discrepancy in imaging interpretation (4/8 cases). A lower proportion of oropharyngeal cases were submitted and had S outcomes. A higher proportion of complex cases, e.g. sinonasal/nasopharynx location or previous downstaging chemotherapy had S outcomes. The distribution of S outcomes appears to be similar regardless of clinician experience. The level of peer review activity among individuals differed by workload and job timetable. On-demand peer review of the head and neck contour volume is feasible, reduces delay to the start of dosimetry planning and bypasses the logistical

  2. 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.

  3. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tennant, Jonathan P; Dugan, Jonathan M; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien C; Waldner, François; Mietchen, Daniel; Elkhatib, Yehia; B Collister, Lauren; Pikas, Christina K; Crick, Tom; Masuzzo, Paola; Caravaggi, Anthony; Berg, Devin R; Niemeyer, Kyle E; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Mannheimer, Sara; Rigling, Lillian; Katz, Daniel S; Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian; Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel; Fatima, Nazeefa; Poblet, Marta; Isaakidis, Marios; Irawan, Dasapta Erwin; Renaut, Sébastien; Madan, Christopher R; Matthias, Lisa; Nørgaard Kjær, Jesper; O'Donnell, Daniel Paul; Neylon, Cameron; Kearns, Sarah; Selvaraju, Manojkumar; Colomb, Julien

    2017-01-01

    Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

  4. 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.

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Beeson, Tracy A.; Jones, Carol C.

    2010-02-01

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

  6. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cross, Michael; Naidoo, Devika

    2011-01-01

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

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. Peer reviews: taking on new meanings.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Raia, Lucille

    2011-01-01

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

  12. 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…

  13. Ethical considerations for peer review in forensic neuropsychology.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Johnson-Greene, Doug; Bechtold, Kathleen T

    2002-02-01

    The role of an expert is to assist the trier of fact in weighing evidence and reaching conclusions. Critical evaluation of opposing experts is an integral part of this process. In more recent times, cross-examination has given way to critical evaluation of opposing experts outside of the courtroom, a tactic we refer to as peer review in this paper. Though neuropsychologists frequently review the work of their colleagues, we are concerned here primarily with commentary that is at best misleading, and occasionally malicious, unethical, and unprofessional. Despite a growing trend to use experts as peer reviewers in the medicolegal arena, expectations concerning ethical and professional conduct of neuropsychologists have been absent. Enforcement of appropriate conduct is further complicated by the ambiguity of existing ethical standards and state statutes, and their limited applicability to all neuropsychologists who provide forensic services. This article provides an overview of ethical and professional issues pertaining to forensic peer review and concludes with recommendations for appropriate professional conduct.

  14. 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

  15. 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....

  16. 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...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2018-01-01

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

  18. International Nuclear Officials Discuss IAEA Peer Reviews of Nuclear Safety Regulations

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2011-01-01

    Full text: Senior nuclear regulators today concluded a Workshop on the Lessons Learned from the IAEA Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) Missions. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hosted the workshop, in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Washington, DC, from 26 to 28 October 2011. About 60 senior regulators from 22 IAEA Member States took part in this workshop. The IRRS programme is an international peer review service offered by the IAEA to its Member States to provide an objective evaluation of their nuclear safety regulatory framework. The review is based on the internationally recognized IAEA Safety Standards. ''The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission was pleased to host the IAEA's IRRS meeting this week. The discussions over the past three days have provided an important opportunity for regulators from many countries to come together to strengthen the international peer review process,'' said U.S. NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko. ''Especially after the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the global community recognizes that IRRS missions fill a vital role in strengthening nuclear safety and security programs around the world, and we are proud to be a part of this important effort.'' The IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety includes actions focused towards strengthening the existing IAEA peer reviews, incorporating lessons learned and improving their effectiveness. The workshop provided a platform for the exchange of information, experience and lessons learned from the IRRS missions, as well as expectations for the IRRS programme for the near future. Further improvements in the planning and implementation of the IRRS missions in the longer term were discussed. A strong commitment of all relevant national authorities to the IRRS programme was identified as a key element of an effective regulatory framework. The conclusions of the workshop will be issued in November 2011 and the main results will be reported to the IAEA

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

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

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

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

  20. 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...

  1. 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…

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

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

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2013-09-01

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

  6. 2009 Biomass Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Ferrell, John [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2009-12-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program‘s 2009 peer review meeting, held on July 14–15, 2009, in Arlington, Virginia. The document also includes summary information from the six separate platform reviews conducted between March and April 2009 in the Washington, D.C., and Denver, Colorado, areas. The platform reviews provide evaluations of the program‘s projects in applied research, development, and demonstration as well as analysis and deployment activities. The July program peer review was an evaluation of the program‘s overall strategic planning, management approach, priorities across research areas, and resource allocation.

  7. 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.

  8. Raman spectroscopy peer review report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Winkelman, W.D.; Eberlein, S.J.

    1994-09-01

    The Hanford Site in eastern Washington includes 177 underground storage tanks (UST), which contain waste materials produced during the production of nuclear fuels. The materials in the tanks must be characterized to support the retrieval, processing, and final disposition of the waste. Characterization is currently performed by removing waste samples for analyses in a hot cell or laboratory. A review of the Hanford Raman Spectroscopy Program was held in Richland on March 23 and 24, 1994. A team of principal investigators and researchers made presentations that covered both technical and programmatic aspects of the Hanford Site Raman work. After these presentations and discussions, the review panel met in a closed session to formalize a list of findings. The reviewers agreed that Raman spectroscopy is an excellent method to attack the tank waste characterization and screening problems that were presented. They agreed that there was a good chance that the method would be successful as presently envisioned. The reviewers provided the following primary recommendations: evaluation a laser with wavelength in the near infrared; provide optical filters at or near the sampling end of the fiber-optic probe; develop and implement a strategy for frequent calibration of the system; do not try to further increase Raman resolution at the expense of wavelength range; clearly identify and differentiate between requirements for providing a short-term operational system and requirements for optimizing a system for long-term field use; and determine the best optical configuration, which may include reduced fiber-optic diameter and/or short focal length and low F-number spectrographs

  9. 2012 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Zayas, Jose [Energy Efficiencey and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States); Higgins, Mark [Energy Efficiencey and Renewable Energy (EERE), Washington, DC (United States)

    2012-06-01

    This report summarizes the proceedings of the 2012 Wind Program Peer Review, the goals of which were to review and evaluate the strategy and goals of the Wind Program; review and evaluate the progress and accomplishments of the program's projects funded in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and FY 2011; and foster interactions among the national laboratories, industry, and academic institutions conducting research and development on behalf of the program.

  10. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-10-01

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

  12. Use of the Rigor Mortis Process as a Tool for Better Understanding of Skeletal Muscle Physiology: Effect of the Ante-Mortem Stress on the Progression of Rigor Mortis in Brook Charr (Salvelinus fontinalis).

    Science.gov (United States)

    Diouf, Boucar; Rioux, Pierre

    1999-01-01

    Presents the rigor mortis process in brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) as a tool for better understanding skeletal muscle metabolism. Describes an activity that demonstrates how rigor mortis is related to the post-mortem decrease of muscular glycogen and ATP, how glycogen degradation produces lactic acid that lowers muscle pH, and how…

  13. The Role of the Anonymous Voice in Post-Publication Peer Review Versus Traditional Peer Review

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

    2015-12-01

    Full Text Available Traditional peer review (TPR has several limitations and weaknesses. Post-publication peer review is one practical way to repair the ills of TPR and reinforce it. A literature that is marked by errors is unhealthy and should, if given the opportunity, be corrected or further improved. The anonymous voice is one source of critique and differs from the blind peer review in TPR in which the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors and/or vice versa, but the identity is known to the editor. If unregulated, the anonymous voice can pose a threat to established editorial norms in TPR, to one of the most important criteria of science publishing, i.e., transparency, and to worthwhile discussion. Yet, if the anonymous voice is not heard, then a vast and potentially valuable pool of untapped opinions may be lost, opinions that may provide valuable solutions to improving TPR.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  1. An approach to peer review in forensic pathology.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2013-07-01

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

  2. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    1993-01-01

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

  3. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Corradini, M.L.; Haste, T.J.; Heames, T.J.; Jenks, R.P.; Kelly, J.E.; Khatib-Rahbar, M.; Viskanta, R.

    1993-01-01

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

  4. 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

  5. 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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Hai Ning

    2004-02-01

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

  7. Execution and results of national peer reviews

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Grauf, E.

    2001-01-01

    In 1998 German operators initiated an internal programme for self-assessment. The initiative was launched due to contamination at transport containers for fuel element that had been hitting the headlines since the beginning of 1998 and the first INES 2 event that occurred in a German plant in June 1998. Within the scope of root-cause analysis it seemed to be obvious that the plant management standards within a company and even more within Germany were differing and the exchange of experience had to be improved. The realization of national peer reviews in 1999/2000 has already proven to be an effective instrument even before completion of the pilot phase. (orig.) [de

  8. An open science peer review oath

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  9. 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

  10. With thanks to our 2016 peer reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

    2017-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jonathan P. Tennant

    2017-11-01

    Full Text Available Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

  12. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2010-06-01

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

  14. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-04-07

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2016-02-01

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

  17. 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…

  18. Turnitin and Peer Review in ESL Academic Writing Classrooms

    Science.gov (United States)

    Li, Jinrong; Li, Mimi

    2018-01-01

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

  19. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Full Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document summarizes the comments provided by the peer reviewers at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Biomass Program’s Peer Review meeting, held on November 14-15, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and Platform Reviews conducted over the summer of 2007. The Platform Reviews provide evaluations of the Program’s projects in applied research, development, and demonstration.

  20. 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.

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

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

  2. Training Effects on Computer-Mediated Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

    Liou, Hsien-Chin; Peng, Zhong-Yan

    2009-01-01

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

  3. EU and OECD benchmarking and peer review compared

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Groenendijk, Nico

    2009-01-01

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

  4. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-10-01

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

  6. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Program Summary Section

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document summarizes the comments provided by the peer reviewers at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Biomass Program’s Peer Review meeting, held on November 14-15, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and Platform Reviews conducted over the summer of 2007. The Platform Reviews provide evaluations of the Program’s projects in applied research, development, and demonstration.

  7. Online Peer Review: Encouraging Student Response and Development

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lansiquot, Reneta; Rosalia, Christine

    2015-01-01

    This study explored the use of a tailored online peer review program for first-year undergraduate students at an urban college of technology. The program facilitated group peer review in meaningful and technologically elegant ways. Students in a composition class were divided into two groups. One group acted as first reviewers, and the other group…

  8. Peer review 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. An OAI repository centric peer-review model

    CERN Multimedia

    CERN. Geneva

    2005-01-01

    Pre-print repositories have seen a significant increase in use over the past fifteen years across multiple research domains. Researchers are beginning to develop applications capable of using these repositories to assist the scientific community above and beyond the pure dissemination of information. The contributions set forth by this paper emphasize a deconstructed publication model where in which the peer-review certification phase of a pre-print is mediated by an OAI-compliant peer-review service. This peer-review service uses a social-network algorithm for determining potential reviewers for a submitted manuscript and for weighting the influence of each participating reviewer’s evaluations. The paper also provides a set of peer-review specific metadata tags that can accompany a pre-prints existing metadata record. The combinations of these contributions provide a unique repository-centric peer-review model within the framework of the current OAI standards existing today.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-01-01

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

  13. The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Stephen A Gallo

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

  14. The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-01-01

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

  15. Execution and results of the National Peer Reviews 2000

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Grauf, E.

    2000-01-01

    In 1998, the operators of German nuclear power plants initiated a 'National Peer Review' pilot project as a program for self-assessment. The project serves to collect data about the status of plant operation of German facilities, and to analyze whether a tool of this kind lends itself to optimizing plant operations management. The national program supplements the international efforts by WANO and IAEA, also with a view to a more effective exchange of operating experience among German plants. Even before the end of the pilot phase, and with three process reviews still to be completed, the results of the reviews conducted up until 2000 have proved this to be an effective tool, as is discussed in this article. The findings are fully accepted by the staff and serve for the preparation of a planned future general self-assessment of German nuclear power plants, where they will be employed as a permanent tool. (orig.) [de

  16. Identifying and Remediating Student Misconceptions in Introductory Biology via Writing-to-Learn Assignments and Peer Review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Halim, Audrey S; Finkenstaedt-Quinn, Solaire A; Olsen, Laura J; Gere, Anne Ruggles; Shultz, Ginger V

    2018-06-01

    Student misconceptions are an obstacle in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses and unless remediated may continue causing difficulties in learning as students advance in their studies. Writing-to-learn assignments (WTL) are characterized by their ability to promote in-depth conceptual learning by allowing students to explore their understanding of a topic. This study sought to determine whether and what types of misconceptions are elicited by WTL assignments and how the process of peer review and revision leads to remediation or propagation of misconceptions. We examined four WTL assignments in an introductory biology course in which students first wrote about content by applying it to a realistic scenario, then participated in a peer-review process before revising their work. Misconceptions were identified in all four assignments, with the greatest number pertaining to protein structure and function. Additionally, in certain contexts, students used scientific terminology incorrectly. Analysis of the drafts and peer-review comments generated six profiles by which misconceptions were addressed through the peer-review process. The prevalent mode of remediation arose through directed peer-review comments followed by correction during revision. It was also observed that additional misconceptions were elicited as students revised their writing in response to general peer-review suggestions.

  17. 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

  18. Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers

    Science.gov (United States)

    Liemohn, Michael W.; Balikhin, Michael; Kepko, Larry; Rodger, Alan; Wang, Yuming

    2016-01-01

    The Editors of the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics are deeply indebted to the many people among the research community that serve this journal through peer review. The journal could not exist without the time and effort invested by the community through this voluntary activity, providing expert evaluations and thoughtful assessments of the work of others. In 2015, the journal had 1506 scientists contribute to the process with at least one peer review, for a total of 3575 reviews completed, including additional reviews of resubmitted manuscripts. There were 277 reviewers that contributed four or more reports in 2015. The average number of reviews per referee in 2015 was, therefore, 2.4. Note that the total number of manuscript final decisions (i.e., accept or reject) for Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) Space Physics was 1147 in 2015. Of this, 774 were accepted and 373 were declined, for an acceptance rate of 67% last year. If the 1334 "revision" decisions are included in the tally, then the total number of decisions made in 2015 was 2481. Working out the arithmetic, it means that on average, a manuscript gets about 1.2 revision decisions before a final accept-or-reject decision. This explains the 3.1 average number of reviews per manuscript throughout each paper's lifetime in the submission-revision editorial process. We are pleased and happy that the research community is willing and able to devote their resources toward this service endeavor. We appreciate each and every one of you that helped maintain the high quality of papers in JGR Space Physics last year. We look forward to another excellent year working with all of you through the year ahead.

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1994-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Molseed, Tim

    2011-01-01

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

  1. Argument-Driven Inquiry: Using the Laboratory to Improve Undergraduates' Science Writing Skills through Meaningful Science Writing, Peer-Review, and Revision

    Science.gov (United States)

    Walker, Joi Phelps; Sampson, Victor

    2013-01-01

    This paper presents preliminary evidence supporting the use of peer review in undergraduate science as a means to improve student writing and to alleviate barriers, such as lost class time, by incorporation of the peer-review process into the laboratory component of the course. The study was conducted in a single section of an undergraduate…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sethares, Kristen A; Morris, Nancy S

    2016-06-01

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. "I sleep better at night:" How peer review of radiation treatment plans indirectly improves quality of care across radiation treatment programs.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brundage, Michael D; Hart, Margaret; O'Donnell, Jennifer; Reddeman, Lindsay; Gutierrez, Eric; Foxcroft, Sophie; Warde, Padraig

    Peer review of radiation oncology treatment plans is increasingly recognized as an important component of quality assurance in radiation treatment planning and delivery. Peer review of treatment plans can directly improve the quality of those plans and can also have indirect effects on radiation treatment programs. We undertook a systematic, qualitative approach to describing the indirect benefits of peer review, factors that were seen to facilitate or act as barriers to the implementation of peer review, and strategies to address these barriers across a provincial jurisdiction of radiation oncology programs (ROPs). Semistructured qualitative interviews were held with radiation oncology department heads and radiation therapy managers (or delegates) in all 14 ROPs in Ontario, Canada. We used a theoretically guided phenomenological qualitative approach to design and analyze the interview content. Themes were recorded by 2 independent reviewers, and any discordance was resolved by consensus. A total of 28 interviews were completed with 32 interviewees. Twenty-two unique themes addressed perceived benefits of peer review, relating to either peer review structure (n = 3), process (n = 9), or outcome (n = 10). Of these 22 themes, 19 related to indirect benefits to ROPs. In addition, 18 themes related to factors that facilitated peer review activities and 30 themes related to key barriers to implementing peer review were identified. Findings were consistent with, and enhanced the understanding of, previous survey-based assessments of the benefits and challenges of implementing peer review programs. Although challenges and concerns regarding the implementation of peer review were evident, the indirect benefits to radiation programs are numerous, far outweigh the implementation challenges, and strongly complement the direct individual-patient benefits that result from peer review quality assurance of radiation treatment plans. Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.

  7. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2018-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2018-01-01

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

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. Peer Review Comments on the IRIS Assessment of Benzene

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  13. Peer review - Why does it matter for your academic career?

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Kalz, Marco

    2012-01-01

    Kalz, M. (2012, 8 March). Peer review - Why does it matter for your academic career? Presentation provided in the context of the Young Researchers Special Issue 2012 of the International Journal of Technology-Enhanced Learning (IJTEL).

  14. IRIS Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium (Peer Review Plan)

    Science.gov (United States)

    EPA is conducting a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of hexavalent chromium that will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database.

  15. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-10-01

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

  17. Revised White House Peer Review Guidelines Draw Generally Favorable Respons

    Science.gov (United States)

    Showstack, Randy

    2004-04-01

    A new bulletin from the White House Office of Management and Budget outlines minimum standards for peer review of scientific information that includes findings representing an official position of a department or agency of the federal government. The OMB Revised Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, released on 15 April, substantially modifies a previous draft issued on 15 September 2003, which some had criticized as restrictive and imbalanced.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rigby, J; Cox, D; Julian, K

    2018-01-01

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

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  1. A rigorous approach to investigating common assumptions about disease transmission: Process algebra as an emerging modelling methodology for epidemiology.

    Science.gov (United States)

    McCaig, Chris; Begon, Mike; Norman, Rachel; Shankland, Carron

    2011-03-01

    Changing scale, for example, the ability to move seamlessly from an individual-based model to a population-based model, is an important problem in many fields. In this paper, we introduce process algebra as a novel solution to this problem in the context of models of infectious disease spread. Process algebra allows us to describe a system in terms of the stochastic behaviour of individuals, and is a technique from computer science. We review the use of process algebra in biological systems, and the variety of quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques available. The analysis illustrated here solves the changing scale problem: from the individual behaviour we can rigorously derive equations to describe the mean behaviour of the system at the level of the population. The biological problem investigated is the transmission of infection, and how this relates to individual interactions.

  2. 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

  3. The Power of Peer Reviewing to Enhance Writing in Horticulture: Greenhouse Management

    Science.gov (United States)

    Anderson, Neil O.; Flash, Pamela

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is not included in undergraduate horticultural curricula. Our research objectives in an 8- year study, which ranged from 2000 to 2007 in two sections (2000-2002 non-peer reviewed and 2003-2007 peer-reviewed) of Greenhouse Management students at the University of Minnesota were to determine whether iterative peer reviews would result in…

  4. 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…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-07-01

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

  6. 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…

  7. Mitigation of Disagreement in Peer Review among L2 Learners and Native Speakers in a College Writing Class (Mitigación del Impacto de las Opiniones de Desacuerdo en el Proceso de Revisión por Pares entre Estudiantes de una Segunda Lengua y Hablantes Nativos en una Clase de Escritura a Nivel Universitario)

    Science.gov (United States)

    Christoffersen, Katherine O'Donnell

    2015-01-01

    Peer review is now a commonplace practice in process-oriented writing instruction. A crucial aspect of peer review is assessing another classmate's work, which encompasses the act of disagreement. Given its prevalence in the classroom, it is necessary to analyze how L2 learners mitigate disagreement in the context of peer review with other L2…

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2016

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-06-01

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

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Joosten, Robbie P.; Soueidan, Hayssam; Wessels, Lodewyk F. A.; Perrakis, Anastassis

    2013-01-01

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

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    2013-12-01

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

  13. A Review of LIDAR Radiometric Processing: From Ad Hoc Intensity Correction to Rigorous Radiometric Calibration

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Alireza G. Kashani

    2015-11-01

    Full Text Available In addition to precise 3D coordinates, most light detection and ranging (LIDAR systems also record “intensity”, loosely defined as the strength of the backscattered echo for each measured point. To date, LIDAR intensity data have proven beneficial in a wide range of applications because they are related to surface parameters, such as reflectance. While numerous procedures have been introduced in the scientific literature, and even commercial software, to enhance the utility of intensity data through a variety of “normalization”, “correction”, or “calibration” techniques, the current situation is complicated by a lack of standardization, as well as confusing, inconsistent use of terminology. In this paper, we first provide an overview of basic principles of LIDAR intensity measurements and applications utilizing intensity information from terrestrial, airborne topographic, and airborne bathymetric LIDAR. Next, we review effective parameters on intensity measurements, basic theory, and current intensity processing methods. We define terminology adopted from the most commonly-used conventions based on a review of current literature. Finally, we identify topics in need of further research. Ultimately, the presented information helps lay the foundation for future standards and specifications for LIDAR radiometric calibration.

  14. A Review of LIDAR Radiometric Processing: From Ad Hoc Intensity Correction to Rigorous Radiometric Calibration.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kashani, Alireza G; Olsen, Michael J; Parrish, Christopher E; Wilson, Nicholas

    2015-11-06

    In addition to precise 3D coordinates, most light detection and ranging (LIDAR) systems also record "intensity", loosely defined as the strength of the backscattered echo for each measured point. To date, LIDAR intensity data have proven beneficial in a wide range of applications because they are related to surface parameters, such as reflectance. While numerous procedures have been introduced in the scientific literature, and even commercial software, to enhance the utility of intensity data through a variety of "normalization", "correction", or "calibration" techniques, the current situation is complicated by a lack of standardization, as well as confusing, inconsistent use of terminology. In this paper, we first provide an overview of basic principles of LIDAR intensity measurements and applications utilizing intensity information from terrestrial, airborne topographic, and airborne bathymetric LIDAR. Next, we review effective parameters on intensity measurements, basic theory, and current intensity processing methods. We define terminology adopted from the most commonly-used conventions based on a review of current literature. Finally, we identify topics in need of further research. Ultimately, the presented information helps lay the foundation for future standards and specifications for LIDAR radiometric calibration.

  15. Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lee, Christopher

    2011-01-01

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

  16. Peer-review Platform for Astronomy Education Activities

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-08-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jacques Crinon

    2012-11-01

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

  18. Peer Reviews: a voluntary means of enhancing operating culture

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Vella, R.

    1996-01-01

    In the nuclear energy industry, and also in other fields, excellent experience has been gained from the regular accumulation of expert evidence of power station operation through external organizations or teams. In 1991, the World Association of Nuclear Operations (WANO) initiated a pilot programme for voluntary 'Peer Reviews'. The success of this first exercise in gathering expert evidence led to the introduction of the 'Peer Review' programme in 1993 as one of the standard programmes of WANO. The object was to increase the safety and reliability of nuclear power stations throughout the world. WANO Peer Reviews are voluntary and are carried out at the request of a member. They are oriented towards special WANO performance objectives and criteria, which have been established by the management of WANO. (orig.) [de

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

    OpenAIRE

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

    2017-01-01

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

  20. 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. ...

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

    OpenAIRE

    Fatima Sheikh Shoaie; Mehdi Husseini

    2010-01-01

      The present study investigates the software used in scientific journals for content management and peer review, in order to identify the essential features. These softwares are analyzed and presented in tabular format. A questionnaire was prepared and submitted to a panel composed of 15 referees, editor in chief, software designers and researchers. The essential features for a software managing the review process were divided into three groups with populations of 10-15, 5-10 and 0-5 respect...

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    John Ernest Kratz

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-10-01

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

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

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

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

    2013-01-01

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

  5. Application of project design peer review to improve quality assurance

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    McClure, F.E.

    1989-01-01

    DOE ORDER 5481.1B Safety Analysis and Review Systems and DOE ORDER 6430.1A General Design Criteria require that the design of facilities shall incorporate the necessary Quality Assurance review requirements to assure that the established program quality assurance objectives are met in the design criteria and the construction documents. The use of Project Design Peer Review to satisfy these requirements is presented. The University of California manages the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratory. The 1988 University Seismic Safety Policy requires the use of independent Project Design Peer Review in its capital improvement and seismic reconstruction program

  6. 2013 Building Technologies Office Program Peer Review Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2013-11-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    van Leeuwen, René; Tiesinga, Lucas J; Jochemsen, Henk; Post, Doeke

    2009-05-01

    This study describes the learning effects of thematic peer-review discussion groups (Hendriksen, 2000. Begeleid intervisie model, Collegiale advisering en probleemoplossing, Nelissen, Baarn.) on developing nursing students' competence in providing spiritual care. It also discusses the factors that might influence the learning process. The method of peer-review is a form of reflective learning based on the theory of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984. Experiential learning, Experience as the source of learning development. Englewoods Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hill). It was part of an educational programme on spiritual care in nursing for third-year undergraduate nursing students from two nursing schools in the Netherlands. Reflective journals (n=203) kept by students throughout the peer-review process were analysed qualitatively The analysis shows that students reflect on spirituality in the context of personal experiences in nursing practice. In addition, they discuss the nursing process and organizational aspects of spiritual care. The results show that the first two phases in the experiential learning cycle appear prominently; these are 'inclusion of actual experience' and 'reflecting on this experience'. The phases of 'abstraction of experience' and 'experimenting with new behaviour' are less evident. We will discuss possible explanations for these findings according to factors related to education, the students and the tutors and make recommendations for follow-up research.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-08-01

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

  9. Amoco-US Environmental Protection Agency, pollution prevention project, Yorktown, Virginia: Project peer review. Report of the Peer Review Committee of the Amoco/EPA Pollution Prevention Project at the Yorktown, Virginia refinery

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Klee, H.; Podar, M.

    1991-01-01

    The Amoco/EPA Pollution Prevention Project involved a number of representatives from federal and Virginia regulatory agencies, and Amoco's refining business. Participants believed that the Project could benefit from a broader perspective than these organizations along might provide. The Project Work Group selected an independent Peer Review Process which was conducted by Resource for the Future (RFF), a Washington DC think tank. A group of technical, policy and environmental experts from diverse backgrounds served as Peer Review members. The Peer Review Committee met on three occasions to discuss (1) the Project Work Plan (2) sampling data and interpretation and (3) project conclusions and recommendations. The focus of the meeting was on the general scope and content of the project

  10. In Referees We Trust? Controversies over Grant Peer Review in the Late Twentieth Century

    Science.gov (United States)

    Baldwin, Melinda

    While many accounts of external refereeing assume that it has been a consistent part of science since the seventeenth century, the practice developed far more slowly and haphazardly than many observers realize, and it was not until after the Second World War that ''peer review'' became considered an essential part of scientific publishing or grant-making. This talk will explore refereeing procedures at American grant-giving organizations in the twentieth century, focusing especially on the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The creators of the NSF and the NIH put refereeing systems in place at their foundation. However, the form and function of these systems differed from modern ''peer review'' in several important ways. At the NSF the initial purpose of the referee process was to advise the NSF program directors, not to dictate funding decisions. At the NIH, small ''study sections'' devoted to particular subjects made recommendations to the NIH leadership, which rendered final judgments. However, beginning in the 1960s a series of controversies about NIH and NSF grants placed refereeing procedures at these organizations under more intense scrutiny. These debates culminated in six days of Special Oversight Hearings into the NSF's peer review process in the summer of 1975. Following the hearings, both the NSF and NIH reformed their review processes to place more emphasis on referees' opinions about grant proposals, making peer review increasingly responsible for decision-making. These controversies illustrate that refereeing continued to undergo significant changes in form and purpose throughout the twentieth century, and further suggest that both the scientific community and the public placed increased emphasis on the role of the referee during the late twentieth century.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Fatima Sheikh Shoaie

    2010-03-01

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

  14. SU-E-T-211: Peer Review System for Ensuring Quality of Radiation Therapy Treatments.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kapoor, R; Kapur, P; Kumar, S A; Alex, D; Ranka, S; Palta, J

    2012-06-01

    To demonstrate a Web-based electronic peer review system that has the potential to improve quality of care for radiation therapy patients. The system provides tools that allow radiation oncologists to seek peer review of target and critical structure delineation, treatment plans, and share clinical data with peers to optimize radiation therapy treatments. Peer review of radiation therapy treatment planning data prior to its initiation improves the quality of radiation therapy and clinical outcomes. Web-based access to radiation therapy treatment planning data and medical records mitigate existing geographical and temporal constraints. With internet access, the healthcare provider can access the data from any location and review it in an interactive and collaborative manner. Interoperability standard like DICOM-RT and IHE-RO compliant RT Systems have facilitated the design and implementation of PRS with Silverlight Web technology, .net Framework and SQL Server. Local DICOM-RT archive and cloud based services are deployed to facilitate remote peer reviews. To validate the PRS system, we tested the system for 100 patients with Philips Pinnacle v 9.0 and Varian Eclipse v 8.9 treatment planning system (TPS). We transmitted the DICOM RT data from the TPS to the cloud based services via the PRS local DICOM RT Archive. Various CT simulation based parameters such as orientation of CT, properties of RT structures etc. were compared between the TPS and PRS system. Data integrity of other parameters such as patient demographics (patient name, ID, attending physician etc.) and dose volume related parameters were also evaluated. Such rigorous testing allowed us to optimize the functionalities and clinical implementation of the PRS. We believe that the PRS will improve the quality and safety of a broad spectrum of radiation therapy patients treated in underserved areas while discouraging the overutilization of expensive radiation treatment modalities. This research and

  15. 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

  16. SU-F-T-231: Improving the Efficiency of a Radiotherapy Peer-Review System for Quality Assurance

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Hsu, S; Basavatia, A; Garg, M; Kalnicki, S; Tome, W

    2016-01-01

    Purpose: To improve the efficiency of a radiotherapy peer-review system using a commercially available software application for plan quality evaluation and documentation. Methods: A commercial application, FullAccess (Radialogica LLC, Version 1.4.4), was implemented in a Citrix platform for peer-review process and patient documentation. This application can display images, isodose lines, and dose-volume histograms and create plan reports for peer-review process. Dose metrics in the report can also be benchmarked for plan quality evaluation. Site-specific templates were generated based on departmental treatment planning policies and procedures for each disease site, which generally follow RTOG protocols as well as published prospective clinical trial data, including both conventional fractionation and hypo-fractionation schema. Once a plan is ready for review, the planner exports the plan to FullAccess, applies the site-specific template, and presents the report for plan review. The plan is still reviewed in the treatment planning system, as that is the legal record. Upon physician’s approval of a plan, the plan is packaged for peer review with the plan report and dose metrics are saved to the database. Results: The reports show dose metrics of PTVs and critical organs for the plans and also indicate whether or not the metrics are within tolerance. Graphical results with green, yellow, and red lights are displayed of whether planning objectives have been met. In addition, benchmarking statistics are collected to see where the current plan falls compared to all historical plans on each metric. All physicians in peer review can easily verify constraints by these reports. Conclusion: We have demonstrated the improvement in a radiotherapy peer-review system, which allows physicians to easily verify planning constraints for different disease sites and fractionation schema, allows for standardization in the clinic to ensure that departmental policies are maintained, and

  17. SU-F-T-231: Improving the Efficiency of a Radiotherapy Peer-Review System for Quality Assurance

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Hsu, S; Basavatia, A; Garg, M; Kalnicki, S; Tome, W [Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY (United States)

    2016-06-15

    Purpose: To improve the efficiency of a radiotherapy peer-review system using a commercially available software application for plan quality evaluation and documentation. Methods: A commercial application, FullAccess (Radialogica LLC, Version 1.4.4), was implemented in a Citrix platform for peer-review process and patient documentation. This application can display images, isodose lines, and dose-volume histograms and create plan reports for peer-review process. Dose metrics in the report can also be benchmarked for plan quality evaluation. Site-specific templates were generated based on departmental treatment planning policies and procedures for each disease site, which generally follow RTOG protocols as well as published prospective clinical trial data, including both conventional fractionation and hypo-fractionation schema. Once a plan is ready for review, the planner exports the plan to FullAccess, applies the site-specific template, and presents the report for plan review. The plan is still reviewed in the treatment planning system, as that is the legal record. Upon physician’s approval of a plan, the plan is packaged for peer review with the plan report and dose metrics are saved to the database. Results: The reports show dose metrics of PTVs and critical organs for the plans and also indicate whether or not the metrics are within tolerance. Graphical results with green, yellow, and red lights are displayed of whether planning objectives have been met. In addition, benchmarking statistics are collected to see where the current plan falls compared to all historical plans on each metric. All physicians in peer review can easily verify constraints by these reports. Conclusion: We have demonstrated the improvement in a radiotherapy peer-review system, which allows physicians to easily verify planning constraints for different disease sites and fractionation schema, allows for standardization in the clinic to ensure that departmental policies are maintained, and

  18. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Isopropanol (Isobutyl Alcohol)

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

  19. Peer reviews and the role of a journal editor

    Science.gov (United States)

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Booth, Sara; Beckett, Jeff; Saunders, Cassandra

    2016-01-01

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

  1. 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…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Esmaeeli, Hadiseh; Abasi, Maasumeh; Soori, Afshin

    2014-01-01

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

  3. Enhancing Proof Writing via Cross-Institutional Peer Review

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  4. 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...

  5. The African Peer Review Mechanism: The South African Experience ...

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    This article compares the results of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) report on South Africa with the evaluation done on the same issues by three academics from different health professions. Four areas which closely affect health and health care (democracy and good political governance; economic governance ...

  6. Position paper - peer review and design verification of selected activities

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Stine, M.D.

    1994-09-01

    Position Paper to develop and document a position on the performance of independent peer reviews on selected design and analysis components of the Title I (preliminary) and Title II (detailed) design phases of the Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility project

  7. Accelerated Peer-Review Journal Usage Technique for Undergraduates

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wallace, J. D.

    2008-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Berry, David E.; Fawkes, Kelli L.

    2010-01-01

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

  9. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Guanidine Nitrate

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

  10. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Picric Acid

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

  13. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2004-06-01

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

  15. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Acrolein

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

  16. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Guanidine Chloride

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

  17. 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...

  18. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Aluminum

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

  19. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Diundecyl Phthalate

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Chan, Zenobia C Y

    2016-04-01

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

  1. Investigating Mandatory Peer Review of Teaching In Schools

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brix, Jacinta; Grainger, Peter; Hill, Angela

    2014-01-01

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

  2. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Lewisite

    Science.gov (United States)

    Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) assessments are developed for use by the Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) to support informed decisions in the Superfund program and at hazardous waste sites when a values is not available in the Integrated ...

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    none,

    2009-10-27

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Paolucci, Mario; Grimaldo, Francisco

    2014-01-01

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

  5. 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/.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kumar, Prashant; Rafiq, Imran; Imam, Boulent

    2011-01-01

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

  7. The Most Preferred and Effective Reviewer of L2 Writing among Automated Grading System, Peer Reviewer and Teacher

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tsai, Min-Hsiu

    2017-01-01

    Who is the most preferred and deemed the most helpful reviewer in improving student writing? This study exercised a blended teaching method which consists of three currently prevailing reviewers: the automated grading system (AGS, a web-based method), the peer review (a process-oriented approach), and the teacher grading technique (the…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hansson, Finn; Monsted, Mette

    2012-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

  10. A peer review arrangement for radiological protection

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

    1987-01-01

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

  11. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2014

    Science.gov (United States)

    Becker, Thorsten W.; Bass, Jay; Blichert-Toft, Janne; Derry, Lou; Lee, Cin-Ty; Tyburczy, James; Vance, Derek; Yokoyama, Yusuke

    2015-09-01

    The editorial and scientific publishing process relies on the sustained work of volunteer reviewers, and evaluating the interdisciplinary and broad interest papers published in G-Cubed can be a particular challenge. As Editors and Associated Editors, we are therefore hugely appreciative of the efforts of our reviewers, and would like to thank and acknowledge them in this editorial. G-Cubed published 257 manuscripts out of 431 submissions in 2014, and for this, we were able to rely on the efforts of 710 dedicated reviewers. Their names are listed below; in italics are those 27 who provided three or more reviews. A big thank you from the G-Cubed team!

  12. 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…

  13. 7 CFR 3415.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  15. How Does Student Peer Review Influence Perceptions, Engagement and Academic Outcomes? A Case Study

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mulder, Raoul; Baik, Chi; Naylor, Ryan; Pearce, Jon

    2014-01-01

    Involving students in peer review has many pedagogical benefits, but few studies have explicitly investigated relationships between the content of peer reviews, student perceptions and assessment outcomes. We conducted a case study of peer review within a third-year undergraduate subject at a research-intensive Australian university, in which we…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-11-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fischman, Mark G.

    2014-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yankulov, Krassimir; Couto, Richard

    2012-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-01

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

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  4. 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…

  5. RIGOROUS PHOTOGRAMMETRIC PROCESSING OF CHANG'E-1 AND CHANG'E-2 STEREO IMAGERY FOR LUNAR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING

    OpenAIRE

    K. Di; Y. Liu; B. Liu; M. Peng

    2012-01-01

    Chang'E-1(CE-1) and Chang'E-2(CE-2) are the two lunar orbiters of China's lunar exploration program. Topographic mapping using CE-1 and CE-2 images is of great importance for scientific research as well as for preparation of landing and surface operation of Chang'E-3 lunar rover. In this research, we developed rigorous sensor models of CE-1 and CE-2 CCD cameras based on push-broom imaging principle with interior and exterior orientation parameters. Based on the rigorous sensor model, the 3D c...

  6. A peer review arrangement for radiological protection

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

    1985-01-01

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

  7. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    BLOOMQUIST, DOUGLAS D.

    2002-01-01

    In 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, PL 103-62) was enacted. GPRA, which applies to all federal programs, has three components: strategic plans, annual performance plans, and metrics to show how well annual plans are being followed. As part of meeting the GRPA requirement in FY2002, a 15-member external review committee chaired by Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece (the Trivelpiece Committee) was convened by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) on May 7-9, 2002 to review Sandia National Laboratories' Pulsed Power Programs as a component of the Performance Appraisal Process negotiated with the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy (NNSA/DOE). The scope of the review included activities in high energy density physics (HEDP), inertial confinement fusion (ICF), radiation/weapon physics, the petawatt laser initiative (PW) and fast ignition, equation-of-state studies, radiation effects science and lethality, x-ray radiography, ZR development, basic research and pulsed power technology research and development, as well as electromagnetics and work for others. In his charge to the Committee, Dr. Jeffrey P. Quintenz, Director of Pulsed Power Sciences (Org. 1600) asked that the evaluation and feedback be based on three criteria: (1) quality of technical activities in science, technology, and engineering, (2) programmatic performance, management, and planning, and (3) relevance to national needs and agency missions. In addition, the director posed specific programmatic questions. The accompanying report, produced as a SAND document, is the report of the Committee's finding

  8. Data Link Summary for Peer Review.

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Cashion, Avery Ted [Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States); Cieslewski, Grzegorz [Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)

    2017-10-01

    New generations of high-temperature (HT) sensors and electronics are enabling increased measurement speed and accuracy allowing collection of more accurate and relevant data by downhole tools. Unfortunately, this increased capability is often not realized due to the bottleneck in the uplink data transmission rates due to poor signal characteristics of HT wireline. The objective of this project is to enable the high transmission rate of raw data from downhole tools such as acoustic logging tools and seismic measurement devices to minimize the need for downhole signal processing. To achieve this objective, Sandia has undertaken the effort to develop an asymmetric high-temperature (HT), highspeed data link system for downhole tools capable of operating at temperatures of 210°C while taking advantage of existing wireline transmission channels. Current data rates over HT single-conductor wireline are limited to approximately 200 kbps. The goal system will be capable of transmitting data from the tool to the surface (uplink) at rates of > 1Mbps over 5,000 feet of single-conductor wireline as well as automatically adapt the data rate to the longer wirelines by adapting modern telecommunications techniques to operate on high temperature electronics. The data rate from the surface to the tool (downlink) will be significantly smaller but sufficient for command and control functions. While 5,000 feet of cable is the benchmark for this effort, improvements apply to all lengths of cable.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    1991-08-01

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

  10. Fire protection assessment in a WANO peer review

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Vella, R.

    1998-01-01

    The peer review programme is becoming the key programme of WANO. The reviews are conducted to assess the performance of plant personnel, the conditions of systems and equipment, the quality of programmes and procedures, and the effectiveness of plant management. The review team consists of highly qualified staff from other WANO members throughout the world who have extensive practical experience in the area the review. At the request of Paris Centre Members, the fire protection area has been added to the scope of WANO peer reviews. Relevant performance objectives and criteria have been developed to cover this area, these are written guidances upon which review of plant performance can be based. They are supported by criteria, more narrow in scope, to help further define what attributes of the fire protection management area contribute to the achievement of the associated performance objective. (author)

  11. 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.

  12. Peer review of strategic analysis of material accounting

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Opelka, J.H.; Bennett, C.A.; Goldman, A.J.; Higinbotham, W.A.; Jaech, J.L.; Lucas, W.F.; Lumb, R.F.

    1979-01-01

    A Peer Review Group knowledgeable about game theory and safeguards was organized to assess the utility of strategic analysis for analyzing inventory differences in particular and safeguards events in general. The group concluded that game theory may provide a useful basis for arriving at safeguards decisions, and could be a complementary--not alternative--tool to statistical analysis. The group recommended further development of game theory in areas of potential application

  13. 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.

  14. 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

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Stine, M.D.

    1995-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kariyawasam, Uditha

    2016-10-01

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

  17. Wano peer review in Santa Maria de Garona NPP

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    De Blas, J. M.

    1998-01-01

    WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators) implemented a program known as PEER REVIEW at the Santa Maria de Garona NPP in 1996. It was as follows, an international team consisting of professionals with experience in nuclear power plants observed different activities in the plant, hold interviews and meetings, and finally they checked all the information during three weeks, in order to compare the plant with the WANO's Excellence Criteria at work. The result was that the plant was in a good state and most of the implemented activities and practices of work were done properly, further the usual demands and rules. However it was noticed that some of the activities could be improved, If we compare them with the optimum practices. The plant started a work plan defined as an objective in the COMPANY PROJECT it self, in order to implement the corrective actions which could resolve the proposed improvements by WANO. Following the PEER REVIEW program, approximately one year and a half later, a WANO team came back to the plan for a week in June 1998, they came back to implement what is known as a FOLLOW UP, that is today, a control resting on the monitoring of facts of the fulfillment level for the improvements which had been recommended. After finishing this monitoring work, the result of the FOLLOW UP was that the plant has attained a very remarkable implantation of the recommendations showed in the PEER REVIEW. (Author)

  18. 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.

  19. Ambiguity, logic, simplicity, and dynamics: Wittgensteinian evaluative criteria in peer review of quantitative research on categorization.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Shimp, Charles P

    2004-06-30

    Research on categorization has changed over time, and some of these changes resemble how Wittgenstein's views changed from his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to his Philosophical Investigations. Wittgenstein initially focused on unambiguous, abstract, parsimonious, logical propositions and rules, and on independent, static, "atomic facts." This approach subsequently influenced the development of logical positivism and thereby may have indirectly influenced method and theory in research on categorization: much animal research on categorization has focused on learning simple, static, logical rules unambiguously interrelating small numbers of independent features. He later rejected logical simplicity and rigor and focused instead on Gestalt ideas about figure-ground reversals and context, the ambiguity of family resemblance, and the function of details of everyday language. Contemporary contextualism has been influenced by this latter position, some features of which appear in contemporary empirical research on categorization. These developmental changes are illustrated by research on avian local and global levels of visual perceptual analysis, categorization of rectangles and moving objects, and artificial grammar learning. Implications are described for peer review of quantitative theory in which ambiguity, logical rigor, simplicity, or dynamics are designed to play important roles.

  20. Mentored peer review of standardized manuscripts as a teaching tool for residents: a pilot randomized controlled multi-center study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wong, Victoria S S; Strowd, Roy E; Aragón-García, Rebeca; Moon, Yeseon Park; Ford, Blair; Haut, Sheryl R; Kass, Joseph S; London, Zachary N; Mays, MaryAnn; Milligan, Tracey A; Price, Raymond S; Reynolds, Patrick S; Selwa, Linda M; Spencer, David C; Elkind, Mitchell S V

    2017-01-01

    -mentored residents. There was no difference between groups in level of interest in peer review (3.00 vs 3.09; p  = 0.72) or the quality of manuscript review assessed by the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) (3.25 vs 3.06; p  = 0.50). We used mentored peer review of standardized manuscripts to teach biostatistics and research methodology and introduce the peer review process to residents. Though knowledge level did not change, mentored residents had enhanced perception in their abilities to understand research methodology and manuscripts and apply study results to clinical practice.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2013-01-01

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

  2. Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Stephen A Gallo

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

  3. External Peer Review Team Report Underground Testing Area Subproject for Frenchman Flat, Revision 1

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Sam Marutzky

    2010-09-01

    An external peer review was conducted to review the groundwater models used in the corrective action investigation stage of the Underground Test Area (UGTA) subproject to forecast zones of potential contamination in 1,000 years for the Frenchman Flat area. The goal of the external peer review was to provide technical evaluation of the studies and to assist in assessing the readiness of the UGTA subproject to progress to monitoring activities for further model evaluation. The external peer review team consisted of six independent technical experts with expertise in geology, hydrogeology,'''groundwater modeling, and radiochemistry. The peer review team was tasked with addressing the following questions: 1. Are the modeling approaches, assumptions, and model results for Frenchman Flat consistent with the use of modeling studies as a decision tool for resolution of environmental and regulatory requirements? 2. Do the modeling results adequately account for uncertainty in models of flow and transport in the Frenchman Flat hydrological setting? a. Are the models of sufficient scale/resolution to adequately predict contaminant transport in the Frenchman Flat setting? b. Have all key processes been included in the model? c. Are the methods used to forecast contaminant boundaries from the transport modeling studies reasonable and appropriate? d. Are the assessments of uncertainty technically sound and consistent with state-of-the-art approaches currently used in the hydrological sciences? 3. Are the datasets and modeling results adequate for a transition to Corrective Action Unit monitoring studies—the next stage in the UGTA strategy for Frenchman Flat? The peer review team is of the opinion that, with some limitations, the modeling approaches, assumptions, and model results are consistent with the use of modeling studies for resolution of environmental and regulatory requirements. The peer review team further finds that the modeling studies have accounted

  4. External Peer Review Team Report Underground Testing Area Subproject for Frenchman Flat, Revision 1

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Marutzky, Sam

    2010-01-01

    An external peer review was conducted to review the groundwater models used in the corrective action investigation stage of the Underground Test Area (UGTA) subproject to forecast zones of potential contamination in 1,000 years for the Frenchman Flat area. The goal of the external peer review was to provide technical evaluation of the studies and to assist in assessing the readiness of the UGTA subproject to progress to monitoring activities for further model evaluation. The external peer review team consisted of six independent technical experts with expertise in geology, hydrogeology,'groundwater modeling, and radiochemistry. The peer review team was tasked with addressing the following questions: 1. Are the modeling approaches, assumptions, and model results for Frenchman Flat consistent with the use of modeling studies as a decision tool for resolution of environmental and regulatory requirements? 2. Do the modeling results adequately account for uncertainty in models of flow and transport in the Frenchman Flat hydrological setting? a. Are the models of sufficient scale/resolution to adequately predict contaminant transport in the Frenchman Flat setting? b. Have all key processes been included in the model? c. Are the methods used to forecast contaminant boundaries from the transport modeling studies reasonable and appropriate? d. Are the assessments of uncertainty technically sound and consistent with state-of-the-art approaches currently used in the hydrological sciences? 3. Are the datasets and modeling results adequate for a transition to Corrective Action Unit monitoring studies the next stage in the UGTA strategy for Frenchman Flat? The peer review team is of the opinion that, with some limitations, the modeling approaches, assumptions, and model results are consistent with the use of modeling studies for resolution of environmental and regulatory requirements. The peer review team further finds that the modeling studies have accounted for uncertainty in

  5. Improving Geoscience Learning and Increasing Student Engagement Using Online Interactive Writing Assignments with Calibrated Peer Review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Harbor, Jon

    2014-05-01

    Peer review is a hallmark of the publication process for scientific research, yet it is rarely used as a pedagogical approach in university geoscience courses. Learning outcomes for university geoscience courses include content knowledge and critical thinking and analysis skills, and often include written communication of scientific issues or concepts. Because lecture and memorization is not the most effective learning approach for many students, instructors are increasingly exploring teaching approaches that involve active engagement. In this context, writing assignments that engage students in using content, constructing arguments, and critiquing other students' work are highly desirable. However, many of us struggle with extensive writing requirements in our courses because the workload associated with having the instructor provide detailed comments on writing is daunting, especially in large-enrollment courses, and organizing effective peer review by students is very challenging. Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) is a web-based program that involves students in writing and in reviewing each other's writing. It is designed to allow for more involved writing and feedback experiences with much less instructor time. Here we report on the results of a qualitative-methods analysis of narrative survey responses from students using CPR in an introductory geoscience class. In addition to an impact on the students' writing and their understanding of what goes in to effective writing, the results indicate that CPR acted as reinforcement for content learning, and an impetus for gaining a deeper understanding of content material. It allowed students to see how other students explained and analyzed content, and to check their understanding of a topic in relation to other students in the class. Not surprisingly, the instructor reported that students performed far better on exam questions that tested knowledge covered by CPR assignments.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Somerville, R. C.

    2003-12-01

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

  7. Peer Review Audit of Trauma Deaths in a Developing Country

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Afzal Ali Jat

    2004-01-01

    Results and Conclusions: A total of 279 patients were registered in the trauma registry during the study period, including 18 trauma deaths. Peer review judged that six were preventable, seven were potentially preventable, and four were non-preventable. One patient was excluded because the record was not available for review. The proportion of preventable and potentially preventable deaths was significantly higher in our study than from developed countries. Of the multiple contributing factors identified, the most important were inadequate prehospital care, inappropriate interhospital transfer, limited hospital resources, and an absence of integrated and organized trauma care. This study summarizes the challenges faced in trauma care in a developing country.

  8. Peer review of HEDR uncertainty and sensitivity analyses plan

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Hoffman, F.O.

    1993-06-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  10. Rigorous Photogrammetric Processing of CHANG'E-1 and CHANG'E-2 Stereo Imagery for Lunar Topographic Mapping

    Science.gov (United States)

    Di, K.; Liu, Y.; Liu, B.; Peng, M.

    2012-07-01

    Chang'E-1(CE-1) and Chang'E-2(CE-2) are the two lunar orbiters of China's lunar exploration program. Topographic mapping using CE-1 and CE-2 images is of great importance for scientific research as well as for preparation of landing and surface operation of Chang'E-3 lunar rover. In this research, we developed rigorous sensor models of CE-1 and CE-2 CCD cameras based on push-broom imaging principle with interior and exterior orientation parameters. Based on the rigorous sensor model, the 3D coordinate of a ground point in lunar body-fixed (LBF) coordinate system can be calculated by space intersection from the image coordinates of con-jugate points in stereo images, and the image coordinates can be calculated from 3D coordinates by back-projection. Due to uncer-tainties of the orbit and the camera, the back-projected image points are different from the measured points. In order to reduce these inconsistencies and improve precision, we proposed two methods to refine the rigorous sensor model: 1) refining EOPs by correcting the attitude angle bias, 2) refining the interior orientation model by calibration of the relative position of the two linear CCD arrays. Experimental results show that the mean back-projection residuals of CE-1 images are reduced to better than 1/100 pixel by method 1 and the mean back-projection residuals of CE-2 images are reduced from over 20 pixels to 0.02 pixel by method 2. Consequently, high precision DEM (Digital Elevation Model) and DOM (Digital Ortho Map) are automatically generated.

  11. RIGOROUS PHOTOGRAMMETRIC PROCESSING OF CHANG'E-1 AND CHANG'E-2 STEREO IMAGERY FOR LUNAR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    K. Di

    2012-07-01

    Full Text Available Chang'E-1(CE-1 and Chang'E-2(CE-2 are the two lunar orbiters of China's lunar exploration program. Topographic mapping using CE-1 and CE-2 images is of great importance for scientific research as well as for preparation of landing and surface operation of Chang'E-3 lunar rover. In this research, we developed rigorous sensor models of CE-1 and CE-2 CCD cameras based on push-broom imaging principle with interior and exterior orientation parameters. Based on the rigorous sensor model, the 3D coordinate of a ground point in lunar body-fixed (LBF coordinate system can be calculated by space intersection from the image coordinates of con-jugate points in stereo images, and the image coordinates can be calculated from 3D coordinates by back-projection. Due to uncer-tainties of the orbit and the camera, the back-projected image points are different from the measured points. In order to reduce these inconsistencies and improve precision, we proposed two methods to refine the rigorous sensor model: 1 refining EOPs by correcting the attitude angle bias, 2 refining the interior orientation model by calibration of the relative position of the two linear CCD arrays. Experimental results show that the mean back-projection residuals of CE-1 images are reduced to better than 1/100 pixel by method 1 and the mean back-projection residuals of CE-2 images are reduced from over 20 pixels to 0.02 pixel by method 2. Consequently, high precision DEM (Digital Elevation Model and DOM (Digital Ortho Map are automatically generated.

  12. 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.

  13. Implementation and Outcomes of a Faculty-Based, Peer Review Manuscript Writing Workshop.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kulage, Kristine M; Larson, Elaine L

    2016-01-01

    The publication of scholarly work and research findings is an important expectation for nursing faculty; however, academic writing is often neglected, leaving dissemination through manuscript writing an area of concern for the nursing profession. Writing initiatives have been utilized to promote scholarly dissemination in schools of nursing, but those described in the literature have been primarily non-United States based and student focused. This article describes a faculty-based manuscript writing workshop, assesses participants' impressions, and describes its impact on scholarly output. The workshop is a collaborative learning process utilizing peer review to improve manuscript quality and model behaviors for improving writing and peer-reviewing skills. Seventeen workshop participants including three predoctoral students, 6 postdoctoral fellows, and 8 faculty members completed an anonymous workshop survey (81% response rate). All but 1 of 17 manuscripts reviewed in the workshop are published, accepted, or in the review process. All participants indicated that the workshop was a valuable use of time and would recommend it to colleagues. The greatest reported workshop benefit was its function as an impetus to complete and submit manuscripts. We recommend the manuscript writing workshop model for other schools of nursing seeking ways to expand their scholarly output and create accountability for dissemination through manuscript writing. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  14. FIFRA Peer Review: Proposed Risk Assessment Methods Process

    Science.gov (United States)

    From September 11-14, 2012, EPA participated in a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting on a proposed pollinator risk assessment framework for determining the potential risks of pesticides to honey bees.

  15. Behind Linus's Law: Investigating Peer Review Processes in Open Source

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wang, Jing

    2013-01-01

    Open source software has revolutionized the way people develop software, organize collaborative work, and innovate. The numerous open source software systems that have been created and adopted over the past decade are influential and vital in all aspects of work and daily life. The understanding of open source software development can enhance its…

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

    OpenAIRE

    Alexei V. Shestopal; Vladimir I. Konnov

    2014-01-01

    The article considers peer review as the main procedure for demarcating scientific knowledge from other kinds thereof, which do not meet the criteria set for research results. The authors examine the history of peer review, which has first been used in early scientific journals and then has become one of the key approaches to distributing funds for research in science foundations, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation. The article also considers the role of peer review in the legal pro...

  17. 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.

  18. Radioactive Waste Isolation in Salt: Peer review of documents dealing with geophysical investigations

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    McGinnis, L.D.; Bowen, R.H.

    1987-03-01

    The Salt Repository Project, a US Department of Energy program to develop a mined repository in salt for high-level radioactive waste, is governed by a complex and sometimes inconsistent array of laws, administrative regulations, guidelines, and position papers. In conducting multidisciplinary peer reviews of contractor documents in support of this project, Argonne National Laboratory has needed to inform its expert reviewers of these governmental mandates, with particular emphasis on the relationship between issues and the technical work undertaken. This report acquaints peer review panelists with the regulatory framework as it affects their reviews of site characterization plans and related documents, including surface-based and underground test plans. Panelists will be asked to consider repository performance objectives and issues as they judge the adequacy of proposed geophysical testing. All site-specific discussions relate to the Deaf Smith County site in Texas, which was approved for site characterization by the President in May 1986. Natural processes active at the Deaf Smith County site and the status of geophysical testing near the site are reviewed briefly. 25 refs., 4 figs., 5 tabs

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2016-12-01

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

  20. Caracterização do processo de rigor mortis em músculos de eqüinos e maciez da carne Caracterization of rigor mortis process of muscle horse and meat tenderness

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Tatiana Pacheco Rodrigues

    2004-08-01

    Full Text Available Esta pesquisa utilizou 12 eqüinos de diferentes idades, abatidos em um matadouro-frigorífico (SIF 1803 em Araguari-MG, e estudou a temperatura, pH, comprimento de sarcômero em diferentes intervalos de tempo após abate (1h, 5h, 8h, 10h, 12h, 15h e 24h e força de cisalhamento (maciez dos músculos Longissimus dorsi e Semitendinosus, com intuito de caracterizar o desenvolvimento do processo de rigor mortis de eqüídeos durante o processamento industrial. A temperatura da câmara fria variou de 10,2°C a 4,0°C e a temperatura média inicial das carcaças foi de 35,32°C e a final de 4,15°C. O pH inicial médio do músculo Longissimus dorsi foi 6,49 e o final 5,63, e para o músculo Semitendinosus o pH inicial médio foi 6,44 e o final 5,70. A menor medida de sarcômero observada em ambos os músculos foi na 15ª hora após abate, ou seja, 1,44µm e 1,41µm, respectivamente. A carne dos eqüídeos adultos foi mais dura (pThis work studied 12 horses at different ages butchered in a slaughterhouse in Minas Gerais State, Brazil (SIF 1803 and evaluated temperature, pH, sarcomere length in different periods after slaughter (1h, 5h, 8h, 10h, 12h, 15h, and 24 hours as well as the shear force (meat tenderness of the Longissimus dorsi and Semitendinosus muscles, aiming at characterizing the rigor mortis onset in the meat during industrial processing. The chilly room temperature varied from 10.2°C to 4.0°C, and the mean initial carcass temperature was 35.32°C and the final one was 4.15°C. The mean initial pH of Longissimus dorsi was 6.49 and the final one was 5.63; the mean initial pH of Semitendinosus was 6.44 and the final one was 5.70. The smallest sarcomere size obtained in both muscles occurred at 15 hours postmortem, and the sarcomere lengths were 1.44 µm and 1.41 µm, respectively. The meat from adult horses was tougher than that from young ones (p<0.05, and the Semitendinosus muscle was tougher than Longissimus dorsi muscle.

  1. Peer review of RELAP5/MOD3 documentation

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Craddick, W.G.

    1993-01-01

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

  2. 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

  3. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kowalczuk, Maria K; Dudbridge, Frank; Nanda, Shreeya; Harriman, Stephanie L; Patel, Jigisha; Moylan, Elizabeth C

    2015-09-29

    To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys. BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models. Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation. For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (previewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used. Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a

  4. [Quality Assurance in Sociomedical Evaluation by Peer Review: A Pilot Project of the German Statutory Pension Insurance].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Strahl, A; Gerlich, C; Wolf, H-D; Gehrke, J; Müller-Garnn, A; Vogel, H

    2016-03-01

    The sociomedical evaluation by the German Pension Insurance serves the purpose of determining entitlement to disability pensions. A quality assurance concept for the sociomedical evaluation was developed, which is based on a peer Review process. Peer review is an established process of external quality assurance in health care. The review is based on a hierarchically constructed manual that was evaluated in this pilot project. The database consists of 260 medical reports for disability pension of 12 pension insurance agencies. 771 reviews from 19 peers were included in the evaluation of the inter-rater reliability. Kendall's coefficient of concordance W for more than 2 raters is used as primary measure of inter-rater reliability. Reliability appeared to be heterogeneous. Kendalls W varies for the particular criteria from 0.09 to 0.88 and reached for primary criterion reproducibility a value of 0.37. The reliability of the manual seemed acceptable in the context of existing research data and is in line with existing peer review research outcomes. Nevertheless, the concordance is limited and requires optimisation. Starting points for improvement can be seen in a systematic training and regular user meetings of the peers involved. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

  5. Putrefactive rigor: apparent rigor mortis due to gas distension.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gill, James R; Landi, Kristen

    2011-09-01

    Artifacts due to decomposition may cause confusion for the initial death investigator, leading to an incorrect suspicion of foul play. Putrefaction is a microorganism-driven process that results in foul odor, skin discoloration, purge, and bloating. Various decompositional gases including methane, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen will cause the body to bloat. We describe 3 instances of putrefactive gas distension (bloating) that produced the appearance of inappropriate rigor, so-called putrefactive rigor. These gases may distend the body to an extent that the extremities extend and lose contact with their underlying support surface. The medicolegal investigator must recognize that this is not true rigor mortis and the body was not necessarily moved after death for this gravity-defying position to occur.

  6. Quality Assurance Program: Argonne peer review activities for the salt host-rock portion of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Edgar, D.E.

    1986-01-01

    This Quality Assurance (QA) Program sets forth the methods, controls, and procedures used to ensure that the results of Argonne National Laboratory's peer review activities are consistently of the highest quality and responsive to Salt Repository Project Office's needs and directives. Implementation of the QA procedures described herein establishes an operational framework so that task activities are traceable and the activities and decisions that influence the overall quality of the peer review process and results are fully documented. 56 refs., 5 figs., 6 tabs

  7. 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.

  8. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Geithner, Christina A.; Pollastro, Alexandria N.

    2016-01-01

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

  12. 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...

  13. The Effectiveness of Peer Review of Teaching When Performed between Early-Career Academics

    Science.gov (United States)

    Woodman, Richard J.; Parappilly, Maria B.

    2015-01-01

    The success of peer review of teaching (PRT) in shaping teaching practice during an academic's formative years may depend on the peers' teaching experience and the frequency of evaluation. Two Australian early-career University lecturers with no previous experience of peer review performed a single PRT on one another following a one week academic…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Knight, Carolyn

    2013-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Dominik Dolezal

    2018-02-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2016-05-01

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

  17. 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...

  18. Impact of post-rigor high pressure processing on the physicochemical and microbial shelf-life of cultured red abalone (Haliotis rufescens).

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hughes, Brianna H; Perkins, L Brian; Yang, Tom C; Skonberg, Denise I

    2016-03-01

    High pressure processing (HPP) of post-rigor abalone at 300MPa for 10min extended the refrigerated shelf-life to four times that of unprocessed controls. Shucked abalone meats were processed at 100 or 300MPa for 5 or 10min, and stored at 2°C for 35days. Treatments were analyzed for aerobic plate count (APC), total volatile base nitrogen (TVBN), K-value, biogenic amines, color, and texture. APC did not exceed 10(6) and TVBN levels remained below 35mg/100g for 35days for the 300MPa treatments. No biogenic amines were detected in the 300MPa treatments, but putrescine and cadaverine were detected in the control and 100MPa treatments. Color and texture were not affected by HPP or storage time. These results indicate that post-rigor processing at 300MPa for 10min can significantly increase refrigerated shelf-life of abalone without affecting chemical or physical quality characteristics important to consumers. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  19. Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit--a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kumpf, Oliver; Bloos, Frank; Bause, Hanswerner; Brinkmann, Alexander; Deja, Maria; Marx, Gernot; Kaltwasser, Arnold; Dubb, Rolf; Muhl, Elke; Greim, Clemens-A; Weiler, Norbert; Chop, Ines; Jonitz, Günther; Schaefer, Henning; Felsenstein, Matthias; Liebeskind, Ursula; Leffmann, Carsten; Jungbluth, Annemarie; Waydhas, Christian; Pronovost, Peter; Spies, Claudia; Braun, Jan-Peter

    2014-01-01

    Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports. Retrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs - representing over 300 patient beds - had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented. External assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interesting Conclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators.

  20. Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kumpf, Oliver; Bloos, Frank; Bause, Hanswerner; Brinkmann, Alexander; Deja, Maria; Marx, Gernot; Kaltwasser, Arnold; Dubb, Rolf; Muhl, Elke; Greim, Clemens-A.; Weiler, Norbert; Chop, Ines; Jonitz, Günther; Schaefer, Henning; Felsenstein, Matthias; Liebeskind, Ursula; Leffmann, Carsten; Jungbluth, Annemarie; Waydhas, Christian; Pronovost, Peter; Spies, Claudia; Braun, Jan-Peter

    2014-01-01

    Introduction: Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports. Methods: Retrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs – representing over 300 patient beds – had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented. Results: External assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interesting Conclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators. PMID:25587245

  1. 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.

  2. Atomic Questions Group peer review mission to Bulgaria

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Vapirev, E.; Georgiev, J.; Sabinov, S.

    2004-01-01

    The objective of the Atomic Questions Group (AQG) peer review mission (17-19 Nov 2003) was to monitor the status of the recommendations contained in the 2001 Report on Nuclear Safety in the Context of Enlargement focusing specifically those recommendations identified in the 2002 Peer Review Status Report as requiring further attention or monitoring. Most AQG/WPNS 2001 recommendations were found as adequately addressed with the exception of the following to which Bulgaria was expected to devote further attention: 2nd General Recommendation NPP type I regarding Safety Analysis Reports (SARs); 1st Specific Recommendation NPP type I regarding the new nuclear legislation; 1st General Recommendation Other Nuclear Installations type II regarding the storage of radioactive waste. In addition WPNS recommended further monitoring of the following commitments: 1st General Recommendation NPP type I regarding the plant specific safety improvement programmes - to ensure that the programmes are completed in accordance with the plans; 2nd General Recommendation NPP type I regarding Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) - to ensure that the SARs are completed in accordance with the plans; 2nd General Recommendation NPP type I regarding Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) - to ensure the completion of work on EOPs in accordance with the plans and so that these provide for the development of appropriate guidance on the management of beyond design basis accidents; 2nd Specific Recommendation NPP type I regarding the resources of the regulator - to ensure that adequate human and financial resources will be provided according to the developed plan; 5th Specific Recommendation NPP type I regarding the implementation of specific upgrading improvements at Kozloduy units 3 and 4- to specifically follow these items during the monitoring associated with 1st General recommendation NPP type I, Upgrading programme; 6th Specific Recommendation NPP type I regarding high-energy pipe breaks at Kozloduy

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2012-01-01

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

  4. Peer review of RELAP5/MOD3 documentation

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Craddick, W.G.

    1994-01-01

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

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

    1997-02-01

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

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

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

    2001-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  8. HST Peer Review, Where We've Been, Where We Are Now and Possibly Where the Future Lies

    Science.gov (United States)

    Blacker, Brett S.; Macchetto, Duccio; Meylan, Georges; Stanghellini, Letizia; van der Marel, Roeland P.

    2002-12-01

    In some eyes, the Phase I proposal selection process is the most important activity handled by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). Proposing for HST and other missions consists of requesting observing time and/or archival research funding. This step is called Phase I, where the scientific merit of a proposal is considered by a community based peer-review process. Accepted proposals then proceed thru Phase II, where the observations are specified in sufficient detail to enable scheduling on the telescope. Each cycle the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Telescope Allocation Committee (TAC) reviews proposals and awards observing time that is valued at $0.5B, when the total expenditures for HST over its lifetime are figured on an annual basis. This is in fact a very important endeavor that we continue to fine-tune and tweak. This process is open to the science community and we constantly receive comments and praise for this process. Several cycles ago we instituted several significant changes to the process to address concerns such as: Fewer, broader panels, with redundancy to avoid conflicts of interest; Redefinition of the TAC role, to focus on Larger programs; and incentives for the panels to award time to medium sized proposals. In the last cycle, we offered new initiatives to try to enhance the scientific output of the telescope. Some of these initiatives were: Hubble Treasury Program; AR Legacy Program; and the AR Theory Program. This paper will outline the current HST Peer review process. We will discuss why we made changes and how we made changes from our original system. We will also discuss some ideas as to where we may go in the future to generate a stronger science program for HST and to reduce the burden on the science community. This paper is an update of the status of the HST Peer Review Process that was described in the published paper "Evolution of the HST Proposal Selection Process".

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kilsdonk, Melvin J; Siesling, Sabine; Otter, Rene; van Harten, Wim H

    2016-03-01

    External peer review was introduced in general hospitals in the Netherlands in 1994 to assess and improve the multidisciplinary team approach in cancer care. This paper aims to explore the value, perceived impact, and (future) role of external peer review in cancer care. Semistructured interviews were held with clinicians, oncology nurses, and managers from fifteen general hospitals that participated in three rounds of peer review over a period of 16 years. Interviewees reflected on the goals and expectations, experiences, perceived impact, and future role of external peer review. Transcriptions of the interviews were coded to discover recurrent themes. Improving clinical care and organization were the main motives for participation. Positive impact was perceived on multiple aspects of care such as shared responsibilities, internal prioritization of cancer care, improved communication, and a clear structure and position of cancer care within general hospitals. Establishing a direct relationship between the external peer review and organizational or clinical impact proved to be difficult. Criticism was raised on the content of the program being too theoretical and organization-focussed after three rounds. According to most stakeholders, external peer review can improve multidisciplinary team work in cancer care; however, the acceptance is threatened by a perceived disbalance between effort and visible clinical impact. Leaner and more clinically focused programs are needed to keep repeated peer reviews challenging and worthwhile. © 2015 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  10. 76 FR 55384 - External Peer Review Meeting for the Draft Guidance of Applying Quantitative Data To Develop Data...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-09-07

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Iqbal, Isabeau A.

    2014-01-01

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

  12. 77 FR 58802 - Notice of Intent To Seek OMB Approval To Collect Information: Forms Pertaining to the Peer Review...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-09-24

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-01-01

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

  14. Common issues found in operating safety peer review of nuclear power plants

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Wu Meijing; Zhang Fengping

    2004-01-01

    The 3rd stage of the safety culture promotion in a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) is characterized by establishing learning organization and continuous self-improvement. Peer Review was used as an effective tool by a lot of NPPs to improve the overall management and performance. This Paper provided the WANO Peer Review Methodology, the common issues found, the recommendation or suggestions to correct the area for improvement. It may be beneficial to other NPP which planning to have Peer Review or Self Evaluation. (authors)

  15. 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...

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mićo Tatalović

    2013-11-01

    Full Text Available In October this year, Science published a journalistic investigation into quality of peer review in open access journals [1]. The results were sobering. Around 60% of all journals accepted to publish a research paper with most obvious and basic mistakes - in fact the whole paper, its data, authors and their affiliations were entirely made up by the journalist, John Bohannon, to expose poor peer review. The article has provoked a lot of media attention as well as a backlash from open-access publishers and supporters, who called it unethical, unsound and even accused the journalist of being racist (for making up authors with African names. But regardless of the criticisms, the paper’s surprising findings stand and should be a cause of grave concern for science and science publishing: it shows that many - if not most - open access journals do not have a strict enough editorial and peer review process to catch poor research and flawed papers. The article intrigued me especially, as I commissioned a similar feature article for the website where I edit new and feature, SciDev.Net, which we published earlier this year [2]. I also had the idea of sending out fake and flawed papers to catch ’bad journals’ who accept it, but the time and money needed to do this meant we ended up skipping the investigative part, and we based our article only on reporting interviews with people affected. The key findings were that this is a global problem with some journals prey on researchers going for their money but not providing proper peer review, and that pressure to publish draws scientists, especially in developing countries, to publish in such journals. Experts suggested investigation and regulation is needed to ensure proper peer review, but there was little indication that this regulation will happen any time soon. Another key reason for not sending out fake papers were concerns over how to do this ethically and legally - in fact, the prospects of being

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brigati, Jennifer R.; Swann, Jerilyn M.

    2015-01-01

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

  18. Realizing rigor in the mathematics classroom

    CERN Document Server

    Hull, Ted H (Henry); Balka, Don S

    2014-01-01

    Rigor put within reach! Rigor: The Common Core has made it policy-and this first-of-its-kind guide takes math teachers and leaders through the process of making it reality. Using the Proficiency Matrix as a framework, the authors offer proven strategies and practical tools for successful implementation of the CCSS mathematical practices-with rigor as a central objective. You'll learn how to Define rigor in the context of each mathematical practice Identify and overcome potential issues, including differentiating instruction and using data

  19. Social marketing of water and sanitation products: a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Evans, W D; Pattanayak, S K; Young, S; Buszin, J; Rai, S; Bihm, Jasmine Wallace

    2014-06-01

    Like commercial marketing, social marketing uses the 4 "Ps" and seeks exchange of value between the marketer and consumer. Behaviors such as handwashing, and products such as those for oral rehydration treatment (ORT), can be marketed like commercial products in developing countries. Although social marketing in these areas is growing, there has been no systematic review of the current state of practice, research and evaluation. We searched the literature for published peer-reviewed studies available through major online publication databases. We identified manuscripts in the health, social science, and business literature on social marketing that used at least one of the 4 Ps of marketing and had a behavioral objective targeting the behaviors or products related to improving water and sanitation. We developed formalized decision rules and applied them in identifying articles for review. We initially identified 117 articles and reviewed a final set of 32 that met our criteria. Social marketing is a widespread strategy. Marketing efforts have created high levels of awareness of health threats and solutions, including behavior change and socially marketed products. There is widespread use of the 4 Ps of marketing, with price interventions being the least common. Evaluations show consistent improvements in behavioral mediators but mixed results in behavior change. Interventions have successfully used social marketing following widely recommended strategies. Future evaluations need to focus on mediators that explain successful behavior change in order to identify best practices and improve future programs. More rigorous evaluations including quasi-experimental designs and randomized trials are needed. More consistent reporting of evaluation results that permits meta-analysis of effects is needed. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-09-15

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

  1. Scientific rigor through videogames.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Treuille, Adrien; Das, Rhiju

    2014-11-01

    Hypothesis-driven experimentation - the scientific method - can be subverted by fraud, irreproducibility, and lack of rigorous predictive tests. A robust solution to these problems may be the 'massive open laboratory' model, recently embodied in the internet-scale videogame EteRNA. Deploying similar platforms throughout biology could enforce the scientific method more broadly. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  2. 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).

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

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

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

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

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

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

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

    2009-01-01

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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Erin B. Jensen

    2016-11-01

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

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Huang Ping

    2014-01-01

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

  7. DOE EERE Standard Operating Procedure Peer Review Best Practice and Procedures

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    None

    2009-01-18

    Objective review and advice from peers - peer review - provides managers, staff, and researchers with a powerful and effective tool for enhancing the management, relevance, effectiveness, and productivity of all of the EERE research, development

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

    OpenAIRE

    Black, Gordon C.

    1980-01-01

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

  9. 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...

  10. 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.

  11. Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hopewell, Sally; Witt, Claudia M; Linde, Klaus; Icke, Katja; Adedire, Olubusola; Kirtley, Shona; Altman, Douglas G

    2018-01-11

    Selective reporting of outcomes in clinical trials is a serious problem. We aimed to investigate the influence of the peer review process within biomedical journals on reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses within reports of randomised trials. Each month, PubMed (May 2014 to April 2015) was searched to identify primary reports of randomised trials published in six high-impact general and 12 high-impact specialty journals. The corresponding author of each trial was invited to complete an online survey asking authors about changes made to their manuscript as part of the peer review process. Our main outcomes were to assess: (1) the nature and extent of changes as part of the peer review process, in relation to reporting of the primary outcome(s) and/or primary statistical analysis; (2) how often authors followed these requests; and (3) whether this was related to specific journal or trial characteristics. Of 893 corresponding authors who were invited to take part in the online survey 258 (29%) responded. The majority of trials were multicentre (n = 191; 74%); median sample size 325 (IQR 138 to 1010). The primary outcome was clearly defined in 92% (n = 238), of which the direction of treatment effect was statistically significant in 49%. The majority responded (1-10 Likert scale) they were satisfied with the overall handling (mean 8.6, SD 1.5) and quality of peer review (mean 8.5, SD 1.5) of their manuscript. Only 3% (n = 8) said that the editor or peer reviewers had asked them to change or clarify the trial's primary outcome. However, 27% (n = 69) reported they were asked to change or clarify the statistical analysis of the primary outcome; most had fulfilled the request, the main motivation being to improve the statistical methods (n = 38; 55%) or avoid rejection (n = 30; 44%). Overall, there was little association between authors being asked to make this change and the type of journal, intervention, significance of the

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    2014-12-15

    Highlights: • SALTO peer review service is designed for reviewing of ageing management and NPPs’ preparedness LTO. • It has been established as an effective tool to review the compliance with IAEA safety standards. • The important issues for safe LTO are being identified by SALTO missions. • Analysis of those issues is provided in the paper. • This peer review service is strongly recommended for NPPs prior to entering LTO period. - Abstract: This paper presents main IAEA activities for safe long term operation (LTO) which includes establishment of IAEA Safety Standards and other LTO related documents, fostering information exchange and establishing databases and provision of SALTO (Safety Aspects of Long Term Operation) peer review service. This paper provides insights into IAEA SALTO peer review service objectives, scope and methodology. The SALTO peer review service was designed to assist nuclear power plant (NPP) operators in adopting a proper approach to LTO of their plants and in implementing complete and appropriate activities to ensure that plant safety will be maintained during the LTO period. The SALTO peer review service can also support regulators in establishing or improving regulatory and licensing strategies for LTO of NPPs. Issues derived from 19 SALTO missions and 2 LTO modules of OSART (Operational Safety Review Team) missions conducted during the period of 2005 to March 2014 are also analyzed in this paper.

  13. The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings.

    Science.gov (United States)

    McGrath, Robert J; Priestley, Jennifer Lewis; Zhou, Yiyun; Culligan, Patrick J

    2018-04-09

    Information from ratings sites are increasingly informing patient decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians. The current study sought to determine the validity of online patient ratings of physicians through comparison with physician peer review. We extracted 223,715 reviews of 41,104 physicians from 10 of the largest cities in the United States, including 1142 physicians listed as "America's Top Doctors" through physician peer review. Differences in mean online patient ratings were tested for physicians who were listed and those who were not. Overall, no differences were found between the online patient ratings based upon physician peer review status. However, statistical differences were found for four specialties (family medicine, allergists, internal medicine, and pediatrics), with online patient ratings significantly higher for those physicians listed as a peer-reviewed "Top Doctor" versus those who were not. The results of this large-scale study indicate that while online patient ratings are consistent with physician peer review for four nonsurgical, primarily in-office specializations, patient ratings were not consistent with physician peer review for specializations like anesthesiology. This result indicates that the validity of patient ratings varies by medical specialization. ©Robert J McGrath, Jennifer Lewis Priestley, Yiyun Zhou, Patrick J Culligan. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (http://www.i-jmr.org/), 09.04.2018.

  14. Dentistry in Taiwan, Republic of China: National health insurance reforms, illegal dentistry and peer review quality control

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Moore, R.; Shiau, Y.Y.

    1999-01-01

    licensure. Their popularity and price advantage has maintained a political base that affects policy decisions. Health care reforms of March, 1995 with a comprehensive national health insurance, as well as ambitious plans for systematic peer review quality control of dentists' work are unique health care......The dental health care system in Taiwan, Republic of China is described in terms of demographics, structure, context of treatment and historical development of the dental health care payment system. A notable characteristic of the system is the existence of trade dentists, who operate without...... developments worthy of the attention of health care policy makers in other countries who are studying health care reform processes...

  15. 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

  16. Statistical mechanics rigorous results

    CERN Document Server

    Ruelle, David

    1999-01-01

    This classic book marks the beginning of an era of vigorous mathematical progress in equilibrium statistical mechanics. Its treatment of the infinite system limit has not been superseded, and the discussion of thermodynamic functions and states remains basic for more recent work. The conceptual foundation provided by the Rigorous Results remains invaluable for the study of the spectacular developments of statistical mechanics in the second half of the 20th century.

  17. Using Peer Review to Support Development of Community Resources for Research Data Management

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Heather Soyka

    2017-09-01

    Full Text Available Objective: To ensure that resources designed to teach skills and best practices for scientific research data sharing and management are useful, the maintainers of those materials need to evaluate and update them to ensure their accuracy, currency, and quality. This paper advances the use and process of outside peer review for community resources in addressing ongoing accuracy, quality, and currency issues. It further describes the next step of moving the updated materials to an online collaborative community platform for future iterative review in order to build upon mechanisms for open science, ongoing iteration, participation, and transparent community engagement. Setting: Research data management resources were developed in support of the DataONE (Data Observation Network for Earth project, which has deployed a sustainable, long-term network to ensure the preservation and access to multi-scale, multi-discipline, and multi-national environmental and biological science data (Michener et al. 2012. Created by members of the Community Engagement and Education (CEE Working Group in 2011-2012, the freely available Educational Modules included three complementary components (slides, handouts, and exercises that were designed to be adaptable for use in classrooms as well as for research data management training. Methods: Because the modules were initially created and launched in 2011-2012, the current members of the (renamed Community Engagement and Outreach (CEO Working Group were concerned that the materials could be and / or quickly become outdated and should be reviewed for accuracy, currency, and quality. In November 2015, the Working Group developed an evaluation rubric for use by outside reviewers. Review criteria were developed based on surveys and usage scenarios from previous DataONE projects. Peer reviewers were selected from the DataONE community network for their expertise in the areas covered by one of the 11 educational modules

  18. 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

  19. The Open Science Peer Review Oath [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4ou

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jelena Aleksic

    2014-11-01

    Full Text Available One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions. Future incarnations of the various national Research Excellence Frameworks (REFs will evolve away from simple citations towards measurable societal value and impact. The proposed manifesto aspires to facilitate this goal by making transparency, reproducibility and citizen-scientist engagement (with the knowledge-creation and dissemination processes the default parameters for performing sound research.

  20. Peer review for conceptual design of the new safe confinement for the Chernobyl NPP shelter object

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Kupny, Valentin; Shestopalov, Vyacheslav; Sobotovich, Emlen; Tokarevsky, Vladimir; Veryuzhsky, Yuri; Abdulakhatov, Murat

    2005-01-01

    The results of peer review for Conceptual Design of the New Safe Confinement (NSC) for Chernobyl NPP Shelter Object in the Arch option are presented. NSC consists of: 1) main building, including steel arch structure of tubular trusses, covered with thin-sheet metal (its bay in the direction north-south is equal to 257.44 m, height - 108.39 m, length - 150 m), foundations, western and eastern front walls; 2) technological (process) building, including sites for decontamination, fragmentation and packaging, sanitary locks, workshops and other technological premises; 3) auxiliary systems and structures. The following questions are considered: evolution of the requirements to the new Shelter-2, compliance of functional and engineering solutions; compliance with normative documents, standards and laws. The Arch design has no advantages compared with other known options for SO transformation into an ecologically safe system: by its process capabilities, it yields to the Dock-Caisson design; by cost of construction and operational expenses, it yields to the 'Monolith design; by dose expenses for construction and strength parameters it yields to the 'Rainbow design. (author)

  1. 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

  2. National Ignition Facility, High-Energy-Density and Inertial Confinement Fusion, Peer-Review Panel (PRP) Final Report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Keane, C. J. [Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)

    2014-01-28

    The National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is operated as a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) user facility in accordance with Department of Energy (DOE) best practices, including peer-reviewed experiments, regular external reviews of performance, and the use of a management structure that facilitates user and stakeholder feedback. NIF facility time is managed using processes similar to those in other DOE science facilities and is tailored to meet the mix of missions and customers that NIF supports. The NIF Governance Plan describes the process for allocating facility time on NIF and for creating the shot schedule. It also includes the flow of responsibility from entity to entity. The plan works to ensure that NIF meets its mission goals using the principles of scientific peer review, including transparency and cooperation among the sponsor, the NIF staff, and the various user communities. The NIF Governance Plan, dated September 28, 2012, was accepted and signed by LLNL Director Parney Albright, NIF Director Ed Moses, and Don Cook and Thomas D’Agostino of NNSA. Figure 1 shows the organizational structure for NIF Governance.

  3. 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.

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1999-06-01

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

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

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Lachaume, J.-L.; Bélot, G.

    2015-01-01

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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Masic, Izet

    2016-01-01

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

  7. Press Start: the value of an online student-led, peer-reviewed game studies journal

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Matthew Barr

    2017-12-01

    Full Text Available In this article, an online student journal is described, and the ways in which student participants value the journal are discussed. Press Start is a peer-reviewed international journal of game studies, which aims to publish the best student work related to the academic study of video games. Content analysis of qualitative survey data (n = 29 provides insights into what students value about the journal, revealing six broad themes: community and support, inclusiveness and accessibility, the published research, feedback from peer review, experience of conducting peer review and the opportunity to publish. The article concludes by suggesting that engagement with online student journals should not be limited in terms of geography or the level of study, unless there are robust pedagogical reasons for doing so.

  8. 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.

  9. Effects of peer review on communication skills and learning motivation among nursing students.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yoo, Moon Sook; Chae, Sun-Mi

    2011-04-01

    The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of video-based peer review on communication skills and learning motivation among nursing students. A non-equivalent control with pretest-posttest design was used. The participants were 47 sophomore nursing students taking a fundamentals of nursing course at a nursing college in Korea. Communication with a standardized patient was videotaped for evaluation. The intervention group used peer reviews to evaluate the videotaped performance; a small group of four students watched the videotape of each student and then provided feedback. The control group assessed themselves alone after watching their own videos. Communication skills and learning motivation were measured. The intervention group showed significantly higher communication skills and learning motivation after the intervention than did the control group. The findings suggest that peer review is an effective learning method for nursing students to improve their communication skills and increase their motivation to learn. Copyright 2011, SLACK Incorporated.

  10. Does Peer Review of Radiation Plans Affect Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Brunskill, Kelsey; Nguyen, Timothy K.; Boldt, R. Gabriel; Louie, Alexander V.; Warner, Andrew; Marks, Lawrence B.; Palma, David A.

    2017-01-01

    Purpose: Peer review is a recommended component of quality assurance in radiation oncology; however, it is resource-intensive and its effect on patient care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the published data to assess the reported clinical impact of peer review on radiation treatment plans. Methods and Materials: A systematic review of published English studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and abstracts published from major radiation oncology scientific meeting proceedings. For inclusion, the studies were required to report the effect of peer review on ≥1 element of treatment planning (eg, target volume or organ-at-risk delineation, dose prescription or dosimetry). Results: The initial search strategy identified 882 potentially eligible studies, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text review and final analysis. Across a total of 11,491 patient cases, peer review programs led to modifications in a weighted mean of 10.8% of radiation treatment plans. Five studies differentiated between major and minor changes and reported weighted mean rates of change of 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The most common changes were related to target volume delineation (45.2% of changed plans), dose prescription or written directives (24.4%), and non-target volume delineation or normal tissue sparing (7.5%). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that peer review leads to changes in clinical care in approximately 1 of every 9 cases overall. This is similar to the reported rates of change in peer review studies from other oncology-related specialties, such as radiology and pathology.

  11. Experience of the United States in Hosting and Supporting IAEA Peer Review Missions

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Mamish, N.

    2016-01-01

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) provides a number of peer review services to its Member States. The United States has strongly supported these peer reviews since their inception. In 2010, the United States hosted an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission, with a follow-up mission completed in 2014. The missions provided valuable recommendations and suggestions, identified a number of best practices, and acknowledged the prompt and effective actions taken by the NRC following the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Through hosting an International Physical Protection Advisory Service (IPPAS) mission in 2013, the United States benefited both from the insights provided by the team, as well as the U.S. Government’s gap analyses and preparatory efforts in advance of the mission. The United States strongly supports the IAEA’s Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) program, inviting a peer review mission to a U.S. nuclear power plant every 3 years. Although OSART is an operational, not regulatory, peer review, the NRC provides funding for the mission and gives inspection credit to operators that host them. The United States also contributes significant technical expertise to IAEA peer review missions hosted by other Member States. With the IRRS and IPPAS reaching their 10th and 20th anniversaries respectively, these programs have improved as they have matured. However, it remains critical for Member States to continue to support these programs, and provide feedback to the IAEA Secretariat on their effectiveness and areas where IAEA might enhance them. Doing so will ensure peer reviews remain an effective tool for strengthening nuclear safety and security worldwide. (author)

  12. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Black, Gordon C.

    1980-01-01

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

  14. Rigorous, robust and systematic: Qualitative research and its contribution to burn care. An integrative review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kornhaber, Rachel Anne; de Jong, A E E; McLean, L

    2015-12-01

    Qualitative methods are progressively being implemented by researchers for exploration within healthcare. However, there has been a longstanding and wide-ranging debate concerning the relative merits of qualitative research within the health care literature. This integrative review aimed to exam the contribution of qualitative research in burns care and subsequent rehabilitation. Studies were identified using an electronic search strategy using the databases PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Scopus of peer reviewed primary research in English between 2009 to April 2014 using Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review method as a guide for analysis. From the 298 papers identified, 26 research papers met the inclusion criteria. Across all studies there was an average of 22 participants involved in each study with a range of 6-53 participants conducted across 12 nations that focussed on burns prevention, paediatric burns, appropriate acquisition and delivery of burns care, pain and psychosocial implications of burns trauma. Careful and rigorous application of qualitative methodologies promotes and enriches the development of burns knowledge. In particular, the key elements in qualitative methodological process and its publication are critical in disseminating credible and methodologically sound qualitative research. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

  15. SALTO guidelines. Guidelines for peer review of long term operation and ageing management of nuclear power plants

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2008-01-01

    The average age of nuclear power plants (NPPs) connected to the grid worldwide is increasing. About 20% of all the power reactors operating worldwide have been in operation for more than 30 years, and almost 50% have been in operation for 20 to 30 years, while a rather limited number of new NPPs are being put into operation. In view of this trend, many countries are giving a high priority to continuing the operation of NPPs beyond the time frame originally anticipated (e.g. 30 or 40 years). Long term operation (LTO) for NPPs is operation beyond the established time frame originally set forth by the license term, design limits, standards or regulations. LTO needs to be justified by a safety assessment considering life limiting processes and features for structures, systems and components. Proper and safe LTO is based on the experience and practices of various countries in areas such as plant license renewal, life extension, continued operation and life management. Other activities, including periodic safety review, ageing management and plant modification, are also relevant to LTO. Ageing management of an NPP is an important activity that must be considered before and in conjunction with the decision to enter LTO. Ageing management of NPPs deals with the physical ageing of structures, systems and components (SSCs) that can result in the degradation of their performance characteristics. Thus ageing management helps ensure that SSCs important to safety remain capable of performing their required safety functions. An effective ageing management programme (AMP) is a key element of the safe and reliable operation of NPPs during the originally planned time frame originally planned for their operation, as well as for the period of LTO. In order to assist Member States in managing ageing effectively, the IAEA is developing related safety standards and guidance publications. International peer review is a useful tool for Member States to exchange experience, learn from each

  16. Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Morse, Janice M

    2015-09-01

    Criteria for determining the trustworthiness of qualitative research were introduced by Guba and Lincoln in the 1980s when they replaced terminology for achieving rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability with dependability, credibility, and transferability. Strategies for achieving trustworthiness were also introduced. This landmark contribution to qualitative research remains in use today, with only minor modifications in format. Despite the significance of this contribution over the past four decades, the strategies recommended to achieve trustworthiness have not been critically examined. Recommendations for where, why, and how to use these strategies have not been developed, and how well they achieve their intended goal has not been examined. We do not know, for example, what impact these strategies have on the completed research. In this article, I critique these strategies. I recommend that qualitative researchers return to the terminology of social sciences, using rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability. I then make recommendations for the appropriate use of the strategies recommended to achieve rigor: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and thick, rich description; inter-rater reliability, negative case analysis; peer review or debriefing; clarifying researcher bias; member checking; external audits; and triangulation. © The Author(s) 2015.

  17. Rigor index, fillet yield and proximate composition of cultured striped catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus for its suitability in processing industries in Bangladesh

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Salma Noor-E Islami

    2014-12-01

    Full Text Available Rigor-index in market-size striped catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus, locally called Thai-Pangas was determined to assess fillet yield for production of value-added products. In whole fish, rigor started within 1 hr after death under both iced and room temperature conditions while rigor-index reached a maximum of 72.23% within 8 hr and 85.5% within 5 hr at room temperature and iced condition, respectively, which was fully relaxed after 22 hr under both storage conditions. Post-mortem muscle pH decreased to 6.8 after 2 hr, 6.2 after 8 hr and sharp increase to 6.9 after 9 hr. There was a positive correlation between rigor progress and pH shift in fish fillets. Hand filleting was done post-rigor and fillet yield experiment showed 50.4±2.1% fillet, 8.0±0.2% viscera, 8.0±1.3% skin and 32.0±3.2% carcass could be obtained from Thai-Pangas. Proximate composition analysis of four regions of Thai-Pangas viz., head region, middle region, tail region and viscera revealed moisture 78.36%, 81.14%, 81.45% and 57.33%; protein 15.83%, 15.97%, 16.14% and 17.20%; lipid 4.61%, 1.82%, 1.32% and 24.31% and ash 1.09%, 0.96%, 0.95% and 0.86%, respectively indicating suitability of Thai-Pangas for production of value-added products such as fish fillets.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2012-01-01

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

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

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

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

    2012-07-01

    Following the severe accidents which started in the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP on 11 March 2011, the European Council requested that a comprehensive safety and risk assessment, in light of preliminary lessons learned, be performed on all EU nuclear plants. Therefore, stress tests and peer review assessing natural initiating events, the loss of safety systems and severe accident management have been performed in the 15 European Union countries with nuclear power plants as well as Switzerland and Ukraine. The final peer review report of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) highlights four main areas for improvement to be explored across Europe: 1. Development by the Western European Nuclear Regulators' Association (WENRA), with the contribution of the best available EU expertise, of a European guidance on assessment of natural hazards and margins; 2. Importance of Periodic Safety Review to be underlined by ENSREG; 3. Expeditious implementation of the recognised measures to protect containment integrity; 4. Prevention of accidents resulting from natural hazards and limitation of their consequences. The peer review of the European stress tests was completed in April 2012. In their conclusive statement issued 26 April 2012, the national European regulators and the European Commission as European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) required that follow-up would occur by way of an ENSREG action plan. Country specific action plans will be developed and peer review workshop will be organised to share lessons learned on the implementation of post-Fukushima safety improvements.

  20. Peer Review Plan for OPPT Work Plan Risk Assessment of 1 - Bromopropane (“1 - BP”)

    Science.gov (United States)

    This document outlines the peer review plan for a risk assessment which addresses occupational uses of 1-BP in dry-cleaning and foam gluing operations, consumer uses in aerosol solvent cleaners and spray adhesives, and its effects on human health.