Science.gov

Sample records for peer reviewed journal

  1. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

    Scientific peer review is pivotal in health care research in that it facilitates the evaluation of findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. While the origins of peer review can be traced to the societies of the eighteenth century, it became an institutionalized part of the scholarly process in the latter half of the twentieth century. This was a response to the growth of research and greater subject specialization. With the current increase in the number of specialty journals, the peer review process continues to evolve to meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The peer review process itself faces challenges. Unblinded peer review might suffer from positive or negative bias towards certain authors, specialties, and institutions. Peer review can also suffer when editors and/or reviewers might be unable to understand the contents of the submitted manuscript. This can result in an inability to detect major flaws, or revelations of major flaws after acceptance of publication by the editors. Other concerns include potentially long delays in publication and challenges uncovering plagiarism, duplication, corruption and scientific misconduct. Conversely, a multitude of these challenges have led to claims of scientific misconduct and an erosion of faith. These challenges have invited criticism of the peer review process itself. However, despite its imperfections, the peer review process enjoys widespread support in the scientific community. Peer review bias is one of the major focuses of today's scientific assessment of the literature. Various types of peer review bias include content-based bias, confirmation bias, bias due to conservatism, bias against interdisciplinary research, publication bias, and the bias of conflicts of interest. Consequently, peer review would benefit from various changes and improvements with appropriate training of reviewers to provide quality reviews to maintain the quality and integrity of research without bias. Thus, an appropriate, transparent peer review is not only ideal, but necessary for the future to facilitate scientific progress. PMID:25675064

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

    PubMed Central

    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. PMID:25767695

  3. Thank you to Virology Journal's peer reviewers in 2013

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    The editors of Virology Journal would like to thank all our reviewers who have contributed to the journal in Volume 10 (2013). The success of any scientific journal depends on an effective and strict peer review process and Virology Journal could not operate without your contribution. We are grateful to the large number of reviewers (1026 to be exact!), who have done a great job in not only lifting the quality of the journal’s scientific peer reviewing process, but also helped us to achieve our goal of a median time to first decision of just 35 days. Our record time from submission to online, open access, publication in 2013 was 22 days for a Research Article [1] and 28 days for a Review [2]. This is a great achievement by any standard. We look forward to your continuous support of Virology Journal either as an invited reviewer or a contributing author in the years to come.

  4. Accelerated Peer-Review Journal Usage Technique for Undergraduates

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  5. Peer reviews and the role of a journal editor

    Technology Transfer Automated Retrieval System (TEKTRAN)

    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...

  6. Consistency between Peer Reviewers for a Clinical Specialty Journal.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cullen, David J.; Macaulay, Anne

    1992-01-01

    Analysis of reliability among peer reviews of 422 unsolicited articles for the "Journal of Clinical Anesthesia" found that most articles' reviews were consistent or near consistent. However, articles reviewed by two of the editorial board members were much less likely to be accepted than those read by two nonmembers. (Author/MSE)

  7. Peer-review policy and guidelines for Biochemia Medica Journal.

    PubMed

    Smol?i?, Vesna Šupak; Simundi?, Ana-Maria

    2014-01-01

    Peer review is widely used system for evaluating manuscripts prior to publication. It has been and still is widely used tool for making justified and fair editorial decision. However, the evidence of its efficacy is limited and it has been criticized to be time-consuming, biased, inconsistent, conservative, and open to abuse. As a result, researchers, editors and policymakers have questioned its objectivity and purpose. Nevertheless, this should not be the reason for abandoning the principles of peer review, but to make the additional efforts towards its improvement. Therefore, this Research Integrity Corner aims to describe basic principles of peer review and to introduce Biochemia Medica's guidelines for peer reviewers. Our intention is to help our peer reviewers provide evaluations that are as fair and objective as possible, while helping the journal publish innovative research of the highest quality. PMID:25351350

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

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

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

  9. Reporting statistical analyses in peer review journal articles.

    PubMed

    Stephens, Richard; Grant, Maria J

    2015-06-01

    As a regular referee for the Health Information and Libraries Journal, Richard Stephens--Winner of the 2014 Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize--has been impressed by the science on offer in the Health Information and Libraries Journal. But he has also been struck by how often similar problems with statistical analysis reporting come up during the review process. Acknowledging that statistics can be scary, he advocates that they should be simply viewed as a means of communicating ideas. In this editorial, he provides some straightforward guidelines on reporting statistical analyses in peer review journal articles, highlights pitfalls to avoid and illustrates best practice to aim for. PMID:25943969

  10. journals.tdl.org/twj An online, peer-reviewed journal

    E-print Network

    Yang, Zong-Liang

    journals.tdl.org/twj An online, peer-reviewed journal published in cooperation with the Texas Water Resources Institute Volume 1, Number 1September 2010 TEXAS WATER JOURNAL Inaugural Issue Desalination and Long-Haul Water Transfer as a Water Supply for Dallas, Texas Climate Change Impacts on Texas Water

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

    PubMed

    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. PMID:25443027

  12. The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal

    PubMed Central

    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. Background Our study purpose was to assess the predictive validity of reviewer quality ratings and editorial decisions in a general medicine journal. Methods Submissions to the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) between July 2004 and June 2005 were included. We abstracted JGIM peer review quality ratings, verified the publication status of all articles and calculated an impact factor for published articles (Rw) by dividing the 3-year citation rate by the average for this group of papers; an Rw>1 indicates a greater than average impact. Results Of 507 submissions, 128 (25%) were published in JGIM, 331 rejected (128 with review) and 48 were either not resubmitted after revision was requested or were withdrawn by the author. Of 331 rejections, 243 were published elsewhere. Articles published in JGIM had a higher citation rate than those published elsewhere (Rw: 1.6 vs. 1.1, p?=?0.002). Reviewer quality ratings of article quality had good internal consistency and reviewer recommendations markedly influenced publication decisions. There was no quality rating cutpoint that accurately distinguished high from low impact articles. There was a stepwise increase in Rw for articles rejected without review, rejected after review or accepted by JGIM (Rw 0.60 vs. 0.87 vs. 1.56, p<0.0005). However, there was low agreement between reviewers for quality ratings and publication recommendations. The editorial publication decision accurately discriminated high and low impact articles in 68% of submissions. We found evidence of better accuracy with a greater number of reviewers. Conclusions The peer review process largely succeeds in selecting high impact articles and dispatching lower impact ones, but the process is far from perfect. While the inter-rater reliability between individual reviewers is low, the accuracy of sorting is improved with a greater number of reviewers. PMID:21799867

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

    PubMed

    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. PMID:12616242

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Porter, Stephen R.

    2007-01-01

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

  15. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-10-01

    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.

  16. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-11-01

    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.

  17. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-09-01

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

  18. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-07-01

    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.

  19. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-06-01

    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.

  20. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-08-01

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

  1. Scholarly Journals, including peer-reviewed Popular Magazines Trade Publications Content Articles reporting research results, reviews of the

    E-print Network

    Huang, Haiying

    Scholarly Journals, including peer-reviewed Popular Magazines Trade Publications Content Articles reporting research results, reviews of the research (review articles), and book reviews Current events and general interest articles Articles about a certain business or industry Purpose To share research

  2. Demographic Research a free, expedited, online journal of peer-reviewed research and commentary

    E-print Network

    Raftery, Adrian

    Demographic Research a free, expedited, online journal of peer-reviewed research and commentary in the population sciences published by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Konrad-Zuse Str. 1, D-18057 Rostock · GERMANY www.demographic-research.org DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH VOLUME 26, ARTICLE 15, PAGES

  3. Demographic Research a free, expedited, online journal of peer-reviewed research and commentary

    E-print Network

    Rockwell, Robert F.

    Demographic Research a free, expedited, online journal of peer-reviewed research and commentary in the population sciences published by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Konrad-Zuse Str. 1, D-18057 Rostock · GERMANY www.demographic-research.org DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH VOLUME 23, ARTICLE 19, PAGES

  4. Student Learning through Mentored Scholarship (SLMS) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, open-access journal

    E-print Network

    ://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen to submit your manuscript. Student Learning through Mentored Scholarship A SAGE Open Journal Editors: Ed as a learning tool. We encourage you to submit your manuscript through SAGE Track, SAGE's web-based peer review the author acceptance fee of $99. For more information, view the SAGE Open manuscript submission guidelines

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2012-01-01

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

  6. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-11-01

    All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 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.

  7. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-11-01

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

  8. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-09-01

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

  9. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-10-01

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

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

    PubMed

    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. PMID:26267491

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

    PubMed Central

    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

  12. Thanking our peer reviewers

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

    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.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Navalta, James W.; Lyons, T. Scott

    2010-01-01

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

  14. The Art and Politics of Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rojewski, Jay W.; Domenico, Desirae M.

    2004-01-01

    Peer reviewed manuscripts contain a certain level of merit, as they have survived the scrutiny of reviewers who possess some expertise in the relevant area. This article discusses the purpose of reviewing manuscripts for publication in scholarly journals. Various aspects and issues of the peer review process are described, including reviewer

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

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

    Background 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. Methods 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. Discussion 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 at their respective journalology-related tasks, little is known about the characteristics of existing training opportunities, including their effectiveness. The proposed systematic review will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of training, therefore giving potential trainees, course designers, and decision-makers evidence to help inform their choices and policies regarding the merits of specific training opportunities or types of training. PMID:23773340

  16. PEER REVIEW PROGRAM

    SciTech Connect

    MOGHISSI, A ALAN; LOVE, BETTY R; STRAJA, SORIN R

    2007-09-29

    The Institute for Regulatory Science (RS) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) jointly estab lished a peer-review program. As the program evolved, four types of review were established. A process for stakeholder participation in peer review eetings was also developed. While a committee established by the ASME provided oversight to the peer-review process, the RSI managed the day-to-day operations of peer review panels. In addition to the reports resulting from peer review of specific projects, several documents were prepared to facilitate the review process, all of which were widely distributed.

  17. NASA Product Peer Review Process

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    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.

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

    PubMed

    Weng, Naidong

    2012-11-01

    In the pharmaceutical industry, bioanalysis is very dynamic and is probably one of the few fields of research covering the entire drug discovery, development and post-marketing process. Important decisions on drug safety can partially rely on bioanalytical data, which therefore can be subject to regulatory scrutiny. Bioanalytical scientists have historically contributed significant numbers of scientific manuscripts in many peer-reviewed analytical journals. All of these journals provide some high-level instructions, but they also leave sufficient flexibility for reviewers to perform independent critique and offer recommendations for each submitted manuscript. Reviewers play a pivotal role in the process of bioanalytical publication to ensure the publication of high-quality manuscripts in a timely fashion. Their efforts usually lead to improved manuscripts. However, it has to be a joint effort among authors, reviewers and editors to promote scientifically sound and ethically fair bioanalytical publications. Most of the submitted manuscripts were well written with only minor or moderate revisions required for further improvement. Nevertheless, there were small numbers of submitted manuscripts that did not meet the requirements for publications because of scientific or ethical deficiencies, which are discussed in this Letter to the Editor. PMID:22987619

  19. Journal Publications (Peer-Reviewed) 1. Wang, Q,; Zhang, Z.; Gao, Y.; Wu, J.; Duan, L.; Sun, L.; Guo, Z. Synthesis and Characterization of Co-

    E-print Network

    Chandy, John A.

    1 Journal Publications (Peer-Reviewed) 1. Wang, Q,; Zhang, Z.; Gao, Y.; Wu, J.; Duan, L.; Sun, L) Catalyst. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 2013 (accepted). 2. Atabey, E.; Wei, S.; Zhang, X.; Gu of Advanced Materials 2013, 5, 469-474. 5. He, Q.; Yuan, T.; Zhang, X.; Luo, Z.; Haldolaarachchige, N.; Sun, L

  20. Validation of the CoRE Questionnaire for a Medical Journal Peer Review.

    PubMed

    Doi, Suhail A R; Salzman-Scott, Sherry A; Onitilo, Adedayo A

    2016-01-01

    If a peer review instrument asks concrete questions (defined as items that can only generate disagreement if reviewers have different degrees of expertise), then questionnaires could become more meaningful in terms of resolving subjectivity thus leading to more reviewer agreement. A concrete item questionnaire with well-chosen questions can also help resolve disagreement when reviewers have the same level of expertise. We have recently created the core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) questionnaire for which decision-threshold score levels have been created, but which have not been validated. This prospective validation of these thresholds for the CoRE questionnaire demonstrated strong agreement between reviewer recommendations and their reported score levels when tested prospectively at Clinical Medicine and Research. We conclude that using the CoRE questionnaire will help reduce peer reviewer disagreement. More importantly, when reviewer expertise varies, editors can more easily detect this and decide which opinion reflects the greater expertise. PMID:26192007

  1. Peer Review Undergoing Revitalization

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sawchuk, Stephen

    2009-01-01

    Established in the 142,000-student Montgomery County, Maryland, district in 1999, peer assistance and review (PAR)--or "peer review," as it is occasionally called--is actually an old idea. In 1981, the then-president of the Toledo Federation of Teachers, Dal Lawrence, helped create the first PAR program. Almost 30 years later, only a handful of…

  2. Step 3: Peer Review

    Cancer.gov

    The NIH peer review system consists of two sequential levels of review mandated in 1974 by Section 475 of the Public Health Service Act. This dual review process provides a more objective evaluation than a single level of peer review by guaranteeing that the members of the scientific research community evaluate the projects scientific and technical merit. The goal of the system is to provide the responsible NIH official with the best advice available regarding both scientific and societal values and needs.

  3. Issues in Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sawamura, Mark H.

    2001-01-01

    Based on concerns raised at a workshop at the Southern California College of Optometry, addresses critical issues in the process of peer review of faculty teaching and possible alternatives to these issues as applied to an optometric institution. (EV)

  4. EERE Peer Review Guide

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  5. An Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Scores and Impact Factors with Different Citation Time Windows: A Case Study of 28 Ophthalmologic Journals

    PubMed Central

    Liu, Xue-Li; Gai, Shuang-Shuang; Zhang, Shi-Le; Wang, Pu

    2015-01-01

    Background An important attribute of the traditional impact factor was the controversial 2-year citation window. So far, several scholars have proposed using different citation time windows for evaluating journals. However, there is no confirmation whether a longer citation time window would be better. How did the journal evaluation effects of 3IF, 4IF, and 6IF comparing with 2IF and 5IF? In order to understand these questions, we made a comparative study of impact factors with different citation time windows with the peer-reviewed scores of ophthalmologic journals indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database. Methods The peer-reviewed scores of 28 ophthalmologic journals were obtained through a self-designed survey questionnaire. Impact factors with different citation time windows (including 2IF, 3IF, 4IF, 5IF, and 6IF) of 28 ophthalmologic journals were computed and compared in accordance with each impact factor’s definition and formula, using the citation analysis function of the Web of Science (WoS) database. An analysis of the correlation between impact factors with different citation time windows and peer-reviewed scores was carried out. Results Although impact factor values with different citation time windows were different, there was a high level of correlation between them when it came to evaluating journals. In the current study, for ophthalmologic journals’ impact factors with different time windows in 2013, 3IF and 4IF seemed the ideal ranges for comparison, when assessed in relation to peer-reviewed scores. In addition, the 3-year and 4-year windows were quite consistent with the cited peak age of documents published by ophthalmologic journals. Research Limitations Our study is based on ophthalmology journals and we only analyze the impact factors with different citation time window in 2013, so it has yet to be ascertained whether other disciplines (especially those with a later cited peak) or other years would follow the same or similar patterns. Originality/ Value We designed the survey questionnaire ourselves, specifically to assess the real influence of journals. We used peer-reviewed scores to judge the journal evaluation effect of impact factors with different citation time windows. The main purpose of this study was to help researchers better understand the role of impact factors with different citation time windows in journal evaluation. PMID:26295157

  6. Authorship problems in scholarly journals: considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors.

    PubMed

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

    2013-02-01

    Authorship problems in scholarly journals shake the foundations of research, diminish scientific quality of papers and devalue records of citation tracking services. The 'Publish or Perish' mantra is thought to drive some instances of unfair, honorary authorship, particularly in countries of emerging scientific power. Though causes of honorary, gift, guest and ghost authorship are still ill-defined, it is possible to avoid some of these instances by improving awareness of what constitutes authorship and by adhering to the editorial policies of learned associations. This paper overviews common cases of inappropriate authorship and suggests options to solve related problems by authors, reviewers and editors of scholarly journals. PMID:23124697

  7. ‘Scholarly peer reviewing’: The art, its joys and woes

    PubMed Central

    Kurdi, Madhuri S

    2015-01-01

    Research and publications are an important part of academics. Nowadays, there is an increasing trend amongst professionals including anaesthesiologists to submit scientific articles to journals for publication. Most journals are peer-reviewed which means that the articles they publish go through the peer review process. Peer review is carried out for assessing the inadequacies of research and manuscript preparation so that the best papers are published in a journal. Although peer review is a key part of the process for the publishing of medical research, there are some limitations in the system. Keeping this in mind, all aspects of peer reviewing were searched from books and journals for full text from PubMed and Google search. The information so gathered is presented in this article which focuses on the general aspects of the peer review process. PMID:26379288

  8. Knowledge Exchange records from 01/04/2014 31/03/2015 CATEGORY 2 -Peer-reviewed journal articles (66 records)

    E-print Network

    Knowledge Exchange records from 01/04/2014 ­ 31/03/2015 CATEGORY 2 - Peer-reviewed journal articles: Electronic resource WWW: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929139313003107 Bib type: A GMD: Periodical article Entered: 07/04/2014 B00000115 Record ID 4010514 Title: A description of the symptoms

  9. A peer-reviewed electronic journal. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Practical Assessment, Research

    E-print Network

    Yu, Alex

    A peer-reviewed electronic journal. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. Permission is granted is credited. Volume 12, Number 14, October 2007 ISSN 1531-7714 Assessing unidimensionality: A comparison

  10. A peer-reviewed electronic journal. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication

    E-print Network

    Yu, Alex

    A peer-reviewed electronic journal. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. Permission is granted are terms used to describe broad levels of possible comparison among educational assessments (Dorans, 2004

  11. Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  12. ForPeerReview Systems Architecting Methodology for Space Transportation

    E-print Network

    de Weck, Olivier L.

    ForPeerReview Systems Architecting Methodology for Space Transportation Infrastructure Journal Submitted to Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets #12;ForPeerReview Systems Architecting Methodology for Space Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139 This paper presents a systems architecting

  13. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    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 University China Peter PELZ Darmstadt University Germany František POCHYLY Brno University Czech Republic Rudolf SCHILLING Technische Universität München Germany Minguan YANG Jiangsu University China Smaine KOUIDRI Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris 6) France Kazuhiro TANAKA Kyushu Institute of Technology Japan Xuelin TANG Tsinghua University China Yoshinobu TSUJIMOTO Osaka University Japan Fujun WANG China Agriculture University China Guoyu WANG Beijing University of Sci & Tech China Wenwu SONG NULL China Zhengwei WANG Tsinghua University China Hongyuan XU Tsinghua University China Lefu XIAO NULL China Fan YANG Tsinghua University China Yuan ZHENG Hehai University China Zhigang ZUO Tsinghua University China Hongwu ZHU China Petroleum University China Lixiang ZHANG Yunnan University of Sci & Tech China Shengchang ZHANG Zhejiang University of Tech China

  14. Involving students in peer review

    E-print Network

    Pearce, Jon

    , 2005; Van den Berg et al.; 2006). Peer review is a form of peer assessment that has been used for over to name a few. The peer-review process involves collaborative learning in which students assess one et al., 2000). This is distinguished from peer assessment for grading or summative purposes

  15. o'Peer: open peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    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.

  16. Methodologies of Peer and Editorial Review: Changing Practices

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Selfe, Cynthia; Hawisher, Gail

    2012-01-01

    The authors--drawing on their varied experiences as authors and publishers of a journal and several book series--provide a historical review and consideration of peer review in publishing. They find that scholarly peer review, from the question of signed reviews to the practices of digital publications, is in the midst of change, but that at the…

  17. MELCOR Peer Review

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  18. Water Peer Review

    SciTech Connect

    2014-05-02

    All programs with the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) are required to undertake rigorous, objective peer review of their funded projects on a yearly basis in order to ensure and enhance the management, relevance, effectiveness, and productivity of those projects.

  19. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    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, HeidenheimGermany Albert RUPRECHTUniversity of StuttgartGermany Michel SABOURINAlstom Hydro Canada Inc.Canada Rudolf SCHILLINGTechnische Universität MünchenGermany Qing-Hua SHIDong Fang Electrical Machinery Co.China Aleš SKOTAKCKD Blansko Engineering, a. s.Czech Republic Romeo F. SUSAN-RESIGAPolitehnica University of TimisoaraRomania Geraldo TIAGO FILHOUniversidade Federal de ItajubaBrazil Yoshinobu TSUJIMOTOOsaka UniversityJapan Bart van ESCHTechnische Universiteit EindhovenNetherland Thi C. VUAndritz Hydro Ltd, QuebecCanada Satoshi WATANABEKyushu University, FukuokaJapan Yulin WUTsinghua University, BeijingChina The reviewing process was organized in several steps. First, the 238 abstracts submitted for the symposium were reviewed, and 197 were accepted, with 30 abstracts having recommendations. Second, the authors have submitted 152 full-length papers, and each paper has been reviewed by two referees. The recommendations have been sent back to the authors, in order to prepare the final form or the paper. Third, 118 papers have been received in final form, accounting for the referees recommendations, to be included in the proceedings and to be presented at the symposium.

  20. Publications and the peer review system

    Technology Transfer Automated Retrieval System (TEKTRAN)

    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...

  1. New peer-reviewed Launched October

    E-print Network

    Napp, Nils

    1 New peer-reviewed Journal Launched October 2009 #12;2 New awareness of the disconnect: Cures have not kept pace with research New funding ­ National Institutes of Health New topic: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences New USA Research Center to Develop Medicines "to

  2. Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.

    PubMed

    Lauer, Michael S; Nakamura, Richard

    2015-11-12

    Recent reports suggest that peer reviews of National Institutes of Health grant applications are at best imprecise predictors of research projects' scientific impact. But these findings may not mean that peer review is failing. PMID:26559568

  3. What's with all this peer-review stuff anyway?

    SciTech Connect

    Warner, J. S.

    2010-01-01

    The Journal of Physical Security was ostensibly started to deal with a perceived lack of peer-reviewed journals related to the field of physical security. In fact, concerns have been expressed that the field of physical security is scarcely a field at all. A typical, well-developed field might include the following: multiple peer-reviewed journals devoted to the subject, rigor and critical thinking, metrics, fundamental principles, models and theories, effective standards and guidelines, R and D conferences, professional societies, certifications, its own academic department (or at least numerous academic experts), widespread granting of degrees in the field from 4-year research universities, mechanisms for easily spotting 'snake oil' products and services, and the practice of professionals organizing to police themselves, provide quality control, and determine best practices. Physical Security seems to come up short in a number of these areas. Many of these attributes are difficult to quantify. This paper seeks to focus on one area that is quantifiable: the number of peer-reviewed journals dedicated to the field of Physical Security. In addition, I want to examine the number of overall periodicals (peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed) dedicated to physical security, as well as the number of papers published each year about physical security. These are potentially useful analyses because one can often infer how healthy or active a given field is by its publishing activity. For example, there are 2,754 periodicals dedicated to the (very healthy and active) field of physics. This paper concentrates on trade journal versus peer-reviewed journals. Trade journals typically focus on practice-related topics. A paper appropriate for a trade journal is usually based more on practical experience than rigorous studies or research. Models, theories, or rigorous experimental research results will usually not be included. A trade journal typically targets a specific market in an industry or trade. Such journals are often considered to be news magazines and may contain industry specific advertisements and/or job ads. A peer-reviewed journal, a.k.a 'referred journal', in contrast, contains peer-reviewed papers. A peer-reviewed paper is one that has been vetted by the peer review process. In this process, the paper is typically sent to independent experts for review and consideration. A peer-reviewed paper might cover experimental results, and/or a rigorous study, analyses, research efforts, theory, models, or one of many other scholarly endeavors.

  4. ForPeerReview PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF OFFSHORE WIND POWER

    E-print Network

    Firestone, Jeremy

    ForPeerReview PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF OFFSHORE WIND POWER PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES Journal: Wind, Andrew; Minerals Management Service Keywords: offshore wind power, public opinion, social acceptancePeerReview 1 PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF OFFSHORE WIND POWER PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES Jeremy Firestone*, Willett

  5. ForPeerReview Pricing Bridges to Cross a River

    E-print Network

    Al Hanbali, Ahmad

    ForPeerReview Pricing Bridges to Cross a River Journal: Naval Research Logistics Manuscript ID: NAV Research Logistics #12;ForPeerReview Pricing Bridges to Cross a River Mustapha Bouhtou France T´el´ecom R, for a subset of m arcs, the tariff arcs. Costs of all other arcs in the network are assumed to be given

  6. ForPeerReview Annual Drosophila Research Conference, 2010

    E-print Network

    Singh, Amit

    ForPeerReview Annual Drosophila Research Conference, 2010 Journal: Developmental Dynamics and engineering at Dayton (TREND) Keywords: Drosophila melanogaster, patterning, development, Drosophila eyePeerReview Shop Talk Annual Drosophila Research Conference, 2010 Gerald B. Call1 , Oorvashi Roy Puli2 , Shilpi

  7. CONTAIN independent peer review

    SciTech Connect

    Boyack, B.E.; Corradini, M.L.; Denning, R.S.; 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.

  8. Selected peer-reviewed journal papers * indicates student of Z.H. Huang

    E-print Network

    Frandsen, Jannette B.

    . Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering. In press. 3. Sim, S.Y.* and Huang, Z.H. (2015 frequency in still water: an analysis using independent-flow form of Morison's equation. Journal of Ocean, Z.H. (2015). Nonlinear elastic­plastic stress investigation for two interacting 3-D cracks

  9. Coherent measures of the impact of co-authors in peer review journals and in proceedings publications

    E-print Network

    Ausloos, Marcel

    2015-01-01

    This paper focuses on the coauthor effect in different types of publications, usually not equally respected in measuring research impact. {\\it A priori} unexpected relationships are found between the total coauthor core value, $m_a$, of a leading investigator (LI), and the related values for their publications in either peer review journals ($j$) or in proceedings ($p$). A surprisingly linear relationship is found: $ m_a^{(j)} + 0.4\\;m_a^{(p)} = m_a^{(jp)} $. Furthermore, another relationship is found concerning the measure of the total number of citations, $A_a$, i.e. the surface of the citation size-rank histogram up to $m_a$. Another linear relationship exists : $A_a^{(j)} + 1.36\\; A_a^{(p)} = A_a^{(jp)} $. These empirical findings coefficients (0.4 and 1.36) are supported by considerations based on an empirical power law found between the number of joint publications of an author and the rank of a coauthor. Moreover, a simple power law relationship is found between $m_a$ and the number ($r_M$) of coauthor...

  10. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey

    PubMed Central

    Tite, Leanne; Schroter, Sara

    2007-01-01

    Background Peer reviewers are usually unpaid and their efforts not formally acknowledged. Some journals have difficulty finding appropriate reviewers able to complete timely reviews, resulting in publication delay. Objectives and methods A survey of peer reviewers from five biomedical journals was conducted to determine why reviewers decline to review and their opinions on reviewer incentives. Items were scored on 5?point Likert scales, with low scores indicating low importance or low agreement. Results 551/890 (62%) reviewers responded. Factors rated most highly in importance for the decision to accept to review a paper included contribution of the paper to subject area (mean 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 86)), relevance of topic to own work (mean 3.46 (SD 0.99)) and opportunity to learn something new (mean 3.41 (SD 0.96)). The most highly rated factor important in the decision to decline to review was conflict with other workload (mean 4.06 (SD 1.31)). Most respondents agreed that financial incentives would not be effective when time constraints are prohibitive (mean 3.59 (SD 1.01)). However, reviewers agreed that non?financial incentives might encourage reviewers to accept requests to review: free subscription to journal content (mean 3.72 (SD 1.04)), annual acknowledgement on the journal's website (mean 3.64 (SD 0.90)), more feedback about the outcome of the submission (mean 3.62 (SD 0.88)) and quality of the review (mean 3.60 (SD 0.89), and appointment of reviewers to the journal's editorial board (mean 3.57 (SD 0.99)). Conclusion Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. Lack of time is the principal factor in the decision to decline. Reviewing should be formally recognised by academic institutions and journals should acknowledge reviewers' work. PMID:17183008

  11. Peer Review Summary Document (February 8, 2013)

    E-print Network

    Peer Review Summary Document (February 8, 2013) Peer Review Plan http://www.usgs.gov/peer for the Secretary of the Interior -- an Assessment of Science and Technical Information, October 2012, prepared by U. Peer Reviewers Expertise and Credentials Names and biographies of the six peer reviewers are available

  12. Peer Review Summary Document (November 12, 2008)

    E-print Network

    Peer Review Summary Document (November 12, 2008) Peer Review Plan Synthesis and Assessment Product and biographies of peer reviewers [33 KB PDF] for Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.2 Charge Submitted to Peer 4.2: Thresholds of Climate Change in Ecosystems [20 KB PDF]. Peer Reviewers Information Names

  13. ForPeerReview Draft Manuscript for Review

    E-print Network

    Sugiyama, Lawrence S.

    for the Indigenous Shuar and Non-Shuar Colonos of the Ecuadorian Amazon Journal: Osteoporosis International http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oi Osteoporosis International #12;ForPeerReview 1 Normative Calcaneal) 346-0668 E-mail: fmadimen@uoregon.edu Page 1 of 35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oi Osteoporosis

  14. 2011 OBP Peer Review Portal

    SciTech Connect

    2012-01-04

    The Biomass Program conducted detailed biennial peer review meetings of its activities throughout the first half of 2011. This Web page houses information from the reviews. The final reports will be available in 2012.

  15. Popular Science Journalism: Facilitating Learning through Peer Review and Communication of Science News

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Tuten, Holly; Temesvari, Lesly

    2013-01-01

    In a multisemester Popular Science Journalism course that met for 2 hours once a week at Clemson University, students produced science news articles for the university newspaper by using primary literature, the internet, and interviews with researchers. Short lectures were given on topic choice, story development, literature surveys, common…

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2009-01-01

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

  17. Publication rates in peer-reviewed journals of abstracts presented at the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Society of Turkey meetings 2007-2012.

    PubMed

    Yolcu, Umit; Ozcan, Ayse

    2015-11-01

    The purpose of this study was to find out the rate of peer-reviewed publication of full papers of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Society of Turkey, and to identify the time taken for publication, subspecialty, and study design. All abstracts accepted for presentation at the meetings in 2007-12 were identified from the books of abstracts, and evidence of publication was sought from PubMed and Google Scholar. The following variables were evaluated: publication rate, type of presentation (oral or poster), time to publication, subspecialty, study design, name of the journal in which the paper was published, impact factor of the journal, author affiliation, change in number of authors and origin of the study. A total of 1322 abstracts were presented between 2007 and 2012. Of these, 246 (19%) were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals, including 110/390 oral presentations (28%) and 136/932 poster presentations (15%). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations (p=0.000). The mean (SD) time from presentation to publication was 17 (15) months. Anatomical presentations had the highest publication rate (8/11), whereas orthognathic surgery had the lowest (5/67, 7%). Technical notes (5/9) and animal studies (32/70, 46%) were the most common types of publication. Only 246 of the1322 abstracts (19%) were subsequently published as full papers, which is lower than previously reported in oral and maxillofacial surgery. PMID:26235425

  18. Coherent measures of the impact of co-authors in peer review journals and in proceedings publications

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ausloos, Marcel

    2015-11-01

    This paper focuses on the coauthor effect in different types of publications, usually not equally respected in measuring research impact. A priori unexpected relationships are found between the total coauthor core value, ma, of a leading investigator (LI), and the related values for their publications in either peer review journals (j) or in proceedings (p). A surprisingly linear relationship is found: ma(j) + 0.4 ma(p) = ma(jp) . Furthermore, another relationship is found concerning the measure of the total number of citations, Aa, i.e. the surface of the citation size-rank histogram up to ma. Another linear relationship exists : Aa(j) + 1.36 Aa(p) = Aa(jp) . These empirical findings coefficients (0.4 and 1.36) are supported by considerations based on an empirical power law found between the number of joint publications of an author and the rank of a coauthor. Moreover, a simple power law relationship is found between ma and the number (rM) of coauthors of an LI: ma ? rM? ; the power law exponent ? depends on the type (j or p) of publications. These simple relations, at this time limited to publications in physics, imply that coauthors are a "more positive measure" of a principal investigator role, in both types of scientific outputs, than the Hirsch index could indicate. Therefore, to scorn upon co-authors in publications, in particular in proceedings, is incorrect. On the contrary, the findings suggest an immediate test of coherence of scientific authorship in scientific policy processes.

  19. NIH Peer Review: Grants and Cooperative Agreements

    E-print Network

    Rau, Don C.

    decision. The first level of review (initial peer review) is an assessment of scientific and technicalNIH Peer Review: Grants and Cooperative Agreements #12;NIH Peer Review: Grants and Cooperative of peer review to identify the most promising biomedical research. This document provides an overview

  20. CARD No. 27 Peer Review

    E-print Network

    CARD No. 27 Peer Review 27.A.1 BACKGROUND The Compliance Criteria require DOE to conduct peer to the promulgation of the final compliance criteria." This CARD does not address the technical aspects of the various manner. These issues are addressed in the CARDs for the relevant subject areas. See CARD 22--Quality

  1. Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics: building on the 20-year history of a BCS Health peer review journal.

    PubMed

    de Lusignan, Simon

    2015-01-01

    After 20-years as Informatics in Primary Care the journal is renamed Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics. The title was carefully selected to reflect that: (1) informatics provides the opportunity to innovate rather than simply automates; (2) implementing informatics solutions often results in unintended consequences, and many implementations fail and benefits and innovations may go unrecognised; (3) health informatics is a boundary spanning discipline and is by its very nature likely to give rise to innovation. Informatics is an innovative science, and informaticians need to innovate across professional and discipline boundaries. PMID:25924554

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  3. 12: How to peer review a manuscript

    E-print Network

    Hall, Spencer

    ,2 The peer reviewer, the person who assesses the merits of a manuscript submitted for publication12: How to peer review a manuscript DAVID MOHER, ALEJANDRO R JADAD Peer review is an activity or standardised training for peer reviewers exists. In this chapter we provide a series of practical tips on how

  4. ForPeerReview (DET11) Manufacturing System Design with Virtual Factory

    E-print Network

    Hamann, Bernd

    and Production Systems, Mechanical and Process Engineering Keywords: VIRTUAL REALITY, MANUFACTURING SYSTEMSForPeerReview Only (DET11) Manufacturing System Design with Virtual Factory Tools Journal: International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing Manuscript ID: TCIM-2012-IJCIM-0101 Manuscript Type

  5. ForPeerReview Multi-sensor Satellite Remote Sensing of Dust Aerosols over

    E-print Network

    Christopher, Sundar A.

    GERBILS Journal: QJRMS Manuscript ID: QJ-10-0219.R1 Wiley - Manuscript type: Research Article Date Keywords: GERBILS, Satellite remote Sensing, Aerosols Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society #12;ForPeerReview Satellite Remote Sensing during GERBILS

  6. Peer Review Summary Document Peer Review Plan

    E-print Network

    and Redistribution Patterns of Sand and Oil Agglomerates in the Surf Zone by P.S. Dalyander, J.W. Long, N.G. Plant of combined wave-current bottom boundary layers and the evolution of nearshore morphology during and after and is an Adjunct Professor in the School of the Environment, University of South Carolina. The reviewer also has

  7. ForPeerReview Multifractal analysis of a semi-distributed urban

    E-print Network

    Lovejoy, Shaun

    ForPeerReview Only Multifractal analysis of a semi-distributed urban hydrological model Journal: Urban Water Manuscript ID: NURW-2011-0130.R2 Manuscript Type: Full Paper Date Submitted by the Author: n:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nurw Email: urbanwater@exeter.ac.uk Urban Water Journal #12;ForPeerReview Only 1 Title: Multifractal analysis

  8. The Dedisciplining of Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  9. Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study

    PubMed Central

    van Lent, Marlies; IntHout, Joanna; Out, Henk Jan

    2015-01-01

    Objective During peer review, submitted manuscripts are scrutinised by independent experts to assist journal editors in their decision-making and to help improve the quality of articles. In this retrospective cohort study, peer review comments for drug trials submitted to medical journals were analysed to investigate whether there is a relation between the content of these comments and sponsorship, direction of results and decision about acceptance. Design/setting Descriptive content analysis of reviewer comments made on manuscripts on drug trials submitted to eight medical journals (January 2010–April 2012). For each manuscript, the number of reviewers, decision about acceptance, sponsorship and direction of results were extracted. Reviewer comments were classified using a predefined checklist. Results Reviewer reports for 246 manuscripts were assessed. Industry-sponsored trials were more likely to receive comments about lack of novelty (8.9%) than industry-supported (2.5%) and non-industry trials (6.1%, overall p=0.038). Non-industry trials more often received comments about poor experimental design (69.7%) than industry-supported (58.8%) and industry-sponsored trials (52.9%, overall p=0.019). Non-industry trials were also more likely to receive comments regarding inappropriate statistical analyses (28.4%) than industry-supported (23.5%) and industry-sponsored trials (15.1%, overall p=0.006). Manuscripts with negative results were more likely to receive comments about inappropriate conclusions (29.3%) than those with positive results (18.9%, p=0.010). Rejected manuscripts had more often received comments on the research question not being clinically relevant (7.8%) than accepted manuscripts (1.6%, p=0.002), and also on lack of novelty (8.3% vs 2.6%, p=0.008) and poor experimental design (68.6% vs 50.5%, p<0.001). Conclusions Reviewers identified fewer shortcomings regarding design and statistical analyses in industry-related trials, but commented more often on a lack of novelty in industry-sponsored trials. Negative trial results did not significantly influence the nature of comments other than appropriateness of the conclusion. Manuscript acceptance was primarily related to the research question and methodological robustness of studies. PMID:26423849

  10. Peer Review of Teaching: Sharing Best Practices

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  11. 2009 Water Power Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Murphy, Michael; Higgins, Mark; Reed, Mike

    2011-04-01

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

  12. Appendix G: Peer review nondisclosure agreement

    SciTech Connect

    None, None

    2009-01-18

    This peer review nondisclosure agreement should be signed by each reviewer prior to the program sending review materials if sensitive or proprietary information will be provided reviewers or discussed during the review, and to everyone attending a review.

  13. ForPeerReview Parasitology

    E-print Network

    Breitling, Rainer

    ;ForPeerReview 2 ABSTRACT 40 African trypanosomes have emerged as promising unicellular model organisms-scale mathematical model of trypanosome physiology. We expect that, in the long run, the quantitative modelling Faculty of Biomolecular and Life Sciences and Wellcome Centre of Molecular Parasitology, University

  14. Group Projects and Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dyrud, Marilyn A.

    2001-01-01

    Describes problems the author experienced with disfunctionality in student group projects. Describes how she implemented informal and formal peer reviews throughout the term in these groups, which has helped short-circuit disfunctionality, improve student productivity, and help the instructor form a fairer overall assessment. (SR)

  15. Demystifying the peer-review process - workshop

    EPA Science Inventory

    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 ...

  16. Open by default: a proposed copyright license and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals

    PubMed Central

    2012-01-01

    Copyright and licensing of scientific data, internationally, are complex and present legal barriers to data sharing, integration and reuse, and therefore restrict the most efficient transfer and discovery of scientific knowledge. Much data are included within scientific journal articles, their published tables, additional files (supplementary material) and reference lists. However, these data are usually published under licenses which are not appropriate for data. Creative Commons CC0 is an appropriate and increasingly accepted method for dedicating data to the public domain, to enable data reuse with the minimum of restrictions. BioMed Central is committed to working towards implementation of open data-compliant licensing in its publications. Here we detail a protocol for implementing a combined Creative Commons Attribution license (for copyrightable material) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver (for data) agreement for content published in peer-reviewed open access journals. We explain the differences between legal requirements for attribution in copyright, and cultural requirements in scholarship for giving individuals credit for their work through citation. We argue that publishing data in scientific journals under CC0 will have numerous benefits for individuals and society, and yet will have minimal implications for authors and minimal impact on current publishing and research workflows. We provide practical examples and definitions of data types, such as XML and tabular data, and specific secondary use cases for published data, including text mining, reproducible research, and open bibliography. We believe this proposed change to the current copyright and licensing structure in science publishing will help clarify what users – people and machines – of the published literature can do, legally, with journal articles and make research using the published literature more efficient. We further believe this model could be adopted across multiple publishers, and invite comment on this article from all stakeholders in scientific research. PMID:22958225

  17. Open by default: a proposed copyright license and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals.

    PubMed

    Hrynaszkiewicz, Iain; Cockerill, Matthew J

    2012-01-01

    Copyright and licensing of scientific data, internationally, are complex and present legal barriers to data sharing, integration and reuse, and therefore restrict the most efficient transfer and discovery of scientific knowledge. Much data are included within scientific journal articles, their published tables, additional files (supplementary material) and reference lists. However, these data are usually published under licenses which are not appropriate for data. Creative Commons CC0 is an appropriate and increasingly accepted method for dedicating data to the public domain, to enable data reuse with the minimum of restrictions. BioMed Central is committed to working towards implementation of open data-compliant licensing in its publications. Here we detail a protocol for implementing a combined Creative Commons Attribution license (for copyrightable material) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver (for data) agreement for content published in peer-reviewed open access journals. We explain the differences between legal requirements for attribution in copyright, and cultural requirements in scholarship for giving individuals credit for their work through citation. We argue that publishing data in scientific journals under CC0 will have numerous benefits for individuals and society, and yet will have minimal implications for authors and minimal impact on current publishing and research workflows. We provide practical examples and definitions of data types, such as XML and tabular data, and specific secondary use cases for published data, including text mining, reproducible research, and open bibliography. We believe this proposed change to the current copyright and licensing structure in science publishing will help clarify what users - people and machines - of the published literature can do, legally, with journal articles and make research using the published literature more efficient. We further believe this model could be adopted across multiple publishers, and invite comment on this article from all stakeholders in scientific research. PMID:22958225

  18. A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants

    PubMed Central

    Bornmann, Lutz; Mutz, Rüdiger; Daniel, Hans-Dieter

    2010-01-01

    Background This paper presents the first meta-analysis for the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of journal peer reviews. IRR is defined as the extent to which two or more independent reviews of the same scientific document agree. Methodology/Principal Findings Altogether, 70 reliability coefficients (Cohen's Kappa, intra-class correlation [ICC], and Pearson product-moment correlation [r]) from 48 studies were taken into account in the meta-analysis. The studies were based on a total of 19,443 manuscripts; on average, each study had a sample size of 311 manuscripts (minimum: 28, maximum: 1983). The results of the meta-analysis confirmed the findings of the narrative literature reviews published to date: The level of IRR (mean ICC/r2?=?.34, mean Cohen's Kappa?=?.17) was low. To explain the study-to-study variation of the IRR coefficients, meta-regression analyses were calculated using seven covariates. Two covariates that emerged in the meta-regression analyses as statistically significant to gain an approximate homogeneity of the intra-class correlations indicated that, firstly, the more manuscripts that a study is based on, the smaller the reported IRR coefficients are. Secondly, if the information of the rating system for reviewers was reported in a study, then this was associated with a smaller IRR coefficient than if the information was not conveyed. Conclusions/Significance Studies that report a high level of IRR are to be considered less credible than those with a low level of IRR. According to our meta-analysis the IRR of peer assessments is quite limited and needs improvement (e.g., reader system). PMID:21179459

  19. Independent Peer Reviews

    SciTech Connect

    2012-03-16

    Independent Assessments: DOE's Systems Integrator convenes independent technical reviews to gauge progress toward meeting specific technical targets and to provide technical information necessary for key decisions.

  20. ForPeerReview Extracting Mechanical Energy from Electrically Stimulated

    E-print Network

    Durfee, William K.

    ­10 ). Increased muscle fatigue resulting from electrical stimulation is well known and likely results fromForPeerReview Only Extracting Mechanical Energy from Electrically Stimulated Quadriceps Muscle Journal: Muscle and Nerve Manuscript ID: Draft Wiley - Manuscript type: Research Article Date Submitted

  1. Peer Review of Launch Environments

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    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.

  2. Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

    PubMed

    Steinhauser, Georg; Adlassnig, Wolfram; Risch, Jesaka Ahau; Anderlini, Serena; Arguriou, Petros; Armendariz, Aaron Zolen; Bains, William; Baker, Clark; Barnes, Martin; Barnett, Jonathan; Baumgartner, Michael; Baumgartner, Thomas; Bendall, Charles A; Bender, Yvonne S; Bichler, Max; Biermann, Teresa; Bini, Ronaldo; Blanco, Eduardo; Bleau, John; Brink, Anthony; Brown, Darin; Burghuber, Christopher; Calne, Roy; Carter, Brian; Castaño, Cesar; Celec, Peter; Celis, Maria Eugenia; Clarke, Nicky; Cockrell, David; Collins, David; Coogan, Brian; Craig, Jennifer; Crilly, Cal; Crowe, David; Csoka, Antonei B; Darwich, Chaza; Del Kebos, Topiciprin; Derinaldi, Michele; Dlamini, Bongani; Drewa, Tomasz; Dwyer, Michael; Eder, Fabienne; de Palma, Raúl Ehrichs; Esmay, Dean; Rött, Catherine Evans; Exley, Christopher; Falkov, Robin; Farber, Celia Ingrid; Fearn, William; Felsmann, Sophie; Flensmark, Jarl; Fletcher, Andrew K; Foster, Michaela; Fountoulakis, Kostas N; Fouratt, Jim; Blanca, Jesus Garcia; Sotelo, Manuel Garrido; Gittler, Florian; Gittler, Georg; Gomez, Juan; Gomez, Juan F; Polar, Maria Grazia Gonzales; Gonzalez, Jossina; Gösselsberger, Christoph; Habermacher, Lynn; Hajek, Michael; Hakala, Faith; Haliburton, Mary-Sue; Hankins, John Robert; Hart, Jason; Hasslberger, Sepp; Hennessey, Donalyn; Herrmann, Andrea; Hersee, Mike; Howard, Connie; Humphries, Suzanne; Isharc, Laeeth; Ivanovski, Petar; Jenuth, Stephen; Jerndal, Jens; Johnson, Christine; Keleta, Yonas; Kenny, Anna; Kidd, Billie; Kohle, Fritz; Kolahi, Jafar; Koller-Peroutka, Marianne; Kostova, Lyubov; Kumar, Arunachalam; Kurosawa, Alejandro; Lance, Tony; Lechermann, Michael; Lendl, Bernhard; Leuchters, Michael; Lewis, Evan; Lieb, Edward; Lloyd, Gloria; Losek, Angelika; Lu, Yao; Maestracci, Saadia; Mangan, Dennis; Mares, Alberto W; Barnett, Juan Mazar; McClain, Valerie; McNair, John Sydney; Michael, Terry; Miller, Lloyd; Monzani, Partizia; Moran, Belen; Morris, Mike; Mößmer, Georg; Mountain, Johny; Phuthe, Onnie Mary Moyo; Muñoz, Marcos; Nakken, Sheri; Wambui, Anne Nduta; Neunteufl, Bettina; Nikoli?, Dimitrije; Oberoi, Devesh V; Obmode, Gregory; Ogar, Laura; Ohara, Jo; Rybine, Naion Olej; Owen, Bryan; Owen, Kim Wilson; Parikh, Rakesh; Pearce, Nicholas J G; Pemmer, Bernhard; Piper, Chris; Prince, Ian; Reid, Terence; Rindermann, Heiner; Risch, Stefan; Robbins, Josh; Roberts, Seth; Romero, Ajeandro; Rothe, Michael Thaddäus; Ruiz, Sergio; Sacher, Juliane; Sackl, Wolfgang; Salletmaier, Markus; Sanand, Jairaj; Sauerzopf, Clemens; Schwarzgruber, Thomas; Scott, David; Seegers, Laura; Seppi, David; Shields, Kyle; Siller-Matula, Jolanta; Singh, Beldeu; Sithole, Sibusio; Six, Florian; Skoyles, John R; Slofstra, Jildou; Sole, Daphne Anne; Sommer, Werner F; Sonko, Mels; Starr-Casanova, Chrislie J; Steakley, Marjorie Elizabeth; Steinhauser, Wolfgang; Steinhoff, Konstantin; Sterba, Johannes H; Steppan, Martin; Stindl, Reinhard; Stokely, Joe; Stokely, Karri; St-Pierre, Gilles; Stratford, James; Streli, Christina; Stryg, Carl; Sullivan, Mike; Summhammer, Johann; Tadesse, Amhayes; Tavares, David; Thompson, Laura; Tomlinson, Alison; Tozer, Jack; Trevisanato, Siro I; Trimmel, Michaela; Turner, Nicole; Vahur, Paul; van der Byl, Jennie; van der Maas, Tine; Varela, Leo; Vega, Carlos A; Vermaak, Shiloh; Villasenor, Alex; Vogel, Matt; von Wintzigerode, Georg; Wagner, Christoph; Weinberger, Manuel; Weinberger, Peter; Wilson, Nick; Wolfe, Jennifer Finocchio; Woodley, Michael A; Young, Ian; Zuraw, Glenn; Zwiren, Nicole

    2012-10-01

    Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being "filtered out" or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses. PMID:23054375

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

    PubMed

    Strickland, N H

    2015-11-01

    Peer review in radiology means an assessment of the accuracy of a report issued by another radiologist. Inevitably, this involves a judgement opinion from the reviewing radiologist. Peer feedback is the means by which any form of peer review is communicated back to the original author of the report. This article defines terms, discusses the current status, identifies problems, and provides some recommendations as to the way forward, concentrating upon the software requirements for efficient peer review and peer feedback of reported imaging studies. Radiologists undertake routine peer review in their everyday clinical practice, particularly when reporting and preparing for multidisciplinary team meetings. More formal peer review of reported imaging studies has been advocated as a quality assurance measure to promote good clinical practice. It is also a way of assessing the competency of reporting radiologists referred for investigation to bodies such as the General Medical Council (GMC). The literature shows, firstly, that there is a very wide reported range of discrepancy rates in many studies, which have used a variety of non-comparable methodologies; and secondly, that applying scoring systems in formal peer review is often meaningless, unhelpful, and can even be detrimental. There is currently a lack of electronic peer feedback system software on the market to inform radiologists of any review of their work that has occurred or to provide them with clinical outcome information on cases they have previously reported. Learning opportunities are therefore missed. Radiologists should actively engage with the medical informatics industry to design optimal peer review and feedback software with features to meet their needs. Such a system should be easy to use, be fully integrated with the radiological information and picture archiving systems used clinically, and contain a free-text comment box, without a numerical scoring system. It should form a temporary record 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. PMID:26223739

  4. American Journal of Public Health | April 2002, Vol 92, No. 4598 | Public Health Matters | Peer Reviewed | Waitzkin et al. PUBLIC HEALTH MATTERS

    E-print Network

    Bock, John

    American Journal of Public Health | April 2002, Vol 92, No. 4598 | Public Health Matters | Peer-subsidize the costs of health care also have contributed to access problems for low-income and uninsured per- sons.8 health centers cut services owing to the effects of Medicaid managed care, the costs of caring

  5. ForPeerReview Biogeochemical reduction processes in a hyper-alkaline

    E-print Network

    Burke, Ian

    profile Journal: Geomicrobiology Journal Manuscript ID: UGMB-2011-0080.R1 Manuscript Type: Original Article Date Submitted by the Author: n/a Complete List of Authors: Burke, Ian; University of Leeds://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ugmb Email: pll2@cornell.edu Geomicrobiology Journal #12;ForPeerReview Only 1 Biogeochemical reduction

  6. Viewing Peer-Reviewed Literature about the Community College: Portrayal of a Sector in Higher Education Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Townsend, Barbara K.; Bragg, Debra; Kinnick, Mary

    To determine how community colleges are portrayed in academic journals, three core higher education journals and three community college journals were examined during the publication years 1990-2000. Information was sought about authorship, institutional affiliation, topics, research methods, and scope of empirical articles. Results indicated that…

  7. ForPeerReview Perception of Mechanically and Optically Simulated Bumps

    E-print Network

    Liere, Robert van

    ForPeerReview Perception of Mechanically and Optically Simulated Bumps and Holes Journal: Transactions on Applied Perception Manuscript ID: TAP-2007-0040.R2 Manuscript Type: Paper Date Submitted Perception #12;ForPeerReview Perception of Mechanically and Optically Simulated Bumps and Holes KOERT VAN

  8. ForPeerReview Immune response to a malaria infection: properties of a mathematical

    E-print Network

    De Leenheer, Patrick

    ForPeerReview Only Immune response to a malaria infection: properties of a mathematical model:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tjbd Email: Denise.Wilson@trinity.edu Journal of Biological Dynamics #12;ForPeerReview Only IMMUNE RESPONSE of the immune system during the infection. The model accounts for the antigenic variation exhibited

  9. ForPeerReview Rodent middens reveal episodic, long-distance plant

    E-print Network

    ForPeerReview Rodent middens reveal episodic, long-distance plant colonization across the hyperarid Desert, rodent middens, hyperarid environments, Lomas vegetation, fog oases, late Quaternary, aridland paleoecology Journal of Biogeography #12;ForPeerReview 1 Article Type: Original Article Rodent middens reveal

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  11. ForPeerReview The impact of soil moisture and convectively-generated

    E-print Network

    Birch, Cathryn

    ForPeerReview The impact of soil moisture and convectively-generated waves on the initiation system, Secondary initiation, Gravity wave, Soil moisture, Land-atmosphere interaction, AMMA Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society #12;ForPeerReview The impact of soil moisture and convectively

  12. ForPeerReview Ice age True Polar wander in a compressible and non

    E-print Network

    ForPeerReview Ice age True Polar wander in a compressible and non hydrostatic Earth Journal Ice age (TPW), have continuously been debated, after the pioneering works of the sixties. We show ice age TPW

  13. Peer Review Summary Document (May 22, 2008)

    E-print Network

    KB PDF] for Synthesis and Assessment Product (SAP) 3.4. Charge Submitted to Peer Reviewers Charge letter [27 KB PDF] submitted to SAP 3.4 peer reviewers. Draft Document for Peer Review The draft SAP 3: Draft_SAP 3.4 Executive Summary [63 KB PDF] Draft_SAP 3.4 Chapter 1 [1.4 MB PDF] Draft_SAP 3.4 Chapter 2

  14. Peer Review Summary Document (July 31, 2008)

    E-print Network

    ' Information Names and biographies of peer reviewers [118 KB PDF] for Synthesis and Assessment Product (SAP) 1. Draft Document for Peer Review Chapters provided for the peer review of SAP 1.2 included the following: Draft_SAP 1.2 Chapter 3 [277 KB PDF] Draft_SAP 1.2 Chapter 4 [8.7 MB PDF] Draft_SAP 1.2 Chapter 5 [21

  15. Sealed source peer review plan

    SciTech Connect

    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 for the subject peer review.

  16. Peer Review Summary Document (12/20/2011)

    E-print Network

    Peer Review Summary Document (12/20/2011) Peer Review Plan http://www.usgs.gov/peer_review/docs/white-mesa_uranium-mill.pdf [59 KB PDF]. Title and Authorship of Information Product Disseminated Assessment of Potential, and Thomas M. Marston. Peer Reviewers Expertise and Credentials Peer Reviewer #1: Supervisory hydrologist

  17. Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network

    PubMed Central

    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

  18. The power of nursing peer review.

    PubMed

    Spiva, Lee Anna; Jarrell, Nicole; Baio, Pamela

    2014-11-01

    This article describes how an integrated healthcare system created a nursing peer-review structure to empower nurses to make practice changes and enhance professional accountability. A nursing peer-review committee and tools supporting the process were developed and implemented. PMID:25340923

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    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.

  20. Predatory Publishing, Questionable Peer Review, and Fraudulent Conferences

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Open-access is a model for publishing scholarly, peer-reviewed journals on the Internet that relies on sources of funding other than subscription fees. Some publishers and editors have exploited the author-pays model of open-access, publishing for their own profit. Submissions are encouraged through widely distributed e-mails on behalf of a growing number of journals that may accept many or all submissions and subject them to little, if any, peer review or editorial oversight. Bogus conference invitations are distributed in a similar fashion. The results of these less than ethical practices might include loss of faculty member time and money, inappropriate article inclusions in curriculum vitae, and costs to the college or funding source. PMID:25657363

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

    PubMed

    Bowman, John D

    2014-12-15

    Open-access is a model for publishing scholarly, peer-reviewed journals on the Internet that relies on sources of funding other than subscription fees. Some publishers and editors have exploited the author-pays model of open-access, publishing for their own profit. Submissions are encouraged through widely distributed e-mails on behalf of a growing number of journals that may accept many or all submissions and subject them to little, if any, peer review or editorial oversight. Bogus conference invitations are distributed in a similar fashion. The results of these less than ethical practices might include loss of faculty member time and money, inappropriate article inclusions in curriculum vitae, and costs to the college or funding source. PMID:25657363

  2. Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers

    PubMed Central

    Snell, Richard R.

    2015-01-01

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

  3. NCI DEA - Consumer Guides for Peer Review

    Cancer.gov

    The NCI Consumers' Cancer Dictionary for Peer Review is deigned to provide concise definitions of technical terms frequently used in applications for NCI-sponsored investigator-initiated research. The terms include those commonly associated with the molecular biology of cancer, immunology, and clinical oncology. These definitions, in association with the review process, will increase your familiarity and understanding of the biology and clinical aspects of cancer. We hope this will facilitate and make your participation in the Peer Review process more meaningful.

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

    PubMed

    Benson, P J

    2015-10-01

    'Medical science can only flourish in a free society and dies under totalitarian repression.' (1) Peer review post-publication is relatively easy to define: when the world decides the importance of publication. Peer review pre-publication is what the scientific community frequently means when using the term 'peer review'. But what it is it? Few will agree on an exact definition; generally speaking, it refers to an independent, third party scrutiny of a manuscript by scientific experts (called peers) who advise on its suitability for publication. Peer review is expensive; although reviewers are unpaid, the cost in time is enormous and it is slow. There is often little agreement among reviewers about whether an article should be published and peer review can be a lottery. Often referred to as a quality assurance process, there are many examples of when peer review failed. Many will be aware of Woo-Suk Hwang's shocking stem cell research misconduct at Seoul National University. (2) Science famously published two breakthrough articles that were found subsequently to be completely fabricated and this happened in spite of peer review. Science is not unique in making this error. However, love it or hate it, peer review, for the present time at least, is here to stay. In this article, Philippa Benson, Managing Editor of Science Advances (the first open access journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), discusses the merits of peer review. Dr Benson has extensive experience in the publishing world and was Executive Director of PJB Consulting, a not-for-profit organisation supporting clients on issues related to converting to full electronic publishing workflows as well as challenges working with international authors and publishers. Her clients included the Public Library of Science journals, the American Society for Nutrition and the de Beaumont Foundation. She recently co-authored a book, What Editors Want: An Author's Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing (University of Chicago Press), which helps readers understand and navigate the publishing process in high impact science and technical journals. Her master's and doctorate degrees are from Carnegie Mellon University. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor References 1. Eaton KK . Editorial: when is a peer review journal not a peer review journal? J Nutr Environ Med 1997 ; 7 : 139 - 144 . 2. van der Heyden MA , van de Ven T , Opthof T . Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction . Neth Heart J 2009 ; 17 : 25 - 29 . PMID:26414359

  5. Understanding Peer Review of Scientific Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Association of American Universities, 2011

    2011-01-01

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

  6. Towards an unbiased view of science Authors at Nature Communications now have the option to choose double-blind peer review

    E-print Network

    Cai, Long

    to choose double-blind peer review N ature Communications is an open journal and our articles can be read discussed initiative to limit further bias in the manuscript selection process is double-blind peer review. Our existing peer review system is `single-blind', in that authors are unaware of the identity

  7. 7 CFR 3400.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ..., 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... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3400.11...

  8. Rochester City School District Peer Assistance Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Chierichella, Patrick

    2010-01-01

    In this paper the author evaluates the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program in the Rochester City School District, Rochester, NY. The author evaluates the system's strengths and weaknesses and discusses the program's alignment with New York State requirements.

  9. Geothermal Technologies Program Overview - Peer Review Program

    SciTech Connect

    Milliken, JoAnn

    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.

  10. EERE Peer Review Guide - August 2004

    SciTech Connect

    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

  11. 2013 Geothermal Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2014-01-01

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

  12. Geothermal Technologies Program 2011 Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Hollett, Douglas; Stillman, Greg

    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.

  13. Peer Review Summary Document (4/13/2015)

    E-print Network

    Peer Review Summary Document (4/13/2015) Peer Review Plan http://www.usgs.gov/peer. Ingersoll, Peter C. Van Metre, James L. Kunz, and Edward E. Little. Peer Reviewers Expertise and Credentials courses on subjects including ecological risk assessment and environmental biology, has served

  14. Peer Review Summary Document (3/14/2012)

    E-print Network

    Peer Review Summary Document (3/14/2012) Peer Review Plan http://www.usgs.gov/peer to Assessing Import Policies Designed to Prevent the Arrival of Invasive Species: The case of Puccinia psidii Wada (University of Hawai`i Economic Research Organization). Note: A Peer Review Summary Document

  15. A Peer Review Training Workshop: Coaching Students to Give and Evaluate Peer Feedback

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lam, Ricky

    2010-01-01

    Trained peer review, as illustrated in a plethora of peer review or peer response scholarship, has a positive effect on students' writing in general and on improved revision quality in particular (Berg, 1999; Hu, 2005; Min, 2006; Paulus, 1999; Stanley, 1992). From these studies, it is evident that trained peer feedback does have a significant role…

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

    Reviewer assignment is critical to peer review systems, such as peer-reviewed research conferences or peer-reviewed funding applications, and its effectiveness is a deep concern of all academics. However, there are some problems in existing peer review systems during reviewer assignment. For example, some of the reviewers are much more stringent than others, leading to an unfair final decision, i.e., some submissions (i.e., papers or applications) with better quality are rejected. In this paper, we propose a context-aware reviewer assignment for trust enhanced peer review. More specifically, in our approach, we first consider the research area specific expertise of reviewers, and the institution relevance and co-authorship between reviewers and authors, so that reviewers with the right expertise are assigned to the corresponding submissions without potential conflict of interest. In addition, we propose a novel cross-assignment paradigm, and reviewers are cross-assigned in order to avoid assigning a group of stringent reviewers or a group of lenient reviewers to the same submission. More importantly, on top of them, we propose an academic CONtext-aware expertise relevanCe oriEnted Reviewer cross-assignmenT approach (CONCERT), which aims to effectively estimate the “true” ratings of submissions based on the ratings from all reviewers, even though no prior knowledge exists about the distribution of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers. The experiments illustrate that compared with existing approaches, our proposed CONCERT approach can less likely assign more than one stringent reviewers or lenient reviewers to a submission simultaneously and significantly reduce the influence of ratings from stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers, leading to trust enhanced peer review and selection, no matter what kind of distributions of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers are. PMID:26090849

  17. Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review Perspective

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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

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

    PubMed

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

    2013-01-01

    Many health sciences librarians as well as other professionals attend conferences on a regular basis. This study sought to link an innovative peer review process of presented research papers to long-term conference outcomes in the peer-reviewed professional journal literature. An evidence-based conference included a proof-of-concept study to gauge the long-term outcomes from research papers presented during the program. Real-time peer review recommendations from the conference were linked to final versions of articles published in the peer-reviewed literature. The real-time peer review feedback served as the basis for further mentoring to guide prospective authors toward publishing their research results. These efforts resulted in the publication of two of the four research papers in the peer-viewed literature. A third presented paper appeared in a blog because the authors wanted to disseminate their findings more quickly than through the journal literature. The presenters of the fourth paper never published their study. Real-time peer review from this study can be adapted to other professional conferences that include presented research papers. PMID:24180649

  19. Peer Review, Bourdieu and Honour: Connecting Chinese and Australian Intellectual Projects

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Singh, Michael; Han, Jinghe

    2010-01-01

    The reviews of papers for refereed journals are rarely a source of exhilaration, only occasionally a pleasure and frequently dispiriting. Using peer reviews of research containing Chinese concepts, this paper explores different ways of thinking about knowledge, its evaluation and transfer. Bourdieu's concepts of fields of power, position taking,…

  20. 2012 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Zayas, Jose; Higgins, Mark

    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.

  1. Geothermal Technologies Office 2012 Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  2. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section... FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE...PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After final...

  3. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section... FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE...PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After final...

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section... FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE...PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After final...

  5. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section... FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE...PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After final...

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

    USGS Publications Warehouse

    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.

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

    EPA Science Inventory

    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.

  8. Bristol Bay Assessment – Supplemental Peer Review Reports

    EPA Science Inventory

    These reports represent the results of independent peer reviews of several technical reports submitted to the public docket for the May 2012 draft of the Bristol Bay Assessment, An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska.

    ...

  9. Publications on Population Peer-Reviewed Articles

    E-print Network

    California at Santa Barbara, University of

    . Proceedings of the International Seminar on Population Dynamics and the Human Dimensions of Climate ChangePublications on Population Peer-Reviewed Articles D. López-Carr, N.G. Pricope, J. Aukema, C. Funk, M. Jankowska, G. Husak, and J. Michaelsen (2014). A spatial analysis of population dynamics

  10. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ...2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Peer review panel. 205.509 Section 205.509 Agriculture...Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The Administrator shall establish a peer review panel pursuant to the Federal Advisory...

  11. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ...2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Peer review panel. 205.509 Section 205.509 Agriculture...Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The Administrator shall establish a peer review panel pursuant to the Federal Advisory...

  12. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ...2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Peer review panel. 205.509 Section 205.509 Agriculture...Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The Administrator shall establish a peer review panel pursuant to the Federal Advisory...

  13. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ...2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Peer review panel. 205.509 Section 205.509 Agriculture...Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The Administrator shall establish a peer review panel pursuant to the Federal Advisory...

  14. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ...2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Peer review panel. 205.509 Section 205.509 Agriculture...Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The Administrator shall establish a peer review panel pursuant to the Federal Advisory...

  15. Using Calibrated Peer Review to Teach Basic Research Skills

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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

  16. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 3 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 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...

  17. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    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...

  18. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 3 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 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...

  19. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 3 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 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...

  20. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 3 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 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...

  1. 7 CFR 3401.13 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3401.13 Section..., EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding § 3401.13 Composition of peer review groups....

  2. 7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3411.11 Section..., EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.11 Composition of peer review...

  3. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    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...

  4. Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Coté, Robert A.

    2014-01-01

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

  6. 2009 Biomass Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Ferrell, John

    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. 2014 Water Power Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  8. 2014 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  9. Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers

    E-print Network

    Yang, Sichun

    Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers Case studies Sara Rockwell, Ph that this practice is not ethical. · Are there ethical issues? #12;A course developed with the support of the HHS to consider · Are there ethical issues that would preclude her from reviewing the paper? · Are there other

  10. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2014

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2015-08-01

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

  11. 7 CFR 3405.16 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... AND AGRICULTURE HIGHER EDUCATION CHALLENGE GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3405.16 Access... reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be made available to respective...

  12. Finding Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed Articles 1. You need to find two scholarly, peer-reviewed articles, but what are they? Where are they?

    E-print Network

    Su, Xiao

    Finding Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed Articles 1. You need to find two scholarly, peer-reviewed articles, but what are they? Where are they? 2. Peer-reviewed articles are written by experts and reviewed by other experts -- their peers -- before they are published. Another name you'll hear for peer-reviewed articles

  13. ForPeerReview Bond graph model of a switched reluctance machine

    E-print Network

    Batlle, Carles

    motor torque at low speeds. SRM are present in many home applications (washing machines, door actuatorsForPeerReview Bond graph model of a switched reluctance machine Journal: Transactions on Industrial Electronics Manuscript ID: 09-1152-TIE Manuscript Type: Regular paper Manuscript Subject: Machines and Drives

  14. Factors Associated with Social Interactions between Deaf Children and Their Hearing Peers: A Systematic Literature Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Batten, Georgina; Oakes, Peter M.; Alexander, Tim

    2014-01-01

    Research indicates that deaf children can have marked social difficulties compared with their hearing peers. Factors that influence these social interactions need to be reviewed to inform interventions. A systematic search of 5 key databases and 3 specialized journals identified 14 papers that met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of…

  15. ForPeerReview Petrology of the Nakhlite (Martian) Meteorite Northwest Africa 998

    E-print Network

    Treiman, Allan H.

    ForPeerReview Only Petrology of the Nakhlite (Martian) Meteorite Northwest Africa 998 Journal: Meteoritics & Planetary Science Manuscript ID: draft Manuscript Type: Article Date Submitted by the Author: n of Washington, Earth System Sciences Keywords: nakhlite, Martian , NWA 998, petrology Meteoritics

  16. QA REVIEWS: HOW THEY DIFFER FROM PEER REVIEWS

    EPA Science Inventory

    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...

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

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

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

  18. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Full Report

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  19. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    SciTech Connect

    Corradini, M.L. . Dept. of Nuclear Engineering); Dhir, V.K. Santa Monica, CA ); Haste, T.J. ); Heames, T.J. ); Jenks, R.P. ); Kelly, J.E. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM

    1993-01-01

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

  20. Data Citation and Peer Review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Parsons, Mark A.; Duerr, Ruth; Minster, Jean-Bernard

    2010-08-01

    A scientific publication is fundamentally an argument consisting of a set of ideas and expectations supported by observations and calculations that serve as evidence of its veracity. An argument without evidence is only a set of assertions. Consider the difference between the statement “The hairy woodpecker population is declining in the northwest region of the United States” and the statement “Hairy woodpecker populations in the northwest region of the United States have declined by 11% between 1992 and 2003, according to data from the Institute for Bird Populations (http://www.birdpop.org/).” Both or neither of these statements could be true, but only the second one can be verified. Scientific papers do, of course, present specific data points as evidence for their arguments, but how well do papers guide readers to the body of those data, where the data's integrity can be further examined? In practice, a chasm may lie across the path of a reviewer seeking the source data of a scientific argument.

  1. THERMODYNAMICS JOURNAL REVIEW

    E-print Network

    THERMODYNAMICS JOURNAL REVIEW Equations of State for the Calculation of Fluid-Phase Equilibria Ya®eloping equations of state for the calculation of fluid-phase equilibria is re®iewed. There are many alternati®e equations of state capable of calculating the phase equilibria of a di®erse range of fluids. A wide range

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2015-08-01

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

  3. Peer Review from the Students' Perspective: Invaluable or Invalid?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brammer, Charlotte; Rees, Mary

    2007-01-01

    Only a few instances of empirical research examine what the students themselves think of their participation in peer review. Perhaps because peer response is practically instinctive to those who teach writing, few have felt the need to study the student perspective. Instead, studies have focused on the quality of peer comments, their effect on the…

  4. Commercial Lighting Solutions, Webtool Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    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 long-term recommendations.

  5. A Modestly Rewarding Proposal Concerning Peer Review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Helffrich, George

    2013-11-01

    I have been an academic journal editor for longer than seems sane. One of the most important resources upon which I rely in this work is the reviewer community. These largely overlooked heroes are the scrutineers of the scientific process by which hypotheses are generated and tested and their errors eliminated. Their efforts are a key step in the development of scientific knowledge from which society in general, and the readers of Eos in particular, benefit.

  6. Online Peer Review: Encouraging Student Response and Development

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lansiquot, Reneta; Rosalia, Christine

    2015-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    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.

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

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  9. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ...Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.11...

  10. 7 CFR 3400.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ...Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.11...

  11. 7 CFR 3401.13 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ...Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding §...

  12. 7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ...Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications §...

  13. 7 CFR 3400.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ...AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications ...and the quality of such research; (3) Professional...other honors received from scientific and professional...

  14. A Look at Journalism Reviews.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bertrand, Claude-Jean

    Devoted primarily to the criticism of news media, the journalism review model established in Chicago in 1968 was followed in the next five years by about 25 other journalism reviews across the country. While these reviews vary in format and policy, a recent survey indicated that the majority of them originate from journalist groups, operate…

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

    Peer review is the "gold standard" for evaluating journal and conference papers, research proposals, on-going projects and university departments. However, it is widely believed that current systems are expensive, conservative and prone to various forms of bias. One form of bias identified in the literature is "social bias" linked to the personal attributes of authors and reviewers. To quantify the importance of this form of bias in modern peer review, we analyze three datasets providing information on the attributes of authors and reviewers and review outcomes: one from Frontiers - an open access publishing house with a novel interactive review process, and two from Spanish and international computer science conferences, which use traditional peer review. We use a random intercept model in which review outcome is the dependent variable, author and reviewer attributes are the independent variables and bias is defined by the interaction between author and reviewer attributes. We find no evidence of bias in terms of gender, or the language or prestige of author and reviewer institutions in any of the three datasets, but some weak evidence of regional bias in all three. Reviewer gender and the language and prestige of reviewer institutions appear to have little effect on review outcomes, but author gender, and the characteristics of author institutions have moderate to large effects. The methodology used cannot determine whether these are due to objective differences in scientific merit or entrenched biases shared by all reviewers. PMID:26594326

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

    Peer review is the "gold standard" for evaluating journal and conference papers, research proposals, on-going projects and university departments. However, it is widely believed that current systems are expensive, conservative and prone to various forms of bias. One form of bias identified in the literature is “social bias” linked to the personal attributes of authors and reviewers. To quantify the importance of this form of bias in modern peer review, we analyze three datasets providing information on the attributes of authors and reviewers and review outcomes: one from Frontiers - an open access publishing house with a novel interactive review process, and two from Spanish and international computer science conferences, which use traditional peer review. We use a random intercept model in which review outcome is the dependent variable, author and reviewer attributes are the independent variables and bias is defined by the interaction between author and reviewer attributes. We find no evidence of bias in terms of gender, or the language or prestige of author and reviewer institutions in any of the three datasets, but some weak evidence of regional bias in all three. Reviewer gender and the language and prestige of reviewer institutions appear to have little effect on review outcomes, but author gender, and the characteristics of author institutions have moderate to large effects. The methodology used cannot determine whether these are due to objective differences in scientific merit or entrenched biases shared by all reviewers. PMID:26594326

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

    Background Adolescence and early adulthood are critical periods for the development of mental disorders. Online peer-to-peer communication is popular among young people and may improve mental health by providing social support. Previous systematic reviews have targeted Internet support groups for adults with mental health problems, including depression. However, there have been no systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of online peer-to-peer support in improving the mental health of adolescents and young adults. Objective The aim of this review was to systematically identify available evidence for the effectiveness of online peer-to peer support for young people with mental health problems. Methods The PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane databases were searched using keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Retrieved abstracts (n=3934) were double screened and coded. Studies were included if they (1) investigated an online peer-to-peer interaction, (2) the interaction discussed topics related to mental health, (3) the age range of the sample was between 12 to 25 years, and (4) the study evaluated the effectiveness of the peer-to-peer interaction. Results Six studies satisfied the inclusion criteria for the current review. The studies targeted a range of mental health problems including depression and anxiety (n=2), general psychological problems (n=1), eating disorders (n=1), and substance use (tobacco) (n=2). The majority of studies investigated Internet support groups (n=4), and the remaining studies focused on virtual reality chat sessions (n=2). In almost all studies (n=5), the peer support intervention was moderated by health professionals, researchers or consumers. Studies employed a range of study designs including randomized controlled trials (n=3), pre-post studies (n=2) and one randomized trial. Overall, two of the randomized controlled trials were associated with a significant positive outcome in comparison to the control group at post-intervention. In the remaining four studies, peer-to-peer support was not found to be effective. Conclusions This systematic review identified an overall lack of high-quality studies examining online peer-to-peer support for young people. Given that peer support is frequently used as an adjunct to Internet interventions for a variety of mental health conditions, there is an urgent need to determine the effectiveness of peer support alone as an active intervention. PMID:26543923

  18. This is an author produced version of a paper published in Journal of Insect Behavior. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include

    E-print Network

    of shelters may influence where an insect stays, on a local scale, and thereby where it feeds. VisualThis is an author produced version of a paper published in Journal of Insect Behavior. This paper in a Phytophagous Insect. Journal of Insect Behavior Volume: 21, Issue: 1, pages 9-23. ISSN: 0892-7553 http

  19. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ...2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400.21 Section...Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities. Scientific peer review is an evaluation...

  20. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ...2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400.21 Section...Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities. Scientific peer review is an evaluation...

  1. Ghost- and guest-authored pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies: abuse of academic integrity, the peer review system, and public trust.

    PubMed

    Flaherty, Dennis K

    2013-01-01

    Industry-sponsored ghost- and guest-authored clinical research publications are a continuing problem in medical journals. These communications are written by unacknowledged medical communication companies and submitted to peer-reviewed journals by academicians who may not have participated in the writing process. These publications, which are used for marketing purposes, usually underestimate the adverse effects and medical risks associated with the products evaluated. Since peer-reviewed data are used to develop health care paradigms, misleading information can have catastrophic effects. A failure to curb ghost and guest authorship will result in an erosion of trust in the peer-review system, academic research, and health care paradigms. PMID:23585648

  2. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After...

  3. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After...

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After...

  5. 7 CFR 3406.23 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3406.23 Section..., EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1890 INSTITUTION CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3406.23 Access to peer review information. After final decisions...

  6. 7 CFR 3405.16 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3405.16 Section..., EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HIGHER EDUCATION CHALLENGE GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3405.16 Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been...

  7. The Great Fossil Fiasco: Teaching about Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Gift, Nancy; Krasny, Marianne

    2003-01-01

    Describes a lesson that engages middle school students in learning about peer review. Uses the article "Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail," which was published in the November, 1999 issue of "National Geographic" as an example of a real life story of how peer review forces scientists to critically re-examine a fossil discovery. (SOE)

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Peer review of contract proposals. 67.103 Section 67.103 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS, INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of...

  10. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Peer review of contract proposals. 67.103 Section 67.103 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS, INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of...

  11. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Peer review of contract proposals. 67.103 Section 67.103 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS, INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of...

  12. Peer Review Summary Document (2/18/2014)

    E-print Network

    Peer Review Summary Document (2/18/2014) http://www.usgs.gov/peer_review/docs/anthrax_geochemistry-soils_contiguousUS.pdf. [20 KB PDF] Title and Authorship of Information Product Disseminated Anthrax and the Geochemistry for significance differences between counties with and without confirmed anthrax outbreaks (89 sample sites located

  13. ForPeerReview Mapping swamp timothy (Crypsis schoenoides) seed

    E-print Network

    Quinn, Nigel

    ForPeerReview Only Mapping swamp timothy (Crypsis schoenoides) seed productivity using spectral schoenoides) seed productivity using spectral values and vegetation indices in managed wetlands PATRICK #12;ForPeerReview Only Mapping swamp timothy (Crypsis schoenoides) seed productivity using spectral

  14. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section 3415.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review...

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section 3415.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review...

  16. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section 3415.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review...

  17. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section 3415.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review...

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

    PubMed Central

    Borgert, Christopher J.; Mihaich, Ellen M.

    2012-01-01

    Background: 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. Objective: We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards. Method: We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations. Discussion: 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. Conclusions: 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. PMID:22343028

  19. Stretched peer-review on unexpected results (GMOs).

    PubMed

    Myhr, A I

    2005-01-01

    Science is the basis for governance of risk from genetically modified organisms (GMO), and it is also a primary source of legitimacy for policy decision. However, recently the publication of unexpected results has caused controversies and challenged the way in which science should be performed, be published in scientific journals, and how preliminary results should be communicated. These studies have subsequently, after being accepted for publication within the peer-review process of leading scientific journals, been thoroughly re-examined by many actors active within the GMO debate and thereby drawn extensive media coverage. The publicized charges that the research involved does not constitute significant evidence or represent bad science have in fact deflected attention away from the important questions related to ecological and health risks raised by the research. In this paper, I will argue that unexpected findings may represent "early warnings." Although early warnings may not represent reality, such reports are necessary to inform other scientists and regulators, and should be followed up by further research to reveal the validity of the warnings. Furthermore, science that embraces robust, participatory and transparent approaches will be imperative in the future to reduce the present controversy surrounding GMO use and release. PMID:16304941

  20. Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review. AAHE Teaching Initiative.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hutchings, Pat

    A collection of program descriptions and case studies in college faculty peer collaboration and peer review includes: "Setting a Scholarly Tone: Teaching Circles in the History Department at Kent State University"; "Fostering Collective Responsibility for Student Learning: Teaching Seminars in the University of North Carolina at Charlotte…

  1. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    SciTech Connect

    BLOOMQUIST,DOUGLAS D.

    2000-12-01

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

  2. Employing Self-Assessment, Journaling, and Peer Sharing to Enhance Learning from an Online Course

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hwang, Wu-Yuin; Hsu, Jung-Lung; Shadiev, Rustam; Chang, Chia-Ling; Huang, Yueh-Min

    2015-01-01

    This study explored the use of self-assessments, journaling, and peer sharing in an online computer programming course. We conducted an experiment using a pretest-intervention-posttest design in which 64 undergraduate first-year students participated. We aimed to investigate whether self-assessment, journaling, and peer sharing can facilitate…

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    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? What data set review can be done pre-publication, and what must be done post-publication? What components of the data sets review processes can be automated, and what components will always require human expertise and evaluation?

  4. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2011-07-01 2010-07-01 true 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...

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2014-07-01 2013-07-01 true What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52... composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and... information, or conferences, must be reviewed by a peer review panel that consists of a majority of...

  6. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 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...

  7. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 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...

  8. Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores

    PubMed Central

    Lindner, Mark D.; Nakamura, Richard K.

    2015-01-01

    The predictive validity of peer review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has not yet been demonstrated empirically. It might be assumed that the most efficient and expedient test of the predictive validity of NIH peer review would be an examination of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications produced from funded projects. The present study used a large dataset to examine the rationale for such a study, to determine if it would satisfy the requirements for a test of predictive validity. The results show significant restriction of range in the applications selected for funding. Furthermore, those few applications that are funded with slightly worse peer review scores are not selected at random or representative of other applications in the same range. The funding institutes also negotiate with applicants to address issues identified during peer review. Therefore, the peer review scores assigned to the submitted applications, especially for those few funded applications with slightly worse peer review scores, do not reflect the changed and improved projects that are eventually funded. In addition, citation metrics by themselves are not valid or appropriate measures of scientific impact. The use of bibliometric indices on their own to measure scientific impact would likely increase the inefficiencies and problems with replicability already largely attributed to the current over-emphasis on bibliometric indices. Therefore, retrospective analyses of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications resulting from funded grant applications are not valid tests of the predictive validity of peer review at the NIH. PMID:26039440

  9. Peer Mentoring for Health Behavior Change: A Systematic Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Petosa, R. L.; Smith, Laureen H.

    2014-01-01

    Background: Peer mentoring can be a powerful complement to health instruction. Mentoring has been used to change health behaviors and promote sustainable lifestyle patterns in adults and, more recently, among adolescents. Purpose: This article reviews the use of peer mentoring to promote health practices and describes how this approach can be used…

  10. Book (All chapters are peer-reviewed) Kumar, B. M. and Nair, P. K. R. (eds). Carbon Sequestration in Agroforestry

    E-print Network

    Hill, Jeffrey E.

    Book (All chapters are peer-reviewed) Kumar, B. M. and Nair, P. K. R. (eds). Carbon Sequestration Articles Nair, P. K. R. 2011. Agroforestry systems and environmental quality: Introduction. Journal of Environmental Quality 40: 784­790. Howlett, D. S., Marcose, M. G., Mosquera-Losada M.-R., Nair, P. K. R

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2013-01-01

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

  12. 42 CFR 67.15 - Peer review of applications.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ...field readers, or by an ad hoc group of reviewers. (4) The... (5) Each reviewer or group of reviewers to whom an...adequacy of the proposed means for protecting against or minimizing such...1) Members of peer review groups will be screened for...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  16. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400... PROGRAM Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities. Scientific peer review is an evaluation of a proposed project for technical quality and...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Aghaee, Naghmeh; Hansson, Henrik

    2013-01-01

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

  18. Journalism and Institutional Review Boards

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dash, Leon

    2007-01-01

    The author opposes any Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) overseeing the work of journalism professors and journalism students in any academic institution. He argues that the tendency for IRBs to require anonymity for persons interviewed immediately reduces the credibility of any journalistic story. The composition of an IRB is questioned on…

  19. Peer Review Plan Date: 12/12/2014

    E-print Network

    Peer Review Plan Date: 12/12/2014 Source Center: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Texas Water Science and Technology (ES&T) for publication. Impact of Dissemination: This information product is considered

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ...103 Section 67.103 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS, INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of Contracts for Health...

  1. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ...103 Section 67.103 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS, INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of Contracts for Health...

  2. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.11...

  3. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.11...

  4. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.11...

  5. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.11...

  6. Peer Review Plan Date: 11/1/2012

    E-print Network

    cancer risk resulting from lifetime exposures to PAH-contaminated soil and dust via non-dietary ingestion in Survey Manual chapter 502.3--Fundamental Science Practices: Peer Review (http://www.usgs.gov/usgs- manual

  7. Peer Review Plan Date: 5/8/2014

    E-print Network

    Peer Review Plan Date: 5/8/2014 Source Center: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Texas Water Science sediment in the receiving water body for runoff from a substantial portion of Austin, Texas, the first city

  8. ForPeerReview Verification of Mountain Weather Information Service

    E-print Network

    Birch, Cathryn

    ForPeerReview Verification of Mountain Weather Information Service forecasts for three upland areas Centre, Mountain Weather Information Service Marsham, John; University of Leeds, National Centre for Atmospheric Science Keywords: Mountain weather, Weather forecasting, Forecast verification http

  9. 7 CFR 3401.13 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ...AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding...and the quality of such research; (c) Professional...other honors received from scientific and professional...

  10. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ...SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS...level of formal scientific or technical...in relevant research, the capacities...quality of the research; (3) Recognition...received from scientific and...

  11. 7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ...AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications...The level of formal scientific or technical education...engaged in relevant research and other...

  12. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ...SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS...level of formal scientific or technical...in relevant research, the capacities...quality of the research; (3) Recognition...received from scientific and...

  13. Peer Review Summary Document (7/30/2012)

    E-print Network

    of unconventional oil and gas development at the John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis. Peer Reviewer-water and groundwater quality in areas of unconventional oil and gas development at the John Wesley Powell Center

  14. RANZCR 2006 peer review audit instrument.

    PubMed

    Toohey, J; Shakespeare, T P; Morgan, G

    2008-08-01

    The Royal Australian and New Zealand College Radiologists (RANZCR) continuing professional development programme incorporates audit with feedback as one important activity. The 2004 audit tool improves radiation oncologist practice quality; however, the instrument is designed to be regularly refined. To refine the 2004 audit tool and present the new instrument we incorporated comments and suggestions from: (i) the auditor and radiation oncologist from the single machine unit trial; (ii) members of RANZCR Post-Fellowship Education Committee; (iii) New South Wales Department of Health mandatory prescription requirements; and (iv) the International Atomic Energy Agency audit tool. In July 2006, the revised instrument was designed then endorsed by Post-Fellowship Education Committee. Important changes include: (i) combining criteria which separately scored documentation and correctness for similar items; (ii) scoring treatment schedule more explicitly; (iii) separating target volume coverage and critical structure dose; (iv) altering performance criteria scoring to be sensitive to peer review when no consensus can be reached; and (v) strengthening instructions for use and notes to improve comprehension and acceptance. The refined 2006 instrument should be more user-friendly while increasing its usefulness. PMID:18811766

  15. 75 FR 18205 - Notice of Peer Review Meeting for the External Peer Review Drafts of Two Documents on Using...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-04-09

    ...comments from the public. The peer-review meeting will be held at the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202. Space is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first- come,...

  16. Final Report: Fourth Peer Review of the CMAQ Model

    EPA Science Inventory

    The CMAQ Model External Peer Review Panel conducted a two and a half day review view on June 27, 28, and 29, 2011. This report summarizes its findings, and follows other reviews conducted in 2004, 2005, and 2006 [Amar et al., 2004; 2005 and 2007].

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

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  18. Medical students as peer tutors: a systematic review

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Background While Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) has long occurred informally in medical education, in the past ten years, there has been increasing international interest in formally organised PAL, with many benefits for both the students and institutions. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to establish why and how PAL has been implemented, focussing on the recruitment and training process for peer tutors, the benefits for peer tutors, and the competency of peer tutors. Method A literature search was conducted in three electronic databases. Selection of titles and abstracts were made based on pre-determined eligibility criteria. We utilized the ‘AMEE Peer assisted learning: a planning and implementation framework: AMEE Guide no. 30’ to assist us in establishing the review aims in a systematic review of the literature between 2002 and 2012. Six key questions were developed and used in our analysis of particular aspects of PAL programs within medical degree programs. Results We found nineteen articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. The PAL activities fell into three broad categories of teacher training, peer teaching and peer assessment. Variability was found in the reporting of tutor recruitment and training processes, tutor outcomes, and tutor competencies. Conclusion Results from this review suggest that there are many perceived learning benefits for student tutors. However, there were mixed results regarding the accuracy of peer assessment and feedback, and no substantial evidence to conclude that participation as a peer tutor improves one’s own examination performance. Further research into PAL in medicine is required if we are to better understand the relative impact and benefits for student tutors. PMID:24912500

  19. 2013 Building Technologies Office Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  20. Version 1.0 Peer Review Framework: Accessing information about Research Council

    E-print Network

    on funding. 1.3 Proposals are assessed by a process known as Peer Review which usually involves a two1 Version 1.0 June 2014 Peer Review Framework: Accessing information about Research Council of successful Proposals for funding. 1.4 The Peer Review Framework is designed to explain: i. How the Peer

  1. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.

    PubMed

    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. PMID:25829801

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

    PubMed Central

    2015-01-01

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

  3. Using online databases to find peer?reviewed journal articles on injury prevention and safety promotion research: a study of textword queries by SafetyLit users

    PubMed Central

    Lawrence, David W

    2007-01-01

    Objective To assess the capacity of textword queries to provide a comprehensive listing of articles on injury prevention and safety promotion (IPSP) concepts in a literature database. Methods All terms used to search SafetyLit (a database of scholarly literature selected for its relevance to the IPSP field) during the years 2000–2005 were listed and then examined to identify terms that are synonyms for the same concept. Terms were grouped by concept, the number of queries that used terms within each concept category were summed, and the concepts were then ordered by the total number of searches for each concept category. For each textword, the proportion of all articles for that concept that could be found by using it alone was calculated. Results Each of the 25 most searched?for concepts has 4 to 40 synonyms. Sixteen of the concepts required queries using two or more terms to find 75% of the available articles. Few searchers used a sufficient number of textword synonyms in their queries to return a complete listing of the available material. Conclusion On the basis of this study, queries using only one or two textword terms are insufficiently sensitive to find all relevant journal articles about an IPSP concept. PMID:17686932

  4. Connecting the role of school superintendents to teaching and learning in schools: a research synthesis of three educational administration peer reviewed research journals between 1983-2006 

    E-print Network

    Shidemantle, Steven Paul

    2008-10-10

    : Dr. John R. Hoyle This exploratory synthesis of research was the product of three years of dissertation research efforts that systematically reviewed 23 years of empirical articles between 1983 (or its inception) and 2006 from three of the most highly... .................................................................................................................150 VITA..............................................................................................................................154 xi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 The accessible population of articles published in EAQ, JSL, and JEA from 1983...

  5. Reflective Practice through Journal Writing and Peer Observation: A Case Study

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lakshmi, B. Samrajya

    2014-01-01

    Journal writing and Peer Observation in an educational context have become popular techniques, with several different types of applications. They have now been used quite widely in both language teaching and in teacher training. However, despite its reported advantages in both teaching and research, there are not many Peer Observation and Diary…

  6. A PEER REVIEWED FORUM Somite Development in Zebrafish

    E-print Network

    Devoto, Stephen H.

    REVIEWS A PEER REVIEWED FORUM Somite Development in Zebrafish HEATHER L. STICKNEY, MICHAEL J epithelialization, and somite patterning. The zebrafish has long been recog- nized as an ideal organism for cellular complementary approach to these embryological studies, as genetic screens for zebrafish mutants defective

  7. Genetics and Peer Relations: A Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brendgen, Mara

    2012-01-01

    Researchers have become increasingly interested in uncovering how genetic factors work together with the peer environment in influencing development. This article offers an overview of the state of knowledge. It first describes the different types of gene-environment correlations (rGE) and gene-environment interactions (GxE) that are of relevance…

  8. Referrals: Peer Review as Continuing Medical Education.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hoftvedt, Bjorn Oscar; Mjell, Johnny

    1993-01-01

    Nine local groups of general practitioners in Norway participated in a study of the usefulness of peer group discussion of actual cases as a means of professional development. Physicians brought referral cases and feedback (correspondence) from the specialist concerned to the group for analysis and received suggestions for further study. (MSE)

  9. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

    PubMed

    Walker, Richard; Rocha da Silva, Pascal

    2015-01-01

    "Classical peer review" has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. Based on an initial literature review, we construct a sample of 82 channels of scientific communication covering all forms of review identified by the survey, and analyze the review mechanisms used by each channel. We identify two major trends: the rapidly expanding role of preprint servers (e.g., ArXiv) that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, and the growth of "non-selective review," focusing on papers' scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty. Other potentially important developments include forms of "open review," which remove reviewer anonymity, and interactive review, as well as new mechanisms for post-publication review and out-of-channel reader commentary, especially critical commentary targeting high profile papers. One of the strongest findings of the survey is the persistence of major differences between the peer review processes used by different disciplines. None of these differences is likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. The most likely scenario for the coming years is thus continued diversification, in which different review mechanisms serve different author, reader, and publisher needs. Relatively little is known about the impact of these innovations on the problems they address. These are important questions for future quantitative research. PMID:26074753

  10. Emerging trends in peer review—a survey

    PubMed Central

    Walker, Richard; Rocha da Silva, Pascal

    2015-01-01

    “Classical peer review” has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. Based on an initial literature review, we construct a sample of 82 channels of scientific communication covering all forms of review identified by the survey, and analyze the review mechanisms used by each channel. We identify two major trends: the rapidly expanding role of preprint servers (e.g., ArXiv) that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, and the growth of “non-selective review,” focusing on papers' scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty. Other potentially important developments include forms of “open review,” which remove reviewer anonymity, and interactive review, as well as new mechanisms for post-publication review and out-of-channel reader commentary, especially critical commentary targeting high profile papers. One of the strongest findings of the survey is the persistence of major differences between the peer review processes used by different disciplines. None of these differences is likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. The most likely scenario for the coming years is thus continued diversification, in which different review mechanisms serve different author, reader, and publisher needs. Relatively little is known about the impact of these innovations on the problems they address. These are important questions for future quantitative research. PMID:26074753

  11. A Study of Technical Engineering Peer Reviews at NASA

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    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.

  12. Calibrated peer review assignments for the earth sciences

    USGS Publications Warehouse

    Rudd, J.A., II; 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.

  13. IRIS Toxicological Review and Summary Documents for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (External Peer Review)

    EPA Science Inventory

    The U.S. EPA has conducted a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of 1,4-dichlorobenzene that will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. Peer review is meant to ensure that science is used ...

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

    PubMed

    Kratz, John Ernest; Strasser, Carly

    2015-01-01

    Data "publication" seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ? 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences- asking what expectations"data publication" raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data's documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published data. PMID:25706992

  15. Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data

    PubMed Central

    Kratz, John Ernest; Strasser, Carly

    2015-01-01

    Data “publication” seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ? 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences– asking what expectations“data publication” raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data’s documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published data. PMID:25706992

  16. Final Independent External Peer Review Report Olmsted Locks and Dam 52 and 53 Replacement

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report Olmsted Locks and Dam 52 and 53 Replacement Project Review Report Olmsted Locks and Dam 52 and 53 Replacement Project Updated Cost Estimate Peer Review and Dam 52 and 53 Replacement Project Updated Cost Estimate Peer Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project

  17. 7 CFR 3411.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ...Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.10 Establishment and operation of peer review...

  18. 7 CFR 3400.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ...Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups....

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ...Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding § 3401.12 Establishment and operation of peer review...

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

    SciTech Connect

    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

  1. Proposal Peer Review Nondisclosure Agreement and Conflict of Interest Avoidance In the performance of peer review of proposals submitted to NASA, I may have access to

    E-print Network

    Kalas, Paul G.

    In the performance of peer review of proposals submitted to NASA, I may have access to or be furnished, information, and budgetary data. All NASA supervisory and management personnel and reviewers, and all non-NASA reviewers, non-NASA support personnel, or NASA personnel outside the meetings of any designated peer review

  2. On the pitfalls of peer review

    PubMed Central

    van Gunsteren, Wilfred

    2015-01-01

    The review process of academic, scientific research and its basic tenets is considered, thereby distinguishing between (i) reviewing of manuscripts to be published in the scientific literature, (ii) reviewing of research proposals to be financed by funding agencies, (iii) reviewing of educational or research institutions with respect to their proper functioning, and (iv) reviewing of scientists with the aim of appointing or tenuring faculty. PMID:26675931

  3. On the pitfalls of peer review.

    PubMed

    van Gunsteren, Wilfred

    2015-01-01

    The review process of academic, scientific research and its basic tenets is considered, thereby distinguishing between (i) reviewing of manuscripts to be published in the scientific literature, (ii) reviewing of research proposals to be financed by funding agencies, (iii) reviewing of educational or research institutions with respect to their proper functioning, and (iv) reviewing of scientists with the aim of appointing or tenuring faculty. PMID:26675931

  4. Reflective Journals: A Review of the Literature

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lindroth, James T.

    2015-01-01

    The use of reflective journals has been identified as an effective tool to promote reflection in preservice teachers. This review of literature provides the reader with an understanding of the various ways journals are used and assessed in teacher education programs. The findings of this review outline the use of reflective journals on topics such…

  5. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE FELLOWSHIP GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information...

  6. The Impact of a Peer Review Community on Teaching

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Miller, Geri; Quealy-Berge, Diana

    2006-01-01

    There is evidence that a teaching community can have a powerful impact on teaching effectiveness. While "common sense" and the individual stories of teachers may support such a perspective, this article is a case study where one professor, who was involved in a peer review community of teachers, quantitatively examined the impact of this community…

  7. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR Ch. I and III) and the requirements of the pertinent Request for Proposal. (b... Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635) and Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive..., INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of...

  8. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR Ch. I and III) and the requirements of the pertinent Request for Proposal. (b... Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635) and Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive..., INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of...

  9. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL...

  10. Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies that Support Education Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Towne, Lisa, Ed.; Fletcher, Jack M., Ed.; Wise, Lauress L., Ed.

    2004-01-01

    The focus of this report is on peer review as it is applied to the evaluation of proposals for federal funding of education research projects. The primary source of evidence used to set forth the report's conclusions and recommendations about this topic is a workshop convened in February 25-26, 2003 at the National Academies' Keck Center in…

  11. Peer Reviewing Preservice Teachers of Christian Higher Education

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Buchanan, Michael T.

    2011-01-01

    This study investigated the contributions peer review makes to the formation of preservice teachers of religious education within the context of Christian higher education. The participants were postgraduate students undertaking a preservice teacher training course at Australian Catholic University, Australia (Melbourne campus). Those training to…

  12. Publications on Rural Poverty and Development Peer-Reviewed Articles

    E-print Network

    California at Santa Barbara, University of

    Publications on Rural Poverty and Development Peer-Reviewed Articles Davis J., López-Carr D. (2014. Davis (2010).Population, Poverty, Environment, and Climate Dynamics in the Developing World roads: Land tenure, poverty, and politics on the Guatemalan frontier. Geoforum. 37(1): 94-103. Book

  13. NIH Mulls Ways to Lure Back Veteran Peer Reviewers

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brainard, Jeffrey

    2008-01-01

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

  14. Investigating Mandatory Peer Review of Teaching In Schools

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  15. Enhancing Proof Writing via Cross-Institutional Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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,…

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

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  17. Portfolio Peer Review: A Tool for Program Change.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fleak, Sandra K.; Romine, Jeff; Gilchrist, Neil

    2003-01-01

    To achieve cultural change in a business management/accounting department, annual peer review of faculty portfolios documenting teaching, advising, service, and scholarship was instituted. The process improved the department's alignment with the university's mission. Scholarly productivity quadrupled from 1998-2001. Portfolio assessment had little…

  18. Peer Review Plan Date: 8/20/2012

    E-print Network

    to its primary land use alternative in the Amazon Estuary, Açaí palm fruit production. Net Present ValuePeer Review Plan Date: 8/20/2012 Source Center: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Pacific Island of smallholder timber production under expanding Açaí palm production in the Amazon Estuary. Subject and Purpose

  19. Trans-NIH Regional Grant Writing & Scientific Peer Review Workshops

    Cancer.gov

    CGH organizes The Regional Grant Writing & Scientific Peer Review Workshops in coordination with several Institutes and Centers across NIH to increase the participation of scientists from LMICs in the research grant process; develop strategies for sustainable research support and collaborations; and use competitive research as a tool to address global health issues.

  20. Peer Reviewed A Comparison of Noninvasive Techniques to Survey

    E-print Network

    Gompper, Matthew E.

    Peer Reviewed A Comparison of Noninvasive Techniques to Survey Carnivore Communities York State Museum, Albany, NY 12230, USA Abstract Carnivores are difficult to survey due, in large part of carnivores (including members of Carnivora and Didelphidae) in New York forests. Two metrics were

  1. 42 CFR 67.15 - Peer review of applications.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Peer review of applications. 67.15 Section 67.15 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS, INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Research Grants for...

  2. 42 CFR 67.15 - Peer review of applications.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Peer review of applications. 67.15 Section 67.15 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS, INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Research Grants for...

  3. 42 CFR 67.15 - Peer review of applications.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Peer review of applications. 67.15 Section 67.15 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS, INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Research Grants for...

  4. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section 3415.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH...

  5. Reviewer acknowledgement 2013

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Contributing reviewers A peer-reviewed journal would not survive without the generous time and insightful comments of the reviewers, whose efforts often go unrecognized. Journal of Medical Case Reports has been blessed by the support of highly-qualified peer reviewers, and the Editor-in-Chief, Michael Kidd, and staff of the journal would like to show their appreciation by thanking the following for their invaluable assistance with review of manuscripts for the journal in Volume 8 (2013). PMID:24447881

  6. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ...What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52 Section 350.52 Education...What is the composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and other experts in...

  7. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ...What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52 Section 350.52 Education...What is the composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and other experts in...

  8. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ...What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52 Section 350.52 Education...What is the composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and other experts in...

  9. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ...What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52 Section 350.52 Education...What is the composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and other experts in...

  10. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ...What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52 Section 350.52 Education...What is the composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and other experts in...

  11. Final Independent External Peer Review Report for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Ecosystem

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report for the Mississippi River ­ Gulf Outlet Ecosystem Independent External Peer Review Report for the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Ecosystem Restoration Plan PEER REVIEW REPORT for the Mississippi River Gulf-Outlet Ecosystem Restoration Plan Feasibility Study

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  13. ForPeerReview Number and Topography of Cones, Rods and Optic Nerve Axons

    E-print Network

    Finlay, Barbara L.

    ForPeerReview Number and Topography of Cones, Rods and Optic Nerve Axons in New and Old World nerve Visual Neuroscience #12;ForPeerReview 1 Number and Topography of Cones, Rods and Optic Nerve AxonsPeerReview 2 Number and Topography of Cones, Rods and Optic Nerve Axons in New and Old World Primates Abstract

  14. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400... § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities. Scientific peer review is an evaluation of a... with the scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed research work....

  15. MJG:Peer Review, 5/00 1 M. J. Gouge

    E-print Network

    MJG:Peer Review, 5/00 1 M. J. Gouge Oak Ridge National Laboratory Fueling Program Peer Review ORNL May 10, 2000 #12;MJG:Peer Review, 5/00 2 · provide hydrogenic fuel to maintain the plasma density, · supply hydrogenic edge fueling for increased scrape off layer flow for optimum divertor operation

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  18. Final Independent External Peer Review Report for the White Oak Bayou Federal Flood Damage

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report for the White Oak Bayou Federal Flood Damage Independent External Peer Review Report for the White Oak Bayou Federal Flood Damage Reduction Plan PEER REVIEW REPORT for the White Oak Bayou Federal Flood Damage Reduction Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY White

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  1. Some Thoughts On Peer Review In The Global Internet Context Narayanan Komerath

    E-print Network

    paper. Eichberger and Fachbach [3] assess the process and results of peer review appliedSome Thoughts On Peer Review In The Global Internet Context Narayanan Komerath Daniel Guggenheim in capturing knowledge. The implications of internet based peer review are considered in suggesting a model

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  4. The Potential of Dual-Language Cross-Cultural Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  5. 75 FR 18205 - Notice of Peer Review Meeting for the External Peer Review Drafts of Two Documents on Using...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-04-09

    ... announcing that Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review... the draft documents (74 FR 41695), and on September 17, 2009 extended the comment period to 60 days (74 FR 47794), thus closing the public comment period on October 16, 2009. The public comment...

  6. Peer review of the trusted software methodology

    SciTech Connect

    Chisholm, G.H.; Gannon, J.D. |; Kemmerer, R.A. |; McHugh, J. |

    1994-02-01

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

  7. CPTC Experts Author Proteomics Review in the Journal of Proteome Research

    Cancer.gov

    CPTC experts authored a review of the current state of clinical proteomics in the peer-reviewed Journal of Proteome Research. The review highlights outcomes from the CPTC program and also provides a thorough overview of the different technologies that have pushed the field forward. Additionally, the review provides a vision for moving the field forward through linking advances in genomic and proteomic analysis to develop new, molecularly targeted interventions.

  8. Peer-review Platform for Astronomy Education Activities

    E-print Network

    Russo, Pedro; Gomez, Edward; Strubbe, Linda

    2015-01-01

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

  9. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Algae

    SciTech Connect

    Yang, Joyce

    2012-02-01

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

  10. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review. Infrastructure

    SciTech Connect

    Lindauer, Alicia

    2012-02-01

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

  11. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review. Sustainability

    SciTech Connect

    Eng, Alison Goss

    2012-02-01

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

  12. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Feedstock

    SciTech Connect

    McCann, Laura

    2012-02-01

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

  13. Jeffrey F. Kelly Peer-Reviewed Publications

    E-print Network

    Kelly, Jeff

    reliance on nectar by an insectivorous bat revealed by stable isotopes. Oecologia 54 Kelly, JF, PB Chilson, ES Bridge and WF Frick. In Review. Energetics of and Abundant Aerial Insectivore: The Purple Martin

  14. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Analysis

    SciTech Connect

    Haq, Zia

    2012-02-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Vyas, Dinesh; Hozain, Ahmed E

    2014-01-01

    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. PMID:24914357

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

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  17. Dr. Glaser, Scientific Writing, Chem3700, Spring 2012 Assignment #10: Written Scientific Peer Review

    E-print Network

    Glaser, Rainer

    competent peer review for free because the members of the scientific community realize and collectivelyDr. Glaser, Scientific Writing, Chem3700, Spring 2012 Assignment #10: Written Scientific Peer Review In Assignments #8 & #9, you and your peers wrote original scientific papers on the general theme

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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. Physical Review: a family of journals

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Sprouse, Gene

    2013-03-01

    The expansion of research in physics in the last 100 years has been reflected in the expansion of the Physical Review(PR). Reviews of Modern Physics was the first ``new'' journal, starting in 1929. Physical Review Letters commenced in 1958, and was the first ``letters'' type of journal for important new results in all fields. By 1970 the Physical Review itself had grown so large that it was necessary to separate it by field into manageable volumes: PRA, PRB, PRC and PRD, and subsequently PRE, which was split off from PRA. More recently, two Special Topics journals for accelerator physics and physics education were pioneers of the open access business model, and the newest member of the family, Physical Review X, continues this trend. PRX is broad scope and very selective, setting it well above many of the new open access journals with a review standard of ``not incorrect.'' Some possible future directions for the Physical Review journals will be discussed.

  20. 42 CFR 52h.3 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ...Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PROJECTS § 52h.3 Establishment and operation of peer...

  1. 42 CFR 52h.3 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ...Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PROJECTS § 52h.3 Establishment and operation of peer...

  2. Evaluating the impact of accreditation and external peer review.

    PubMed

    Kilsdonk, Melvin; Siesling, Sabine; Otter, Renee; Harten, Wim van

    2015-10-12

    Purpose - Accreditation and external peer review play important roles in assessing and improving healthcare quality worldwide. Evidence on the impact on the quality of care remains indecisive because of programme features and methodological research challenges. The purpose of this paper is to create a general methodological research framework to design future studies in this field. Design/methodology/approach - A literature search on effects of external peer review and accreditation was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science. Three researchers independently screened the studies. Only original research papers that studied the impact on the quality of care were included. Studies were evaluated by their objectives and outcomes, study size and analysis entity (hospitals vs patients), theoretical framework, focus of the studied programme, heterogeneity of the study population and presence of a control group. Findings - After careful selection 50 articles were included out of an initial 2,025 retrieved references. Analysis showed a wide variation in methodological characteristics. Most studies are performed cross-sectionally and results are not linked to the programme by a theoretical framework. Originality/value - Based on the methodological characteristics of previous studies the authors propose a general research framework. This framework is intended to support the design of future research to evaluate the effects of accreditation and external peer review on the quality of care. PMID:26440481

  3. Pulsed power peer review committee report.

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    2004-08-01

    As part of meeting the GRPA (Government Performance and Results Act) requirements and to provide input to Sandia's annual Performance Evaluation Assessment Report (PEAR) to the National Nuclear Security Administration in FY2004, a 14-member external review committee chaired by Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece was convened by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) on May 4-6, 2004 to review Sandia National Laboratories' Pulsed Power Programs. 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.

  4. Examining Marketing Journals' Publication Process and Reviewer Practices

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Seiler, Vicky L.; Reisenwitz, Timothy H.; Schibrowsky, John A.

    2011-01-01

    This study examines reviewer practices at 11 marketing journals. The results for the top three journals are compared to eight comparable journals that are typically considered to be non-top-tier journals. The results suggest that the reviewers and the review processes at the top journals differ significantly from those of the non-top-tier…

  5. Good science, deceptive science, and fraud, plus a brief discussion of peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Lundquist, Marjorie

    2011-03-01

    What makes scientific publication different from other types of publication? Traditionally, it was that scientists published not only their conclusions, but also their data (which enabled others wanting to re-evaluate the data to do so). Publishing their data helped keep scientists honest. In the mid-20th century the policies of scientific journals changed, partly because very large data sets were being evaluated via computer. Many (but not all) scientific journals paid homage to scientific tradition by establishing archives for data serving as the basis for published scientific papers, while only a description of the study and the conclusions were published in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. This set the stage for scientific deception and scientific fraud, which became widespread in certain fields of study during the latter part of the 20th century. Indeed, some organizations were established that appeared to be legitimate scientific societies, but in fact existed for the purpose of promoting the incorrect evaluation of scientific data and publishing deceptive studies masquerading as sound scientific studies. The field of medicine has also become more science than art, with its current emphasis on ``evidence-based medicine.'' The different types of scientific deceit/fraud are identified, and a lifetime of experience with the correction of scientific error, plus encounters with scientific deception and scientific fraud, is summarized.

  6. Reviewer Acknowledgement 2013

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Contributing reviewers A peer-reviewed journal would not survive without the generous time and insightful comments of the reviewers, whose efforts often go unrecognized. Trials has been blessed by the support of highly-qualified peer reviewers, and the Editors-in-Chief, Doug Altman, Curt Furberg and Jeremy Grimshaw, and staff of the journal would like to show their appreciation by thanking the following for their invaluable assistance with review of manuscripts for the journal in Volume 14 (2013).

  7. Doing a Good Deed or Confounding the Problem? Peer Review and Sociology Textbooks.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kendall, Diana

    1999-01-01

    Examines how the peer review process influences the writing and publication of sociology textbooks and the teaching of sociology. States that the peer review process may influence the final textbook in five ways: (1) degree of innovation; (2) length; (3) reading level; (4) cloning ancillaries and accessories; and (5) using reviewers as marketing…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Garousi, V.

    2010-01-01

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

  9. Engineering Peer Review June 5-7, 2001 1 FUSION IGNITION

    E-print Network

    Engineering Peer Review June 5-7, 2001 1 FUSION IGNITION RESEARCH EXPERIMENT (FIRE) Machine Configuration Tom Brown (PPPL) June 5 ­ 7 , 2001 #12;Engineering Peer Review June 5-7, 2001 2 FIRE Configuration Presentation Outline Review the basic configuration concept. Define key component design features and assembly

  10. 7 CFR 3415.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ...Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.10...

  11. 7 CFR 3400.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ...Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.10...

  12. 7 CFR 3411.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ...Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications §...

  13. 7 CFR 3401.12 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ...Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding §...

  14. Peer review of HEDR uncertainty and sensitivity analyses plan

    SciTech Connect

    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.

  15. Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.

    PubMed

    Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus

    2012-01-01

    The two major functions of a scientific publishing system are to provide access to and evaluation of scientific papers. While open access (OA) is becoming a reality, open evaluation (OE), the other side of the coin, has received less attention. Evaluation steers the attention of the scientific community and thus the very course of science. It also influences the use of scientific findings in public policy. The current system of scientific publishing provides only journal prestige as an indication of the quality of new papers and relies on a non-transparent and noisy pre-publication peer-review process, which delays publication by many months on average. Here I propose an OE system, in which papers are evaluated post-publication in an ongoing fashion by means of open peer review and rating. Through signed ratings and reviews, scientists steer the attention of their field and build their reputation. Reviewers are motivated to be objective, because low-quality or self-serving signed evaluations will negatively impact their reputation. A core feature of this proposal is a division of powers between the accumulation of evaluative evidence and the analysis of this evidence by paper evaluation functions (PEFs). PEFs can be freely defined by individuals or groups (e.g., scientific societies) and provide a plurality of perspectives on the scientific literature. Simple PEFs will use averages of ratings, weighting reviewers (e.g., by H-index), and rating scales (e.g., by relevance to a decision process) in different ways. Complex PEFs will use advanced statistical techniques to infer the quality of a paper. Papers with initially promising ratings will be more deeply evaluated. The continual refinement of PEFs in response to attempts by individuals to influence evaluations in their own favor will make the system ungameable. OA and OE together have the power to revolutionize scientific publishing and usher in a new culture of transparency, constructive criticism, and collaboration. PMID:23087639

  16. Peer Review of NRC Standardized Plant Analysis Risk Models

    SciTech Connect

    Anthony Koonce; James Knudsen; Robert Buell

    2011-03-01

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) Models underwent a Peer Review using ASME PRA standard (Addendum C) as endorsed by NRC in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.200. The review was performed by a mix of industry probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) experts and NRC PRA experts. Representative SPAR models, one PWR and one BWR, were reviewed against Capability Category I of the ASME PRA standard. Capability Category I was selected as the basis for review due to the specific uses/applications of the SPAR models. The BWR SPAR model was reviewed against 331 ASME PRA Standard Supporting Requirements; however, based on the Capability Category I level of review and the absence of internal flooding and containment performance (LERF) logic only 216 requirements were determined to be applicable. Based on the review, the BWR SPAR model met 139 of the 216 supporting requirements. The review also generated 200 findings or suggestions. Of these 200 findings and suggestions 142 were findings and 58 were suggestions. The PWR SPAR model was also evaluated against the same 331 ASME PRA Standard Supporting Requirements. Of these requirements only 215 were deemed appropriate for the review (for the same reason as noted for the BWR). The PWR review determined that 125 of the 215 supporting requirements met Capability Category I or greater. The review identified 101 findings or suggestions (76 findings and 25 suggestions). These findings or suggestions were developed to identify areas where SPAR models could be enhanced. A process to prioritize and incorporate the findings/suggestions supporting requirements into the SPAR models is being developed. The prioritization process focuses on those findings that will enhance the accuracy, completeness and usability of the SPAR models.

  17. Adolescent peer group identification and characteristics: A review of the literature

    PubMed Central

    Sussman, Steve; Pokhrel, Pallav; Ashmore, Richard D.; Brown, B. Bradford

    2011-01-01

    This study provides an exhaustive review of 44 peer-reviewed quantitative or qualitative data-based peer-reviewed studies completed on adolescent peer group identification. Adolescent peer group identification is one’s self-perceived or other-perceived membership in discrete teenage peer groups. The studies reviewed suggest that adolescent peer groups consist of five general categories differentiable by lifestyle characteristics: Elites, Athletes, Academics, Deviants, and Others. We found that the Deviant adolescent group category reported relatively greater participation in drug use and other problem behaviors across studies, whereas Academics and Athletes exhibited the least participation in these problem behaviors. Additional research is needed in this arena to better understand the operation of adolescent group labels. PMID:17188815

  18. Nevada Risk Assessment/Management Program scientific peer review

    SciTech Connect

    Bentz, E.J. Jr.; Bentz, C.B.; O`Hora, T.D.; Chen, S.Y.

    1997-04-01

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

  19. ForPeerReview Neck Muscle Paths and Moment Arms are Significantly

    E-print Network

    Krishnamoorthy, Bala

    ForPeerReview Only Neck Muscle Paths and Moment Arms are Significantly Affected by Wrapping Surface, Bioengineering Keywords: neck muscles, moment arms, wrapping surface, muscle path URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcmb Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering #12;ForPeerReview Only Neck Muscle Paths

  20. Independent External Peer Review Report Rough River Dam 18 August 2011 ii

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    #12;Independent External Peer Review Report ­ Rough River Dam 18 August 2011 ii This page intentionally blank. #12;Independent External Peer Review Report ­ Rough River Dam 18 August 2011 iii Table Panel Members B-1 Appendix C ­ Charge for IEPR Panel C-1 List of Figures Figure 1. Rough River Dam 4

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  3. Dr. Glaser, Scientific Writing, Chem3700, Spring 2011 Assignment #10: Written Scientific Peer Review

    E-print Network

    Glaser, Rainer

    review for free because the members of the scientific community realize and collectively accept and valueDr. Glaser, Scientific Writing, Chem3700, Spring 2011 Assignment #10: Written Scientific Peer Review In Assignments #8 & #9, you and your peers wrote original scientific papers on the general theme

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kim, Soo Hyon

    2015-01-01

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

  5. ForPeerReview Activity-Dependent Intracellular Chloride Accumulation and

    E-print Network

    Wohrer, Adrien

    ForPeerReview Activity-Dependent Intracellular Chloride Accumulation and Diffusion Controls GABAA - Manuscript type: Research Article Keywords: bicarbonate, GABA reversal, KCC2, chloride diffusion, dendritic inhibition John Wiley & Sons Hippocampus #12;ForPeerReview - 1 - Activity-Dependent Intracellular Chloride

  6. ForPeerReview Lattice Kinetic Monte Carlo modeling of germanium solid

    E-print Network

    Florida, University of

    ForPeerReview Lattice Kinetic Monte Carlo modeling of germanium solid phase epitaxial growth phase epitaxial growth, Semiconductors, Lattice Kinetic Monte Carlo, Germanium Wiley-VCH physica status solidi #12;ForPeerReview physica status solidi Lattice Kinetic Monte Carlo modeling of germanium solid

  7. Final Independent External Peer Review Report of the Rio Grande de Arecibo, Puerto Rico

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report of the Rio Grande de Arecibo, Puerto Rico Post Order: 0058 Final Independent External Peer Review Report of the Rio Grande de Arecibo, Puerto Rico Post Arecibo, Puerto Rico Post Authorization Change Limited Reevaluation Report Executive Summary PROJECT

  8. ForPeerReview T-HOD: A Literature-based Candidate Gene Database for

    E-print Network

    Chu, Hao-hua

    ForPeerReview T-HOD: A Literature-based Candidate Gene Database for Hypertension, Obesity #12;ForPeerReview T-HOD: A Literature-based Candidate Gene Database for Hypertension, Obesity be used to affirm the association of genes with the three diseases and provide more evidence for further

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  10. 7 CFR 3401.12 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups...) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding § 3401.12 Establishment...

  11. 7 CFR 3400.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups...) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.10 Establishment...

  12. 7 CFR 3411.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups...) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications §...

  13. A Review of Peer-Mediated Social Interaction Interventions for Students with Autism in Inclusive Settings

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Watkins, Laci; O'Reilly, Mark; Kuhn, Michelle; Gevarter, Cindy; Lancioni, Giulio E.; Sigafoos, Jeff; Lang, Russell

    2015-01-01

    This review addresses the use of peer-mediated interventions (PMI) to improve the social interaction skills of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in inclusive settings. The purpose of this review is to (a) identify the characteristics and components of peer-mediated social interaction interventions, (b) evaluate the effectiveness of PMI…

  14. Final Independent External Peer Review Report Skagit River Basin Flood Risk Management

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report Skagit River Basin Flood Risk Management General of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Risk Management Planning Center of Expertise Baltimore District Independent External Peer Review Report Skagit River Basin Flood Risk Management General Investigation, Skagit

  15. Final Independent External Peer Review Report Princeville, North Carolina Flood Risk Management

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report Princeville, North Carolina Flood Risk Management Institute Prepared for Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Risk Management Planning: 0064 Final Independent External Peer Review Report Princeville, North Carolina Flood Risk Management

  16. Final Independent External Peer Review Report Cedar River Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Flood Risk

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report Cedar River ­ Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Flood Risk Prepared for Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Risk Management Planning Center) on Final Independent External Peer Review Report Cedar River-Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Flood Risk Management

  17. Independent External Peer Review for the Clear Creek, Texas Flood Risk

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Independent External Peer Review for the Clear Creek, Texas Flood Risk Management General Institute 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201 for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Risk Management Planning SERVICE (STAS) on Final Independent External Peer Review Report for Clear Creek, Texas Flood Risk

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

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    2010-12-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Tribe, Lorena; Cooper, Evan L.

    2008-01-01

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

  20. Independent External Peer Review Rio Grande Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque Del Apache,

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Independent External Peer Review Rio Grande Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque Del Apache, New Mexico and maintenance Office of Management and Budget Probability of Unsatisfactory Performance SADD San Acacia performed an Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) of the Rio Grande Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque Del

  1. ForPeerReview Layers of insect echoes near a thunderstorm and

    E-print Network

    Reading, University of

    ForPeerReview Layers of insect echoes near a thunderstorm and implications for the interpretation Norton, Emily; University of Manchester Keywords: Doppler radar, clear-air echoes, thunderstorm inflow Meteorological Society #12;ForPeerReview 1 Layers of insect echoes near a thunderstorm and implications

  2. Original Research and Peer Review Using Web-Based Collaborative Tools by College Students

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cakir, Mustafa; Carlsen, William S.

    2007-01-01

    The Environmental Inquiry program supports inquiry based, student-centered science teaching on selected topics in the environmental sciences. Many teachers are unfamiliar with both the underlying science of toxicology, and the process and importance of peer review in scientific method. The protocol and peer review process was tested with college…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    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…

  4. Seasonal predictability of daily rainfall statistics over Indramayu district, Journal: International Journal of Climatology

    E-print Network

    Robertson, Andrew W.

    PeerReview Only Seasonal predictability of daily rainfall statistics over Indramayu district of Meteorology and Geophysics Keywords: seasonal predictability, Indonesia, hidden Markov model http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joc International Journal of Climatology - For peer review only #12;PeerReview Only 1 Seasonal predictability

  5. IRIS TOXICOLOGICAL REVIEW AND SUMMARY DOCUMENTS FOR POLYBROMINATED DIPHENYL ETHERS (EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW)

    EPA Science Inventory

    The U.S. EPA conducted a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessments of four congeners of polybrominated diphenyl ethers: tetraBDE (BDE-47), pentaBDE (BDE-99), hexaBDE (BDE-153), and decaBDE (BDE-209), that will appear on ...

  6. Portable Common Execution Environment (PCEE) project review: Peer review

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Locke, C. Douglass

    1991-01-01

    The purpose of the review was to conduct an independent, in-depth analysis of the PCEE project and to provide the results of said review. The review team was tasked with evaluating the potential contribution of the PCEE project to the improvement of the life cycle support of mission and safety critical (MASC) computing components for large, complex, non-stop, distributed systems similar to those planned for such NASA programs as the space station, lunar outpost, and manned missions to Mars. Some conclusions of the review team are as follow: The PCEE project was given high marks for its breath of vision on the overall problem with MASC software; Correlated with the sweeping vision, the Review Team is very skeptical that any research project can successfully attack such a broad range of problems; and several recommendations are made such as to identify the components of the broad solution envisioned, prioritizing them with respect to their impact and the likely ability of the PCEE or others to attack them successfully, and to rewrite its Concept Document differentiating the problem description, objectives, approach, and results so that the project vision becomes assessible to others.

  7. 76 FR 28781 - Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Report: Evaluation of the Validation Status of an In...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-05-18

    ...AND HUMAN SERVICES Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel Report: Evaluation of the Validation Status of an...an independent international scientific peer review panel (hereafter, Panel) on March 29-30, 2011, to evaluate the...

  8. 77 FR 21777 - Expanded Charge for Peer Review of the NIOSH document Titled: “Criteria for a Recommended...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-04-11

    ...additional questions for consideration which are posted here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/peer/HISA/diacetyl-pr.html. This entry serves as notice of the expanded charge to peer reviewers for this draft document. FOR FURTHER...

  9. EPA Peer Consultation Workshop Report on the Review of the Draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Dibutyl Phthalate (DBP)

    EPA Science Inventory

    The U.S. EPA finalized comments gathered from a public peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of dibutyl phthalate (DBP) that will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. The peer review has en...

  10. The Law Review Approach: What the Humanities Can Learn

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Mendenhall, Allen

    2013-01-01

    Readers of this journal probably know how the peer review process works in the humanities disciplines and at various journals. Therefore the author explains how the law review process generally works and then what the humanities can learn and borrow from the law review process. He ends by advocating for a hybrid law review/peer review approach to…

  11. Peer-review Platform for Astronomy Education Activities

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    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.

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

    PubMed Central

    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

  13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013 Independent External Peer Review of the USACE Dam Safety Program

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    ;#12;#12;#12;#12;#12;#12;#12;#12;#12;U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013 Independent External Peer Review of the USACE Dam Safety Program. Dan Corrigan #12;U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013 Independent External Peer Review of the USACE Dam All Rights Reserved FINAL REPORT: 2013 INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW USACE DAM SAFETY PROGRAM TABLE

  14. Teachers Evaluating Teachers. Peer Review and the New Unionism. Studies in Social Philosophy and Policy, No. 20.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lieberman, Myron

    This book examines peer review, a prominent feature of the new unionism, relying heavily on peer review programs in Columbus and Toledo, Ohio. Peer review encompasses various procedures by which teachers and their unions can exercise more responsibility for improving teacher performance and terminating the services of teachers who do not perform…

  15. 75 FR 7522 - Peer Review, Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form; Request for the Office of Management and...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-02-19

    ...Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review on December 15, 2004...Sciences (NAS) when selecting peer reviewers who are not Government...conflict exists for a potential peer review panel member. II. Special...for ``influential scientific assessments;'' and 1 hour for...

  16. A Systematic Review of Tools that Support Peer Assessment

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Luxton-Reilly, Andrew

    2009-01-01

    Peer assessment is a powerful educational technique that provides significant benefits to both staff and students. Traditionally, peer assessment has been conducted using pen-and-paper in small classes. More recently, online tools have been developed to enable peer assessment to be applied in large class. In this article, the tools that support…

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1997-02-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Chalk, S. G.

    2005-09-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Milliken, J.

    2006-09-01

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

  20. Inappropriate use of the title 'chiropractor' and term 'chiropractic manipulation' in the peer-reviewed biomedical literature

    PubMed Central

    Wenban, Adrian B

    2006-01-01

    Background The misuse of the title 'chiropractor' and term 'chiropractic manipulation', in relation to injury associated with cervical spine manipulation, have previously been reported in the peer-reviewed literature. The objectives of this study were to - 1) Prospectively monitor the peer-reviewed literature for papers reporting an association between chiropractic, or chiropractic manipulation, and injury; 2) Contact lead authors of papers that report such an association in order to determine the basis upon which the title 'chiropractor' and/or term 'chiropractic manipulation' was used; 3) Document the outcome of submission of letters to the editors of journals wherein the title 'chiropractor', and/or term 'chiropractic manipulation', had been misused and resulted in the over-reporting of chiropractic induced injury. Methods One electronic database (PubMed) was monitored prospectively, via monthly PubMed searches, during a 12 month period (June 2003 to May 2004). Once relevant papers were located, they were reviewed. If the qualifications and/or profession of the care provider/s were not apparent, an attempt was made to confirm them via direct e-mail communication with the principal researcher of each respective paper. A letter was then sent to the editor of each involved journal. Results A total of twenty four different cases, spread across six separate publications, were located via the monthly PubMed searches. All twenty four cases took place in one of two European countries. The six publications consisted of four case reports, each containing one patient, one case series, involving twenty relevant cases, and a secondary report that pertained to one of the four case reports. In each of the six publications the authors suggest the care provider was a chiropractor and that each patient received chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine prior to developing symptoms suggestive of traumatic injury. In two of the four case reports contact with the principal researcher revealed that the care provider was not a chiropractor, as defined by the World Federation of Chiropractic. The authors of the other two case reports did not respond to my communications. In the case series, which involved twenty relevant cases, the principal researcher conceded that the term chiropractor had been inappropriately used and that his case series did not relate to chiropractors who had undergone appropriate formal training. The author of the secondary report, a British Medical Journal editor, conceded that he had misused the title chiropractor. Letters to editors were accepted and published by all four journals to which they were sent. To date one of the four journals has published a correction. Conclusion The results of this year-long prospective review suggests that the words 'chiropractor' and 'chiropractic manipulation' are often used inappropriately by European biomedical researchers when reporting apparent associations between cervical spine manipulation and symptoms suggestive of traumatic injury. Furthermore, in those cases reported here, the spurious use of terminology seems to have passed through the peer-review process without correction. Additionally, these findings provide further preliminary evidence, beyond that already provided by Terrett, that the inappropriate use of the title 'chiropractor' and term 'chiropractic manipulation' may be a significant source of over-reporting of the link between the care provided by chiropractors and injury. Finally, editors of peer-reviewed journals were amenable to publishing 'letters to editors', and to a lesser extent 'corrections', when authors had inappropriately used the title 'chiropractor' and/or term 'chiropractic manipulation'. PMID:16925822

  1. Peer Review Process in Medical Research Publications: Language and Content Comments

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Mungra, Philippa; Webber, Pauline

    2010-01-01

    Every article sent by an author to a reputed scientific journal undergoes a rigorous editorial evaluation. The editor has the final responsibility of accepting or rejecting manuscripts and thus can confer authority and validity on the author's research and help to disseminate new knowledge. In this task, editors make use of a panel of expert peer

  2. Reducing Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections ?on Inpatient Oncology Units Using Peer Review.

    PubMed

    Zavotsky, Kathleen Evanovich; Malast, Tracey; Festus, Onyekachi; Riskie, Vickie

    2015-12-01

    The purpose of this article is to describe a peer-to-peer program and the outcomes of interventions to reduce the incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections in patients in bone marrow transplantation, medical, and surgical oncology units. The article reviews the process and describes tools used to achieve success in a Magnet®-designated academic medical center. PMID:26583628

  3. A Systematic Review of Interventions to Increase Peer Interactions for Students with Complex Communication Challenges

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Chung, Yun-Ching; Carter, Erik W.; Sisco, Lynn G.

    2012-01-01

    Although positive peer relationships can facilitate the academic learning, skill development, and emotional well-being of students with complex communication challenges, few peer interactions are likely to take place in school settings apart from intentional intervention and support efforts. We conducted a systematic review to identify and examine…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

  5. Power of Peer Review: An Online Collaborative Learning Assignment in Social Psychology

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cathey, Christie

    2007-01-01

    In a semester-long, peer review assignment, undergraduates enrolled in a social psychology course wrote essays that applied course concepts to life experiences. Students anonymously posted essays for the entire class to view, and peers posted commentaries on classmates' essays using an online discussion board. Students rated the assignment as…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2012-01-01

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

  7. An Overview and Analysis of Journal Operations, Journal Publication Patterns, and Journal Impact in School Psychology and Related Fields

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Floyd, Randy G.; Cooley, Kathryn M.; Arnett, James E.; Fagan, Thomas K.; Mercer, Sterett H.; Hingle, Christine

    2011-01-01

    This article describes the results of three studies designed to understand better the journal operations, publishing practices, and impact of school psychology journals in recent years. The first study presents the results of a survey focusing on journal operations and peer-review practices that was completed by 61 journal editors of school…

  8. Revised Final Independent External Peer Review Report for the East Branch Dam, Clarion River,

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Revised Final Independent External Peer Review Report for the East Branch Dam, Clarion River, Elk County, Pennsylvania: Dam Safety Modification Report Prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute Prepared Report East Branch Dam, Clarion River, Elk County, Pennsylvania: Dam Safety Modification Report

  9. 7 CFR 3415.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.10...

  10. 7 CFR 3415.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.10...

  11. 7 CFR 3415.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.10...

  12. 7 CFR 3415.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.10...

  13. ADAPTED PEER REVIEWED The mushroom forming fungus, Armillaria bulbosa, is one of

    E-print Network

    Hibbett, David S.

    ADAPTED PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE The mushroom forming fungus, Armillaria bulbosa, is one forms mushrooms related to the "honey mushroom", and members of this group act as necrotrophic parasites. used RAPD DNA fingerprinting to identify genetically identical clones from Armillaria mushrooms

  14. 34 CFR 359.30 - How is peer review conducted under this program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ...SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH: SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SPINAL CORD INJURIES How Does the Secretary Make a Grant? § 359.30 How is peer review conducted under this...

  15. 34 CFR 359.30 - How is peer review conducted under this program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ...SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH: SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SPINAL CORD INJURIES How Does the Secretary Make a Grant? § 359.30 How is peer review conducted under this...

  16. 34 CFR 359.30 - How is peer review conducted under this program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ...SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH: SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SPINAL CORD INJURIES How Does the Secretary Make a Grant? § 359.30 How is peer review conducted under this...

  17. 34 CFR 359.30 - How is peer review conducted under this program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ...SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH: SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SPINAL CORD INJURIES How Does the Secretary Make a Grant? § 359.30 How is peer review conducted under this...

  18. 34 CFR 359.30 - How is peer review conducted under this program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ...SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH: SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SPINAL CORD INJURIES How Does the Secretary Make a Grant? § 359.30 How is peer review conducted under this...

  19. Do Latin American Scientific Journals Follow Dual-Use Review Policies?

    PubMed Central

    Valles, Edith Gladys

    2014-01-01

    During the past decade, a number of journals have implemented dual-use policies in order to analyze whether the papers submitted for publication could raise concern because of the potential for misuse of their content. In this context, an analysis was performed on Latin American scientific journals to examine whether they apply formal written dual-use review policies and whether they inform their authors and reviewers about potentially sensitive issues in this area, as other international journals do. Peer-reviewed life sciences journals indexed in Latindex from Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Chile were analyzed. The Guide for Authors and the Instructions to Referees of 216 journals included in the Latindex catalogue (which means that they meet the best quality standards of the Latindex system) were screened for biosecurity-related information using the keywords biosecurity, biological weapons, and dual-use research of concern. Results showed that the screened publications had a total lack of dual-use review policies, even though some of them pointed out ethical behaviors to be followed related to authorship, plagiarism, simultaneous submission, research results misappropriation, ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, guiding principles for the care and use of animals in research, research standard violations, and reviewer bias, among others. PMID:24693885

  20. Research-Based Implementation of Peer Instruction: A Literature Review

    PubMed Central

    Vickrey, Trisha; Rosploch, Kaitlyn; Rahmanian, Reihaneh; Pilarz, Matthew; Stains, Marilyne

    2015-01-01

    Current instructional reforms in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses have focused on enhancing adoption of evidence-based instructional practices among STEM faculty members. These practices have been empirically demonstrated to enhance student learning and attitudes. However, research indicates that instructors often adapt rather than adopt practices, unknowingly compromising their effectiveness. Thus, there is a need to raise awareness of the research-based implementation of these practices, develop fidelity of implementation protocols to understand adaptations being made, and ultimately characterize the true impact of reform efforts based on these practices. Peer instruction (PI) is an example of an evidence-based instructional practice that consists of asking students conceptual questions during class time and collecting their answers via clickers or response cards. Extensive research has been conducted by physics and biology education researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of this practice and to better understand the intricacies of its implementation. PI has also been investigated in other disciplines, such as chemistry and computer science. This article reviews and summarizes these various bodies of research and provides instructors and researchers with a research-based model for the effective implementation of PI. Limitations of current studies and recommendations for future empirical inquiries are also provided. PMID:25713095

  1. Research-based implementation of peer instruction: a literature review.

    PubMed

    Vickrey, Trisha; Rosploch, Kaitlyn; Rahmanian, Reihaneh; Pilarz, Matthew; Stains, Marilyne

    2015-03-01

    Current instructional reforms in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses have focused on enhancing adoption of evidence-based instructional practices among STEM faculty members. These practices have been empirically demonstrated to enhance student learning and attitudes. However, research indicates that instructors often adapt rather than adopt practices, unknowingly compromising their effectiveness. Thus, there is a need to raise awareness of the research-based implementation of these practices, develop fidelity of implementation protocols to understand adaptations being made, and ultimately characterize the true impact of reform efforts based on these practices. Peer instruction (PI) is an example of an evidence-based instructional practice that consists of asking students conceptual questions during class time and collecting their answers via clickers or response cards. Extensive research has been conducted by physics and biology education researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of this practice and to better understand the intricacies of its implementation. PI has also been investigated in other disciplines, such as chemistry and computer science. This article reviews and summarizes these various bodies of research and provides instructors and researchers with a research-based model for the effective implementation of PI. Limitations of current studies and recommendations for future empirical inquiries are also provided. PMID:25713095

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

    SciTech Connect

    None, None

    2006-10-01

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

  3. Reviewer acknowledgement 2013

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Contributing reviewers Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control would like to thank the following colleagues for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for the journal in 2013. PMID:24433391

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

    PubMed Central

    Allikmets, Silvia; Knights, Felicity

    2015-01-01

    Objectives This study explores the literature in establishing the value of undergraduate peer-based healthcare ethics teaching as an educational methodology. Methods A narrative review of the literature concerning peer-based ethics teaching was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS databases, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched for studies of peer-based ethics or professionalism teaching. Selected studies related peer-based teaching to ethics education outcomes. Results Ten publications were identified. Selected studies were varied in their chosen intervention methodology and analysis. Collectively, the identified studies suggest peer-based ethics education is an effective and valued educational methodology in training healthcare professionals. One paper suggests peer-based ethics teaching has advantages over traditional didactic methods. Peer-based ethics teaching also receives positive feedback from student participants. However, the limited literature base demonstrates a clear need for more evaluation of this pedagogy. Conclusions The current literature base suggests that undergraduate peer based healthcare ethics teaching is valuable in terms of efficacy and student satisfaction. We conclude that the medical community should invest in further study in order to capitalise upon the potential of peer-based ethics teaching in undergraduate healthcare education. PMID:26668050

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

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2014-09-01

    The fallibility of forensic science consultation is an ongoing and major justice concern. Prospective peer-reviewed forensic consultation has over 10 years of application in American criminal and civil courts, adapting from the traditional oversight of teaching hospitals, rules of evidence and discovery, conventions of testimony of expert witnesses, and attorneys' overall trial strategy. In systematizing heightened oversight, this process ensures greater accountability in forensic science consultation. The integration of peer reviewers' complementary expertise and experience enhances the sophistication and overall quality of assessment. Forensic examination frequently involves the interface of different specialties. Multidisciplinary peer review augments expert proficiency with that of professional peers having different vantage points from relevant scientific disciplines. This approach ensures greater sophistication of a case inquiry, built-in accountability, and streamlined processes when multiple experts are necessitated. Here, the authors present examples of several cases and the primary and secondary benefits of this collaborative, rigorous, cross-disciplinary exercise. PMID:24593117

  7. 440 IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL VOL. 5, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2011 On Node Stability and Organization in Peer-to-Peer

    E-print Network

    Liu, Jiangchuan (JC)

    suggested to support broadcasting videos over the Internet. Given that the application-layer nodes (peers overhead. Index Terms--Labeled tree, overlay network, peer-to-peer video streaming, stable node. I broadcasting videos over the Internet. There are two key factors continuously making the approach attractive

  8. BRAINA JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY BOOK REVIEW

    E-print Network

    Rolls, Edmund T.

    BRAINA JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY BOOK REVIEW Ingredients for a brain In thinking about components to study the human brain has spawned an entire industry around studies of resting-state activity (Bartlett of the brain that are important for mental function, there are several obvious things to consider. The brain

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1999-01-28

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

  10. Reviewer acknowledgement

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Contributing reviewers The World Journal of Emergency Surgery—which received its first Impact Factor in 2013—is extremely grateful for the time, hard work and support of its highly-qualified peer reviewers. The editors of World Journal of Emergency Surgery and BioMed Central would like to show our appreciation by thanking the following people for their assistance reviewing manuscripts for the journal in 2013. PMID:25143782

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

    Cancer.gov

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

  12. REPORT ON THE PEER REVIEW OF THE U.S. EPA'S "Perchlorate ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION: TOXICOLOGICAL REVIEW AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION (External Review Draft)" 2002

    EPA Science Inventory

    This report summarizes the comments made at a two-day independent scientific peer review meeting on the Agency's draft assessment of health and ecotoxicological effects of perchlorate, entitled Perchlorate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological Review and Risk Characteriza...

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2014-12-01

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

  14. Peer reviewed original journal articles -Google Scholar: https://goo.gl/1Gd02r Sampson, C. J., Tosh, J. C., Cheyne, C. P., Broadbent, D., & James, M. (2015). Health state utility

    E-print Network

    Oakley, Jeremy

    2015-01-01

    Questionnaire disability progression in early rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and analysis of two sequences for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Current Rheumatology Reports, 16(10), 447. http for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

  15. NATURE MEDICINE VOLUME 21 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2015 199 A double-blind option for peer review

    E-print Network

    Cai, Long

    EDITORIAL NATURE MEDICINE VOLUME 21 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2015 199 A double-blind option for peer review. Instead of the traditional single-blind method, in which reviewers are anonymous but know the authors' identities, authors will be able to choose dou- ble-blind peer review, in which both authors

  16. Final Independent External Peer Review Report Olmsted Locks and Dam 52 and 53 Replacement

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report Olmsted Locks and Dam 52 and 53 Replacement Project Review Report Olmsted Locks and Dam 52 and 53 Replacement Project Post Authorization Change Report--0002 Task Order: 0005 #12;This page is intentionally left blank. #12;Olmsted Locks and Dam PACR IEPR i

  17. 2010 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2010-12-01

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2010 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review, held on June 7-11, 2010, in Washington, DC. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; education; and systems analysis.

  18. Peer-Mediated Pivotal Response Treatment for Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Boudreau, Ainsley M.; Corkum, Penny; Meko, Katelyn; Smith, Isabel M.

    2015-01-01

    This review examined the effectiveness of peer-mediated pivotal response treatment (PM-PRT) to increase social-communication skills for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). A systematic review was conducted of all published studies examining PM-PRT in school-aged children with ASD, based on an established rubric. Five PM-PRT studies…

  19. 2008 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2008-06-13

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2008 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review, held on June 9-13, 2008, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; education; systems analysis; and manufacturing.

  20. REVIEWSA PEER REVIEWED FORUM Regulation of Organ Size: Insights From the

    E-print Network

    Singh, Amit

    REVIEWS­A PEER REVIEWED FORUM Regulation of Organ Size: Insights From the Drosophila Hippo Signaling Pathway Madhuri Kango-Singh1* and Amit Singh2,3* Organ size control is a fundamental and core process of development of all multicellular organisms. One important facet of organ size control

  1. Heterogeneity of Inter-Rater Reliabilities of Grant Peer Reviews and Its Determinants: A General Estimating

    E-print Network

    Nawratil, Georg

    for Social Psychology and Research on Higher Education, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2 Division weaknesses of the peer review process is that different reviewers' ratings of the same grant proposal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use

  2. 2013 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2013-10-01

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

  3. 2012 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2012-09-01

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

  4. 2011 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2011-09-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Trautmann, Nancy M.

    2009-01-01

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

  6. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Biodiesel and Other Technologies Summary

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-28

    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 Biodiesel and Other Technologies, held on August 14th and 15th in Golden, Colorado.

  7. Clinicians' Evaluations of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: Experimental Data on Psychological Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cohen, Lawrence H.; Oyster-Nelson, Carol K.

    1981-01-01

    Peer reviewers (N=70) of a psychodynamic, behavioral, or eclectic theoretical orientation evaluated one of three clinical treatment reports. Psychodynamic reviewers rated patients as more disturbed and in need of psychotherapy, and they were consistently more positive in their ratings of treatment. (Author)

  8. 2014 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2014-10-01

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2014 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on June 16-20, 2014, in Washington, DC. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; market transformation; and systems analysis.

  9. 2009 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    SciTech Connect

    Satyapal, S.

    2009-10-01

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2009 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 18-22, 2009, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; education; safety, codes, and standards; technology validation; systems analysis; and manufacturing R&D.

  10. 2015 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2015-10-01

    This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2015 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on June 8-12, 2015, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; market transformation; and systems analysis.

  11. CSE Editorial Policy Statements Responsibilities and Rights of Peer Reviewers

    E-print Network

    Yanai, Ruth D.

    and responsibilities of those people, to whom the scientific community owes so much. Responsibilities Responsibility to the Scientific Community Peerreviewersmustsimultaneouslyfulfilltheir responsibility to the scientific community time limits specified by the journal, they meet their responsibility to the scientific community

  12. Responsible Authorship and Peer Review James R. Wilson

    E-print Network

    of cold fusion is a striking illustration of what happens when scientists circumvent the normal peer and resources to show that there is no convincing evidence for room-temperature fusion. Much of this effort would not have been necessary had normal scientific procedures been followed. --John R. Huizenga, Cold

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2009-01-01

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

  14. Peer Review Summary Document (6/20/2011)

    E-print Network

    and flushing of surface water bodies, environmental fluid dynamics, and predicting harmful algal blooms. Peer. Area of expertise is in the modeling of surface water bodies, such as reservoirs, lakes and riverine, and Water Quality in the Klamath River Upstream of Keno Dam, Oregon, 2006­2009 [83.3 KB PDF]. Title

  15. Appendix H: Guidelines for peer reviewers and chairpersons

    SciTech Connect

    None, None

    2009-01-18

    Example: Here are headings of a package that would be sent to reviewers giving them an overview of the program to be reviewed and instructions for the review process. Send these guidelines to those being reviewed also.

  16. Music's Representation in Early Childhood Education Journals: A Literature Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bond, Vanessa L.

    2012-01-01

    In this review of literature, the author explored the representation of music in early childhood education researcher and practitioner journal articles. Thirty-eight pertinent journal articles were identified in a keyword search for "music" in eight journals. The search was limited to a 5-year period, 2005-2010. Article summaries were categorized…

  17. Methodological Orientations of Articles Appearing in Allied Health's Top Journals: Who Publishes What and Where

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Alderman, Pamela Lea McCloud

    2012-01-01

    This study examined articles published in the major peer-reviewed journals, either hard copy, web, or both formats, in five allied health professions from January 2006 to December 2010. Research journals used in this study include: "Journal of Dental Hygiene," "Journal of the American Dietetic Association," "Journal of…

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

    PubMed

    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

  19. How to Submit a Revision and Tips on Being a Good Peer-Reviewer

    PubMed Central

    Kotsis, Sandra V.; Chung, Kevin C.

    2014-01-01

    Many instructional guides have been published on how to write scientific papers. Likewise, many published articles have focused on the reasons why submitted manuscripts are rejected. However, fewer publications have been presented to guide authors on how to address reviewers’ comments in a manuscript revision. Even fewer papers counsel authors on how to deal with a rejection decision. In this paper, we will present a literature review on the strategies to get a paper accepted, despite an initial unfavorable review. We will share our experience on addressing reviewers’ comments to get a paper accepted and published. Finally, we will discuss the process of peer-review and offer tips on how to be an effective peer-reviewer. PMID:24675196

  20. Peer review isn’t perfect But it’s also not a conspiracy

    SciTech Connect

    Wiley, H. S.

    2008-11-30

    During peer review, grants are not judged in isolation, but as a group. By definition, half of all grants are below average. Although most scientific reviewers can agree on why a proposal is important and exciting, it is far more difficult to explain why we don’t like the others. The communication problems that plague many applicants in trying to describe the importance of their research also afflict many reviewers in trying to explain the converse.

  1. Critical comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising, usually alongside a

    E-print Network

    Napp, Nils

    Critical comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief the full-text online version of the paper. General information Brief Communications Arising or other peer-reviewed material published in Nature. They are published online but not in print

  2. U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program 2011 Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

    SciTech Connect

    Satypal, S.

    2011-09-01

    This document summarizes the comments provided by peer reviewers on hydrogen and fuel cell projects presented at the FY 2011 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program and Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting (AMR), held May 9-13, 2011 in Arlington, Virginia

  3. nature neuroscience volume 3 no 7 july 2000 629 Peer review should help authors to improve their papers by

    E-print Network

    Cai, Long

    nature neuroscience · volume 3 no 7 · july 2000 629 Peer review should help authors to improve their papers by receiving detailed and candid assessments of their work from leading experts in the field. Authors should recognize that peer review is not a legal proceeding; if a paper is not immediately

  4. Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Marsh, Herbert W.; Bornmann, Lutz; Mutz, Rudiger; Daniel, Hans-Dieter; O'Mara, Alison

    2009-01-01

    Peer review is valued in higher education, but also widely criticized in terms of potential biases, particularly gender. We evaluate gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications, extending Bornmann, Mutz, and Daniel's meta-analyses that reported small gender differences in favor of men (d = 0.04), but a substantial heterogeneity in…

  5. CytoJournal joins 'open access' philosophy

    PubMed Central

    Shidham, Vinod B; Cafaro, Anthony; Atkinson, Barbara F

    2004-01-01

    Welcome to CytoJournal! We would like to introduce you to your journal, one that is run by and for the scientific cytopathology community with incontestable benefits of Open Access, and support from Cytopathology Foundation, Inc. CytoJournal is a peer-reviewed, PubMed indexed, online journal, publishing research in the field of cytopathology and related areas, with world wide free access. Authors submitting to CytoJournal retain the copyright to their hard earned work. PMID:15500701

  6. Supporting scientific writing and evaluation in a conceptual physics course with calibrated peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Price, Edward; Goldberg, Fred; Patterson, Scott; Heft, Paul

    2013-01-01

    Writing tasks are one way students can apply science concepts, yet evaluating students' writing can be difficult in large classes. With the web-based Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) system, students submit written work and evaluate each other. Students write a response to a prompt, read and evaluate responses prepared by the curriculum developers, and receive feedback on their evaluations, allowing students to "calibrate" their evaluation skills. Students then evaluate their peers' work and their own work. We have used CPR for two semesters in conceptual physics courses with enrollments of ˜100 students. By independently assessing students' responses, we evaluated the CPR calibration process and compared students' peer reviews with expert evaluations. Students' scores on their essays correlate with our independent evaluations. This poster describes these findings and our experiences with implementing CPR assignments.

  7. Editorial policies and background in editing Macedonian Medical Review and BANTAO journal.

    PubMed

    Spasovski, G

    2014-01-01

    (Full text is available at http://www.manu.edu.mk/prilozi). Even in as small a country as R. Macedonia with limited resources allocated for science, there are many journals trying to establish good editorial practices and policies in publishing the scientific work achieved. Among the currently existing medical journals Macedonian Medical Review (MMR), ISSN 0025-1097, deserves to be elaborated as the oldest journal with continuous publication since its first appearance as the journal of the Macedonian Medical Association (MMA). Since its first issue, published in 1946, there has been an opus of some 4500 peer-reviewed published papers in more than 210 issues and some 80 supplements from various congresses and meetings. In this regard, great respect should be paid not only to the editorial boards, but also to the collaborators who have contributed to its successful continuity in all previous years. In line with the needs for further development of the journal and possibilities for access to world databases, the Editorial Board of MMR has made every effort to improve and modernize its work as well as the technical quality of the journal. Hence, MMA has signed a contract with De Gruyter Open as leading publisher of Open Access academic content for further improvement and promotion of the journal and facilitation of the Medline application, so we do hope for the further success of the journal. BANTAO Journal is published on behalf of the Balkan Cities Association of Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation and Artificial Organs (BANTAO), ISSN 1312-2517. The first issue was published in 2003, ten years after BANTAO was born. Its appearance was an extremely important event in the existence of BANTAO. The first official editor of the journal was Dimitar Nenov, Varna (2003-2005), followed by Ali Basci (Izmir, Turkey) and Goce Spasovski (Skopje, Macedonia) as editor-in-chief since 2009. Over the years, the Journal has been included in the EBSCO, DOAJ and SCOPUS/SCIMAGO databases. The journal is published biannually. Until now, 345 papers have been published in the past 11 years, in 21 regular issues and 3 supplements. It may be said that the journal is the "glue" between the nephrologists from the Balkan cities, reflecting the high quality research and scientific potential of Balkan nephrologists. The entire process of submitting and reviewing the manuscripts is electronically done and after their acceptance they are freely available (open access journal) on the website of the association and the journal: www.bantao.org. In this regard, the current President of BANTAO has already signed a contract with De Gruyter Open as leading publisher of Open Access academic content for further improvement and promotion of the journal and Medline application for the further success of the journal. Key words: Macedonian Medical Review, Bantao Journal, Macedonian Medical Association, De Gruyter Open. PMID:25711225

  8. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science

    E-print Network

    Kozen, Dexter

    Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science The MIT Press Volume 1995, Article 3 20 September on the Internet. Pag- ination varies from copy to copy. For more information and other articles see: · http://www-mitpress.mit.edu/jrnls-catalog/chicago-rights@mit.edu. The Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal in theoretical

  9. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science

    E-print Network

    Ta-Shma, Amnon

    Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science MIT Press Volume 1995, Article 1 30 June, 1995 ISSN varies from copy to copy. For more information and other articles see: · http://www-mitpress.mit.edu/jrnls-catalog/chicago-rights@mit.edu. The Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal in theoretical

  10. ForPeerReview Analysis of Indian monsoon daily rainfall on subseasonal

    E-print Network

    Robertson, Andrew W.

    of daily monsoon-season rainfall at a network of 13 stations in central-western India is analyzed using a 4 in the seasonal march of the monsoon, can be associated with "active" and "break" monsoon phases and captureForPeerReview Analysis of Indian monsoon daily rainfall on subseasonal to multidecadal time scales

  11. Interrater Reliability to Assure Valid Content in Peer Review of CME-Accredited Presentations

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Quigg, Mark; Lado, Fred A.

    2009-01-01

    Introduction: The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) provides guidelines for continuing medical education (CME) materials to mitigate problems in the independence or validity of content in certified activities; however, the process of peer review of materials appears largely unstudied and the reproducibility of…

  12. ForPeerReview Frequency response modeling of seismic waves using finite difference

    E-print Network

    Li, Xiaoye Sherry

    ForPeerReview Frequency response modeling of seismic waves using finite difference time domain of seismic waves using finite difference time domain with phase sensitive detection (TD-PSD) Kurt T. Nihei1 and magnitude) of seismic waves propagating in heterogeneous, anisotropic, viscoelastic media is required

  13. ForPeerReview Atypical brain activation patterns during a face-to-face joint

    E-print Network

    Saxe, Rebecca

    sulcus, medial prefrontal cortex John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Human Brain Mapping #12;ForPeerReview 1 Atypical temporal sulcus, medial prefrontal cortex These data were presented as a talk at the International Meeting superior temporal sulcus (pSTS), during the RJA as compared to SA conditions. Region of interest analyses

  14. 2014 Water Power Program Peer Review: Hydropower Technologies, Compiled Presentations (Presentation)

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    2014-02-01

    This document represents a collection of all presentations given during the EERE Wind and Water Power Program's 2014 Hydropower Peer Review. The purpose of the meeting was to evaluate DOE-funded hydropower and marine and hydrokinetic R&D projects for their contribution to the mission and goals of the Water Power Program and to assess progress made against stated objectives.

  15. 2014 Water Power Program Peer Review: Marine and Hydrokinetic Technologies, Compiled Presentations (Presentation)

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    2014-02-01

    This document represents a collection of all presentations given during the EERE Wind and Water Power Program's 2014 Marine and Hydrokinetic Peer Review. The purpose of the meeting was to evaluate DOE-funded hydropower and marine and hydrokinetic R&D projects for their contribution to the mission and goals of the Water Power Program and to assess progress made against stated objectives.

  16. Final Independent External Peer Review Report John Day Dam Mitigation Program

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report John Day Dam Mitigation Program Draft Post Valley Division Contract No. W912HQ-10-D-0002 Task Order: 0077 November 21, 2014 #12;John Day Dam IEPR | Final IEPR Report BATTELLE | November 21, 2014 This page is intentionally left blank. #12;John Day Dam

  17. Final Independent External Peer Review Report Mohawk Dam Major Rehabilitation Report

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report Mohawk Dam Major Rehabilitation Report Warsaw, Ohio Report Mohawk Dam Major Rehabilitation Report Warsaw, Ohio by Battelle 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201 documentation. #12;This page is intentionally left blank. #12;Mohawk Dam Major Rehabilitation Report i Battelle

  18. Peer Assessment and Compliance Review (PACR) Innovative Strategies Report. California Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Programs

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Macro, Bronwen; Huang, Lee Ann

    2005-01-01

    This report focuses on the innovative strategies study component of the Peer Assessment and Compliance Review (PACR) project. California (Court Appointed Special Advocates) CASA programs have developed many innovative strategies to serve children in their communities. At each of the programs visited during the PACR project, the team identified at…

  19. Innovative Peer Review Model for Rural Physicians: System Design and Implementation

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Williams, Josie R.; Mechler, Kathy; Akins, Ralitsa B.

    2008-01-01

    Context: The peer review process in small rural hospitals is complicated by limited numbers of physicians, conflict of interest, issues related to appropriate utilization of new technology, possibility for conflicting recommendations, and need for external expertise. Purpose: The purpose of this project was to design, test, and implement a virtual…

  20. Final Independent External Peer Review Report Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and Washington Report Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and Washington Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Report-0002 Task Order Number: 0007 #12;This page is intentionally left blank. #12;Mouth of Columbia River

  1. ForPeerReview Simulating individual, group, and crowd behaviors in building egress1

    E-print Network

    Stanford University

    ForPeerReview Simulating individual, group, and crowd behaviors in building egress1 Keywords: Social behavior, egress, crowd simulation, multi-agent based modeling, building safety.2 Abstract3 systems and procedures.14 1. Introduction15 Computer simulations are often used to evaluate building

  2. Differences in Faculty Development Needs: Implications for Educational Peer Review Program Design

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Toth, Kate E.; McKey, Colleen A.

    2010-01-01

    The purpose of faculty development in terms of the educational role is to assist faculty in becoming better educators. Educational peer review (EPR) is one method of faculty development. This article is based on a study that explored the different development needs of nursing faculty within a school of nursing at an Ontario university. The study…

  3. An Analysis of Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) in a Science Lecture Classroom

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Walvoord, Mark E.; Hoefnagels, Marielle H.; Gaffin, Douglas D.; Chumchal, Matthew M.; Long, David A.

    2008-01-01

    Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) is an online tool being used to integrate a writing component in classrooms. In an introductory zoology lecture class, the authors found that CPR-assigned scores were significantly higher than instructor-assigned scores on two of three essay assignments. They also found that neither students' technical-writing skills…

  4. Superconductivity Program for Electric Power Systems: 1994 Annual PEER Review. Volume 2, Meeting Proceedings

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    1994-07-01

    This is volume 2 of information that was presented at the 1994 Annual Peer Review, Superconductivity Program For Electric Power. Topics include component development; characterization of high-(Tc) Superconductors; wire development; coils; magnetic refrigerators; motor cooling issues; and magnetic separation. Individual projects were processed separately for the database.

  5. Superconductivity Program for Electric Power Systems: 1994 Annual PEER Review. Volume 1, Meeting Proceedings

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    1994-07-01

    This is Volume 1 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; and motor cooling issues. Individual reports were processed separately for the database.

  6. Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Harley, Diane; Acord, Sophia Krzys; Earl-Novell, Sarah

    2010-01-01

    As part of its Andrew W. Mellon Foundation-funded Future of Scholarly Communication Project, the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE) has hosted two meetings to explore how peer review relates to scholarly communication and academic values. In preparation for an April 2010 workshop, four working papers were developed and circulated. They…

  7. ForPeerReview Interactions between Fabry-Prot and nanohole resonances

    E-print Network

    Exeter, University of

    ForPeerReview Only Interactions between Fabry-Pérot and nanohole resonances in metallo Interactions between Fabry-Pérot and nanohole resonances in metallo- dielectric plasmonic nanostructures J and localised surface- plasmon resonances associated with the nanoholes. Our simulations show that the spectral

  8. Beyond Peer-Reviewed Articles: Using Blogs to Enrich Students' Understanding of Scholarly Work

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Deitering, Anne-Marie; Gronemyer, Kate

    2011-01-01

    Undergraduate students are expected to find, evaluate, and use peer-reviewed or scholarly literature, but they rarely learn about the process of creating new knowledge or the roles the literature plays in the work of scholars. A desired outcome of undergraduate education is the understanding that knowledge is created, evolving, and contextual…

  9. Final Independent External Peer Review Report Mount St. Helens Sediment Management Project

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report Mount St. Helens Sediment Management Project November 10, 2014 #12;Mount St Helens LRR/SEIS IEPR | Final IEPR Report BATTELLE | November 10, 2014 This page is intentionally left blank. #12;Mount St Helens LRR/SEIS IEPR | Final IEPR Report BATTELLE

  10. 34 CFR 350.51 - What is the purpose of peer review?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the purpose of peer review? 350.51 Section 350.51 Education Regulations of the Offices of the Department of Education (Continued) OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM How Does...

  11. Social Peer Interactions in Persons with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities: A Literature Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nijs, Sara; Maes, Bea

    2014-01-01

    Social interactions may positively influence developmental and quality of life outcomes. Research in persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) mostly investigated interactions with caregivers. This literature review focuses on peer interactions of persons with PIMD. A computerized literature search of three databases was…

  12. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52 Section 350.52 Education Regulations of the Offices of the Department of Education (Continued) OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM...

  13. 34 CFR 350.50 - What is the peer review process for this Program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the peer review process for this Program? 350.50 Section 350.50 Education Regulations of the Offices of the Department of Education (Continued) OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM...

  14. Teaching Antitrust to Health Law Students: Peer Review as a Case Study.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Miller, Frances H.

    1988-01-01

    Despite student preconceptions, basic antitrust doctrine is easy to convey in a health law course. In either a survey course or one specifically devoted to the application of antitrust principles to the health industry, medical peer review provides an excellent case study. (MSE)

  15. Peer Reviewed Diets of Free-Ranging Mexican Gray Wolves in

    E-print Network

    Wallace, Mark C.

    Peer Reviewed Diets of Free-Ranging Mexican Gray Wolves in Arizona and New Mexico JANET E. REED, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA Abstract Systematic diet studies of Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) were not conducted before wolves were extirpated by the late 1960s from

  16. Final Independent External Peer Review Report Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Risk

    E-print Network

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Final Independent External Peer Review Report Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Risk Management of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Risk Management Planning Center of Expertise Sacramento-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study North Dakota and Minnesota by Battelle 505 King Avenue

  17. Peer Reviewed White-Tailed Deer Harvest From the Chronic Wasting

    E-print Network

    Peer Reviewed White-Tailed Deer Harvest From the Chronic Wasting Disease Eradication Zone in South Chronic wasting disease (CWD) was discovered in free-ranging white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus chronic wasting disease, deer herd reduction, harvest, Odocoileus virginianus, white-tailed deer

  18. Publications on Land Use/Cover Change and Deforestation Peer-Reviewed Articles

    E-print Network

    California at Santa Barbara, University of

    Publications on Land Use/Cover Change and Deforestation Peer-Reviewed Articles Pricope, N. G., G. López-Carr, D. Redo, M. Bonilla, M. Levy (2013). Deforestation and reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001-2010). Biotropica. 45(2): 262-271. López-Carr, D. and J. Burgdorfer (2013) "Deforestation

  19. Assessment of Programming Language Learning Based on Peer Code Review Model: Implementation and Experience Report

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Wang, Yanqing; Li, Hang; Feng, Yuqiang; Jiang, Yu; Liu, Ying

    2012-01-01

    The traditional assessment approach, in which one single written examination counts toward a student's total score, no longer meets new demands of programming language education. Based on a peer code review process model, we developed an online assessment system called "EduPCR" and used a novel approach to assess the learning of computer…

  20. Application of Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) Writing Assignments to Enhance Experiments with an Environmental Chemistry Focus

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Margerum, Lawrence D.; Gulsrud, Maren; Manlapez, Ronald; Rebong, Rachelle; Love, Austin

    2007-01-01

    The browser-based software program, Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) developed by the Molecular Science Project enables instructors to create structured writing assignments in which students learn by writing and reading for content. Though the CPR project covers only one experiment in general chemistry, it might provide lab instructors with a method…