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

  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. 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…

  4. 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...

  5. 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.

  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. 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

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

    Performing a peer review of an article under consideration for publication requires not only an understanding of the subject matter, but also a systematic approach that includes screening for conflicts of interest; determining whether the manuscript is within or outside the reviewer's area of expertise; properly classifying the manuscript; and writing a detailed, organized review. Although some journals may provide guidelines for the reviewers, the guidelines usually are not detailed and do not take into consideration the variability in reviewer experience. This article is meant to serve as a guideline for peer reviewers and provide concrete information on how to write a comprehensive, unbiased review that will serve both the author and the journal well. PMID:26062311

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

    PubMed Central

    Wicherts, Jelte M.

    2016-01-01

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

  10. 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

  11. Editorial Peer Review for Electronic Journals: Current Issues and Emerging Models.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Weller, Anne C.

    2000-01-01

    This article reviews the evolution and growth of electronic journals, and describes the various emerging models of editorial peer review in an electronic environment. Studies to date have focused on attitudes toward electronic journals and citation patterns of electronic journals. Future trends and levels of acceptance of the new models are…

  12. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study

    PubMed Central

    Collins, Gary S; Boutron, Isabelle; Yu, Ly-Mee; Cook, Jonathan; Shanyinde, Milensu; Wharton, Rose; Shamseer, Larissa; Altman, Douglas G

    2014-01-01

    Objective To investigate the effectiveness of open peer review as a mechanism to improve the reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical journals. Design Retrospective before and after study. Setting BioMed Central series medical journals. Sample 93 primary reports of randomised trials published in BMC-series medical journals in 2012. Main outcome measures Changes to the reporting of methodological aspects of randomised trials in manuscripts after peer review, based on the CONSORT checklist, corresponding peer reviewer reports, the type of changes requested, and the extent to which authors adhered to these requests. Results Of the 93 trial reports, 38% (n=35) did not describe the method of random sequence generation, 54% (n=50) concealment of allocation sequence, 50% (n=46) whether the study was blinded, 34% (n=32) the sample size calculation, 35% (n=33) specification of primary and secondary outcomes, 55% (n=51) results for the primary outcome, and 90% (n=84) details of the trial protocol. The number of changes between manuscript versions was relatively small; most involved adding new information or altering existing information. Most changes requested by peer reviewers had a positive impact on the reporting of the final manuscript—for example, adding or clarifying randomisation and blinding (n=27), sample size (n=15), primary and secondary outcomes (n=16), results for primary or secondary outcomes (n=14), and toning down conclusions to reflect the results (n=27). Some changes requested by peer reviewers, however, had a negative impact, such as adding additional unplanned analyses (n=15). Conclusion Peer reviewers fail to detect important deficiencies in reporting of the methods and results of randomised trials. The number of these changes requested by peer reviewers was relatively small. Although most had a positive impact, some were inappropriate and could have a negative impact on reporting in the final publication. PMID:24986891

  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. A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals

    PubMed Central

    Caulfield, Timothy; DeBow, Suzanne

    2005-01-01

    Background Growing popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the public sector is reflected in the scientific community by an increased number of research articles assessing its therapeutic effects. Some suggest that publication biases occur in mainstream medicine, and may also occur in CAM. Homeopathy is one of the most widespread and most controversial forms of CAM. The purpose of this study was to compare the representation of homeopathic clinical trials published in traditional science and CAM journals. Methods Literature searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), AMED and Embase computer databases. Search terms included "homeo-pathy, -path, and -pathic" and "clinical" and "trial". All articles published in English over the past 10 years were included. Our search yielded 251 articles overall, of which 46 systematically examined the efficacy of homeopathic treatment. We categorized the overall results of each paper as having either "positive" or "negative" outcomes depending upon the reported effects of homeopathy. We also examined and compared 15 meta-analyses and review articles on homeopathy to ensure our collection of clinical trials was reasonably comprehensive. These articles were found by inserting the term "review" instead of "clinical" and "trial". Results Forty-six peer-reviewed articles published in a total of 23 different journals were compared (26 in CAM journals and 20 in conventional journals). Of those in conventional journals, 69% reported negative findings compared to only 30% in CAM journals. Very few articles were found to be presented in a "negative" tone, and most were presented using "neutral" or unbiased language. Conclusion A considerable difference exists between the number of clinical trials showing positive results published in CAM journals compared with traditional journals. We found only 30% of those articles published in CAM journals presented negative findings, whereas over twice that amount were published

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Paltridge, Brian

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Elmore, Susan A

    2016-02-01

    A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that have a significant impact on the process and its outcome. We consider some of the steps editors should take to promote quality, fairness and integrity in different stages of the peer review process and make some recommendations for editorial conduct and decision-making. PMID:25633924

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

    PubMed

    Forrester, M B

    2016-07-01

    Poison centers advance knowledge in the field of toxicology through publication in peer-review journals. This investigation describes the pattern of poison center-related publications. Cases were poison center-related research published in peer-review journals during 1995-2014. These were identified through searching the PubMed database, reviewing the tables of contents of selected toxicology journals, and reviewing abstracts of various national and international meetings. The following variables for each publication were identified: year of publication, journal, type of publication (meeting abstract vs. other, i.e. full article or letter to the editor), and the country(ies) of the poison center(s) included in the research. Of the 3147 total publications, 62.1% were meeting abstracts. There were 263 publications in 1995-1999, 536 in 2000-2004, 999 in 2005-2009, and 1349 in 2010-2014. The publications were in 234 different journals. The journals in which the highest number of research was published were Clinical Toxicology (69.7%), Journal of Medical Toxicology (2.2%), and Veterinary and Human Toxicology (2.1%). The research was reported from 62 different countries. The countries with the highest number of publications were the United States (67.9%), United Kingdom (6.5%), Germany (3.9%), France (2.5%), and Italy (2.4%). The number of publications increased greatly over the 20 years. Although the publications were in a large number of journals, a high proportion of the publications were in one journal. While the research came from a large number of countries, the preponderance came from the United States. PMID:26240162

  19. 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…

  20. Peer-review and publication of research protocols and proposals: a role for open access journals.

    PubMed

    Eysenbach, Gunther

    2004-09-30

    Peer-review and publication of research protocols offer several advantages to all parties involved. Among these are the following opportunities for authors: external expert opinion on the methods, demonstration to funding agencies of prior expert review of the protocol, proof of priority of ideas and methods, and solicitation of potential collaborators. We think that review and publication of protocols is an important role for Open Access journals. Because of their electronic form, openness for readers, and author-pays business model, they are better suited than traditional journals to ensure the sustainability and quality of protocol reviews and publications. In this editorial, we describe the workflow for investigators in eHealth research, from protocol submission to a funding agency, to protocol review and (optionally) publication at JMIR, to registration of trials at the International eHealth Study Registry (IESR), and to publication of the report. One innovation at JMIR is that protocol peer reviewers will be paid a honorarium, which will be drawn partly from a new submission fee for protocol reviews. Separating the article processing fee into a submission and a publishing fee will allow authors to opt for "peer-review only" (without subsequent publication) at reduced costs, if they wish to await a funding decision or for other reasons decide not to make the protocol public. PMID:15471763

  1. Peer Review of Chemistry Journal Articles: Collaboration across Disciplines

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Widanski, Bozena Barbara; Courtright-Nash, Debra

    2006-01-01

    A survey was conducted among second-year students in organic chemistry (OC) lab and first-year students in English composition (EC) to determine whether an interdisciplinary exchange and review of articles would improve students' understanding of the process of scientific research and of writing within the field of chemistry. The primary…

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2001-05-01

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

  3. 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

  4. Should Authors Submit Previous Peer-Review Reports When Submitting Research Papers? Views of General Medical Journal Editors

    PubMed Central

    Cals, Jochen W. L.; Mallen, Christian D.; Glynn, Liam G.; Kotz, Daniel

    2013-01-01

    Publishing research can be time consuming, as papers are often submitted and reviewed by multiple journals before final acceptance. We hypothesized that attaching previous peer-review reports to the next submission of the paper to a different journal (possibly with point-to-point responses and amendments) could decrease the workload for both reviewers and editors and could shorten the time from final draft to actual publication. We therefore performed an online survey to assess the views of the editors-in-chief of all 100 general medical journals from the citation impact factor report category “internal & general medicine” (ISI Web of Knowledge). Of contacted editors, 61% responded. One of 4 journals do currently receive peer-review reports on occasion. Editors recognized potential advantages but also concerns on using previous peer-review reports across 3 themes: scientific community, quality of papers, and the publication process. The use of previous peer-review reports has the potential to facilitate authors, reviewers, and editors in optimizing peer review in general medical science. PMID:23508606

  5. 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

  6. Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

    Background Peer review is the major method used by biomedical journals for making the decision of publishing an article. This cross-sectional survey assesses views concerning the review system of biomedical journals among academics globally. Methods A total of 28,009 biomedical academics from high-ranking universities listed by the 2009 Times Higher Education Quacquarelli Symonds (THE-QS) World University Rankings were contacted by email between March 2010 and August 2010. 1,340 completed an online survey which focused on their academic background, negative experiences and views on biomedical journal peer review and the results were compared among basic scientists, clinicians and clinician scientists. Results Fewer than half of the respondents agreed that the peer review systems of biomedical journals were fair (48.4%), scientific (47.5%), or transparent (25.1%). Nevertheless, 58.2% of the respondents agreed that authors should remain anonymous and 64.4% agreed that reviewers should not be disclosed. Most, (67.7%) agreed to the establishment of an appeal system. The proportion of native English-speaking respondents who agreed that the “peer review system is fair” was significantly higher than for non-native respondents (p = 0.02). Similarly, the proportion of clinicians stating that the “peer review system is fair” was significantly higher than that for basic scientists and clinician-scientists (p = 0.004). For females, (β = −0.1, p = 0.03), the frequency of encountering personal attacks in reviewers’ comments (β = −0.1, p = 0.002) and the frequency of imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers (β = −0.06, p = 0.04) were independently and inversely associated with agreement that “the peer review system is fair”. Conclusion Academics are divided on the issue of whether the biomedical journal peer review system is fair, scientific and transparent. A majority of academics agreed with the double-blind peer

  7. Imbalance in Individual Researcher's Peer Review Activities Quantified for Four British Ecological Society Journals, 2003-2010

    PubMed Central

    Petchey, Owen L.; Fox, Jeremy W.; Haddon, Lindsay

    2014-01-01

    Researchers contribute to the scientific peer review system by providing reviews, and “withdraw” from it by submitting manuscripts that are subsequently reviewed. So far as we are aware, there has been no quantification of the balance of individual's contributions and withdrawals. We compared the number of reviews provided by individual researchers (i.e., their contribution) to the number required by their submissions (i.e. their withdrawals) in a large and anonymised database provided by the British Ecological Society. The database covered the Journal of Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Journal of Applied Ecology, and Functional Ecology from 2003–2010. The majority of researchers (64%) did not have balanced contributions and withdrawals. Depending on assumptions, 12% to 44% contributed more than twice as much as required; 20% to 52% contributed less than half as much as required. Balance, or lack thereof, varied little in relation to the number of years a researcher had been active (reviewing or submitting). Researchers who contributed less than required did not lack the opportunity to review. Researchers who submitted more were more likely to accept invitations to review. These finding suggest overall that peer review of the four analysed journals is not in crisis, but only due to the favourable balance of over- and under-contributing researchers. These findings are limited to the four journals analysed, and therefore cannot include researcher's other peer review activities, which if included might change the proportions reported. Relatively low effort was required to assemble, check, and analyse the data. Broader analyses of individual researcher's peer review activities would contribute to greater quality, efficiency, and fairness in the peer review system. PMID:24658631

  8. Imbalance in individual researcher's peer review activities quantified for four British Ecological Society journals, 2003-2010.

    PubMed

    Petchey, Owen L; Fox, Jeremy W; Haddon, Lindsay

    2014-01-01

    Researchers contribute to the scientific peer review system by providing reviews, and "withdraw" from it by submitting manuscripts that are subsequently reviewed. So far as we are aware, there has been no quantification of the balance of individual's contributions and withdrawals. We compared the number of reviews provided by individual researchers (i.e., their contribution) to the number required by their submissions (i.e. their withdrawals) in a large and anonymised database provided by the British Ecological Society. The database covered the Journal of Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Journal of Applied Ecology, and Functional Ecology from 2003-2010. The majority of researchers (64%) did not have balanced contributions and withdrawals. Depending on assumptions, 12% to 44% contributed more than twice as much as required; 20% to 52% contributed less than half as much as required. Balance, or lack thereof, varied little in relation to the number of years a researcher had been active (reviewing or submitting). Researchers who contributed less than required did not lack the opportunity to review. Researchers who submitted more were more likely to accept invitations to review. These finding suggest overall that peer review of the four analysed journals is not in crisis, but only due to the favourable balance of over- and under-contributing researchers. These findings are limited to the four journals analysed, and therefore cannot include researcher's other peer review activities, which if included might change the proportions reported. Relatively low effort was required to assemble, check, and analyse the data. Broader analyses of individual researcher's peer review activities would contribute to greater quality, efficiency, and fairness in the peer review system. PMID:24658631

  9. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process.

    PubMed

    Vercellini, Paolo; Buggio, Laura; Viganò, Paola; Somigliana, Edgardo

    2016-06-01

    Published medical research influences health care providers and policy makers, guides patient management, and is based on the peer review process. Peer review should prevent publication of unreliable data and improve study reporting, but there is little evidence that these aims are fully achieved. In the blinded systems, authors and readers do not know the reviewers' identity. Moreover, the reviewers' reports are not made available to readers. Anonymous peer review poses an ethical imbalance toward authors, who are judged by masked referees, and to the medical community and society at large, in case patients suffer the consequences of acceptance of flawed manuscripts or erroneous rejection of important findings. Some general medical journals have adopted an open process, require reviewers to sign their reports, and links online pre-publication histories to accepted articles. This system increases editors' and reviewers' accountability and allows public scrutiny, consenting readers understand on which basis were decisions taken and by whom. Moreover, this gives credit to reviewers for their apparently thankless job, as online availability of signed and scored reports may contribute to researchers' academic curricula. However, the transition from the blind to the open system could pose problems to journals. Reviewers may be more difficult to find, and publishers or medical societies could resist changes that may affect editorial costs and journals' revenues. Nonetheless, also considering the risk of competing interests in the medical field, general and major specialty journals could consider testing the effects of open review on manuscripts regarding studies that may influence clinical practice. PMID:27129625

  10. A 5-Year Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Journal Article Publications of Pharmacy Practice Faculty Members

    PubMed Central

    Spivey, Christina; Martin, Jennifer R.; Wyles, Christina; Ehrman, Clara; Schlesselman, Lauren S.

    2012-01-01

    Objectives. To evaluate scholarship, as represented by peer-reviewed journal articles, among US pharmacy practice faculty members; contribute evidence that may better inform benchmarking by academic pharmacy practice departments; and examine factors that may be related to publication rates. Methods. Journal articles published by all pharmacy practice faculty members between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010, were identified. College and school publication rates were compared based on public vs. private status, being part of a health science campus, having a graduate program, and having doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) faculty members funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Results. Pharmacy practice faculty members published 6,101 articles during the 5-year study period, and a pharmacy practice faculty member was the primary author on 2,698 of the articles. Pharmacy practice faculty members published an average of 0.51 articles per year. Pharmacy colleges and schools affiliated with health science campuses, at public institutions, with NIH-funded PharmD faculty members, and with graduate programs had significantly higher total publication rates compared with those that did not have these characteristics (p<0.006). Conclusion. Pharmacy practice faculty members contributed nearly 6,000 unique publications over the 5-year period studied. However, this reflects a rate of less than 1 publication per faculty member per year, suggesting that a limited number of faculty members produced the majority of publications. PMID:23049099

  11. Fake Peer Reviews, the Latest Form of Scientific Fraud, Fool Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fischman, Josh

    2012-01-01

    This article reports on how some scientists impersonate outside reviewers for journals and give high marks to their own manuscripts. Scientists appear to have figured out a new way to avoid any bad prepublication reviews that dissuade journals from publishing their articles: Write positive reviews themselves, under other people's names. In…

  12. Pattern of publication of ophthalmic abstracts in peer-reviewed journals.

    PubMed

    Juzych, M S; Shin, D H; Coffey, J B; Parrow, K A; Tsai, C S; Briggs, K S

    1991-04-01

    Presentation of research work at scientific meetings and professional societies is an important first step toward effective scientific communication of research results. To determine the current publication patterns of abstracts, a computerized MEDLINE literature search was performed on 175 randomly selected ophthalmic clinical and basic science abstracts published in conjunction with two ophthalmic national meetings. This search revealed that 105 abstracts (60%) led to full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals within 50 to 56 months of the meeting date. A median interval of 13 months occurred from date of abstract publication to acceptance of the corresponding article. Most articles appeared within 3 years of abstract presentation. Sixty-four percent (48 of 75) of the posters and free papers presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology in November 1984 led to full-length articles, as did 57% (57 of 100) of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology in May 1985. These findings emphasize the preliminary nature of abstracts. The fact that nearly 60% of abstracts are published reflects favorably on the review process of both meetings. PMID:2052313

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-01-01

    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)

    2015-12-01

    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)

    2016-02-01

    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. 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

  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. A Systematic Appraisal of Peer Review Guidelines for Special Education Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Maggin, Daniel M.; Chafouleas, Sandra M.; Berggren, Melissa; Sugai, George

    2013-01-01

    The evidence-based practice movement in special education has emphasized the use of the scientific process to assist with the identification of effective academic and behavioral strategies. An important but often overlooked aspect of this system is the peer review process in which manuscripts submitted for publication are reviewed by experts to…

  2. Poorly Cited Articles in Peer-Reviewed Cardiovascular Journals from 1997–2007: Analysis of 5-Year Citation Rates

    PubMed Central

    Ranasinghe, Isuru; Shojaee, Abbas; Bikdeli, Behnood; Gupta, Aakriti; Chen, Ruijun; Ross, Joseph S.; Masoudi, Frederick; Spertus, John A.; Nallamothu, Brahmajee K.; Krumholz, Harlan M.

    2015-01-01

    Background The extent to which articles are cited is a surrogate of the impact and importance of the research conducted; poorly cited papers may identify research of limited use and potential wasted investments. We assessed trends in the rates of poorly cited articles and journals in the cardiovascular literature from 1997–2007. Methods and Results We identified original articles published in cardiovascular journals and indexed in the Scopus citation database from 1997–2007. We defined poorly cited articles as those with ≤5 citations in the 5 years following publication and poorly cited journals as those with >75% of journal content poorly cited. We identified 164,377 articles in 222 cardiovascular journals from 1997–2007. From 1997–2007, the number of cardiovascular articles and journals increased by 56.9% and 75.2% respectively. Of all the articles, 75,550 (46.0%) were poorly cited, of which 25,650 (15.6% overall) had no citations. From 1997–2007, the proportion of poorly cited articles declined slightly (52.1% to 46.2%, trend P<0.001), although the absolute number of poorly cited articles increased by 2,595 (trend P<0.001). At a journal level, 44% of cardiovascular journals had more than three quarters of the journal’s content poorly cited at 5 years. Conclusion Nearly half of all peer-reviewed articles published in cardiovascular journals are poorly cited 5 years after publication, and many are not cited at all. The cardiovascular literature, and the number of poorly cited articles, have both increased substantially from 1997–2007. The high proportion of poorly cited articles and journals suggest inefficiencies in the cardiovascular research enterprise. PMID:25812573

  3. Licensing the future: report on BioMed Central's public consultation on open data in peer-reviewed journals.

    PubMed

    Hrynaszkiewicz, Iain; Busch, Stefan; Cockerill, Matthew J

    2013-01-01

    We report the outcomes of BioMed Central's public consultation on implementing open data-compliant licensing in peer-reviewed open access journals. Respondents (42) to the 2012 consultation were six to one in favor (29 in support; 5 against; 8 abstentions) of changing our authors' default open access copyright license agreement, to introduce the Creative Commons CC0 public domain waiver for data published in BioMed Central's journals. We summarize the different questions we received in response to the consultation and our responses to them - matters such as citation, plagiarism, patient privacy, and commercial use were raised. In light of the support for open data in our journals we outline our plans to implement, in September 2013, a combined Creative Commons Attribution license for published articles (papers) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver for published data. PMID:23962139

  4. Promoting Engagement with Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles in Adult ESL Programs

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Abbott, Marilyn L.; Rossiter, Marian J.; Hatami, Sarvenaz

    2015-01-01

    Engagement with current research is essential for the implementation of evidence-informed instructional practices in adult English as a second language classrooms. We explored Canadian administrators' and instructors' engagement with peer-reviewed research articles, perceptions of their impact, and ways in which stakeholders could enhance…

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-12-01

    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)

    2016-01-01

    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.

  10. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-02-01

    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.

  11. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-02-01

    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.

  12. 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.

  13. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-03-01

    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.

  14. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-12-01

    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.

  15. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-01-01

    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.

  16. A student-run peer-reviewed journal: an educational tool for students in the health sciences

    PubMed Central

    Deonandan, Raywat; Patel, Premal; Winterbottom, Robyn

    2012-01-01

    Students at the University of Ottawa, many of whom were targeting a career in medicine, were surveyed to determine their attitudes and expectations regarding a new student-run peer-reviewed journal for the health sciences. A number of students reported that the existence of the journal would make them more likely to take a class with a written component, while a majority would work harder on that assignment. Those intending to pursue postgraduate or professional studies were most likely to recognize the value to their careers of having a publication history. We argue that student-run medical communication endeavors such as this are beneficial both for enhancing student careers and for contributing to a more thorough educational experience. PMID:23761997

  17. Advancing Kinesiology through Improved Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

  18. Peer Review: Has It a Future?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Soh, Kay Cheng

    2013-01-01

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

  19. 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.

  20. The Academic Journal Review Process as a Framework for Student Developmental Peer Feedback

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rubin, Robert S.

    2006-01-01

    Developmental peer feedback has been suggested as a method for providing students with individual feedback critical to the learning process. However, many faculty members are reluctant to employ peer feedback citing fear of student responses, student feedback capabilities, unfamiliarity with the process, and time constraints in and outside of…

  1. 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

  2. Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals.

    PubMed

    Margalida, Antoni; Colomer, M Àngels

    2016-01-01

    We apply a novel mistake index to assess trends in the proportion of corrections published between 1993 and 2014 in Nature, Science and PNAS. The index revealed a progressive increase in the proportion of corrections published in these three high-quality journals. The index appears to be independent of the journal impact factor or the number of items published, as suggested by a comparative analyses among 16 top scientific journals of different impact factors and disciplines. A more detailed analysis suggests that the trend in the time-to-correction increased significantly over time and also differed among journals (Nature 233 days; Science 136 days; PNAS 232 days). A detailed review of 1,428 errors showed that 60% of corrections were related to figures, authors, references or results. According to the three categories established, 34.7% of the corrections were considered mild, 47.7% moderate and 17.6% severe, also differing among journals. Errors occurring during the printing process were responsible for 5% of corrections in Nature, 3% in Science and 18% in PNAS. The measurement of the temporal trends in the quality of scientific manuscripts can assist editors and reviewers in identifying the most common mistakes, increasing the rigor of peer-review and improving the quality of published scientific manuscripts. PMID:26893961

  3. Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals

    PubMed Central

    Colomer, Mª Àngels

    2016-01-01

    We apply a novel mistake index to assess trends in the proportion of corrections published between 1993 and 2014 in Nature, Science and PNAS. The index revealed a progressive increase in the proportion of corrections published in these three high-quality journals. The index appears to be independent of the journal impact factor or the number of items published, as suggested by a comparative analyses among 16 top scientific journals of different impact factors and disciplines. A more detailed analysis suggests that the trend in the time-to-correction increased significantly over time and also differed among journals (Nature 233 days; Science 136 days; PNAS 232 days). A detailed review of 1,428 errors showed that 60% of corrections were related to figures, authors, references or results. According to the three categories established, 34.7% of the corrections were considered mild, 47.7% moderate and 17.6% severe, also differing among journals. Errors occurring during the printing process were responsible for 5% of corrections in Nature, 3% in Science and 18% in PNAS. The measurement of the temporal trends in the quality of scientific manuscripts can assist editors and reviewers in identifying the most common mistakes, increasing the rigor of peer-review and improving the quality of published scientific manuscripts. PMID:26893961

  4. Thinking Collaboratively about the Peer-Review Process for Journal-Article Publication

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kumashiro, Kevin K.

    2005-01-01

    In this conversation, Kevin K. Kumashiro shares his reflections on challenges to publishing anti-oppressive research in educational journals. He then invites eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals--William F. Pinar, Elizabeth Graue, Carl A. Grant, Maenette K. P. Benham, Ronald H. Heck, James Joseph Scheurich,…

  5. From Dissertation to Publication: Converting Doctoral Research into a Peer-Reviewed Journal Article

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rodriquez-Kiino, Diane

    2012-01-01

    "The Journal of Applied Research in the Community College" (JARCC) actively seeks scholarly submissions on community colleges that originate from doctoral dissertations. Understanding the scope and complexity of community and junior colleges nationally requires multiple vantage points. Newly minted doctorates and doctoral candidates can provide a…

  6. Peer Reviewers of Academic Journals: Who Is Responsible for Our Professional Literature

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Francis, Mary

    2013-01-01

    Scholarly journals provide a record of the research, issues, and concerns of a field. Authors have their names associated with their individual articles, while editors are connected with a publication. However, there is another group of individuals who are often left out of the record, although their contributions are just as critical in the…

  7. 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…

  8. NHEERL'S PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES, 2001-2002, TOTAL = 188 (LIST D)

    EPA Science Inventory

    This report contains an attachment in Field 14 listing the citations for all of NHEERL's journal articles published during the period June 2001 through May 2002. The report is broken down by NHEERL Division, and it includes manuscripts that have undergone clearance (but have not...

  9. NHEERL'S PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES, 2002-2003, TOTAL = 277 (LIST D)

    EPA Science Inventory

    This report contains an attachment in Field 14 listing the citations for all of NHEERL's journal articles for the period June 2002 through the first of May 2003. The report includes manuscripts that have undergone clearance (but have not yet been published) during this reporting...

  10. Substantial Agreement of Referee Recommendations at a General Medical Journal – A Peer Review Evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International

    PubMed Central

    Baethge, Christopher; Franklin, Jeremy; Mertens, Stephan

    2013-01-01

    Background Peer review is the mainstay of editorial decision making for medical journals. There is a dearth of evaluations of journal peer review with regard to reliability and validity, particularly in the light of the wide variety of medical journals. Studies carried out so far indicate low agreement among reviewers. We present an analysis of the peer review process at a general medical journal, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. Methodology/Principal Findings 554 reviewer recommendations on 206 manuscripts submitted between 7/2008 and 12/2009 were analyzed: 7% recommended acceptance, 74% revision and 19% rejection. Concerning acceptance (with or without revision) versus rejection, there was a substantial agreement among reviewers (74.3% of pairs of recommendations) that was not reflected by Fleiss' or Cohen's kappa (<0.2). The agreement rate amounted to 84% for acceptance, but was only 31% for rejection. An alternative kappa-statistic, however, Gwet's kappa (AC1), indicated substantial agreement (0.63). Concordance between reviewer recommendation and editorial decision was almost perfect when reviewer recommendations were unanimous. The correlation of reviewer recommendations and citations as counted by Web of Science was low (partial correlation adjusted for year of publication: −0.03, n.s.). Conclusions/Significance Although our figures are similar to those reported in the literature our conclusion differs from the widely held view that reviewer agreement is low: Based on overall agreement we consider the concordance among reviewers sufficient for the purposes of editorial decision making. We believe that various measures, such as positive and negative agreement or alternative Kappa values are superior to the application of Cohen's or Fleiss' Kappa in the analysis of nominal or ordinal level data regarding reviewer agreement. Also, reviewer recommendations seem to be a poor proxy for citations because, for example, manuscripts will be changed considerably

  11. Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2014-06-01

    Peer review of scholarship is essential to journal quality, evidence, knowledge advancement, and application of that knowledge in any field. This commentary summarizes recent literature on issues related to peer-review quality and current review practice in kinesiology and provides recommendations to improve peer review in kinesiology journals. We reviewed the literature on the characteristics of peer review in scientific journals and describe the status of peer review in kinesiology journals. Although the majority of scholars and editors strongly support the peer-review process, systematic research in several disciplines has shown somewhat positive but mixed results for the efficacy of peer review in evaluating the quality of and improving research reports. Past recommendations for improvement have focused on agreement between reviewers, standards for evaluating quality, and clarification of the editorial team roles. Research on interventions, however, indicates that improving reviewer performance is difficult. The specific research on peer review in kinesiology is limited. Six recommendations to improve peer review are proposed: publishing clear evaluation standards, establishing collaborative evaluation procedures and editorial team roles, utilizing online submission data to help improve reviewer comments, creating author appeals procedures, protecting reviewer time commitments, and improving reviewer recognition. There is considerable variation in peer-review criteria and procedures in kinesiology, and implementing several reasonable improvements may advance knowledge development and the field of kinesiology. PMID:25098008

  12. Peer-review thoughts

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Barnes, Bill; Goodman, Maurice

    2016-03-01

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

  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. 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 ≃ rMμ ; the power law exponent μ 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.

  15. The "Peer" in "Peer Review"

    USGS Publications Warehouse

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

    2011-01-01

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

  16. Licensing the future: report on BioMed Central’s public consultation on open data in peer-reviewed journals

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

    We report the outcomes of BioMed Central’s public consultation on implementing open data-compliant licensing in peer-reviewed open access journals. Respondents (42) to the 2012 consultation were six to one in favor (29 in support; 5 against; 8 abstentions) of changing our authors’ default open access copyright license agreement, to introduce the Creative Commons CC0 public domain waiver for data published in BioMed Central’s journals. We summarize the different questions we received in response to the consultation and our responses to them – matters such as citation, plagiarism, patient privacy, and commercial use were raised. In light of the support for open data in our journals we outline our plans to implement, in September 2013, a combined Creative Commons Attribution license for published articles (papers) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver for published data. PMID:23962139

  17. 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…

  18. Peer review and innovation.

    PubMed

    Spier, Raymond E

    2002-01-01

    Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10-20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms. PMID:11840960

  19. Thank you reviewers- CytoJournal 2007

    PubMed Central

    2007-01-01

    Significant efforts, time, and resources are devoted for peer-reviewing numerous CytoJournal manuscripts. The Editorial Board of CytoJournal shares a significant proportion of this activity. Additional peers are requested to join periodically as 'academic editors' and reviewers to review CytoJournal manuscripts. We thank all the reviewers and academic editors for their time and efforts for completing the peer-review of CytoJournal manuscripts during 2006. The continued success of this important academic exercise depends on their continued enthusiasm to support with their highest standards. We also thank all the contributing authors for selecting CytoJournal and supporting open access initiative, which allows retention of the copyrights to their corresponding academic accomplishments.

  20. 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.

  1. Re-Viewing Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Flynn, Elizabeth A.

    2011-01-01

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

  2. 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

  3. 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 the 1322 abstracts (19%) were subsequently published as full papers, which is lower than previously reported in oral and maxillofacial surgery. PMID:26235425

  4. Writing Quality Peer Reviews of Research Manuscripts

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

  5. Having a Mentor or a Doctoral Degree Is Helpful for Mid-Career Physicians to Publish Papers in Peer-Reviewed Journals.

    PubMed

    Takenoshita, Shinichi; Nomura, Kyoko; Ohde, Sachiko; Deshpande, Gautam A; Sakamoto, Haruka; Yoshida, Honami; Urayama, Kevin; Bito, Seiji; Ishida, Yasushi; Shimbo, Takuro; Matsui, Kunihiko; Fukui, Tsuguya; Takahashi, Osamu

    2016-01-01

    The evidence suggests that mentoring is one of useful teaching methods in academic medicine but it is not clear for which outcome mentoring is effective. In this study, the authors investigated the number of original research articles that the participants had published in peer-reviewed English-language journals (as a first or a corresponding author) within one year prior to investigation and what characteristics of the participants who published at least one paper would be like compared to those who did not. In March 2015, the authors recruit early- and mid-career Japanese physicians (238 men and 240 women; mean age 40.6 years old) in a web survey. In total, 23.9% of physicians had published at least one original research article as a first author, 10.0% had published as a corresponding author, and 23.4% had a research mentor. A multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for variables selected at p < 0.15 in univariable models showed that even after adjusting for their motivation levels for clinical research, physicians with a research mentor [odds ratio (OR) 6.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.74-11.93], physicians who obtained DMSc, roughly equivalent to PhD in the West (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.26-3.72), and physicians who worked at teaching hospitals (OR 6.39; 95% CI, 2.54-16.04) were more likely to publish an original paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Having a research mentor or DMSc is associated with an experience of successfully publishing original papers in peer-reviewed journals for young and mid-career physician-researchers. PMID:27523811

  6. 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.

  7. Peer review of teaching.

    PubMed

    Fernandez, Charles E; Yu, Jenny

    2007-01-01

    This article provides an overview and description of peer review of teaching for faculty members and administrators who would like to implement a peer review program. This may include classroom and clinical settings. A brief overview, procedure, and a teaching competence evaluation rubric are provided. PMID:18483580

  8. 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…

  9. Challenge to Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Burd, Stephen

    1994-01-01

    A lawsuit against the National Science Foundation, alleging use of peer reviewers biased toward certain grant proposals and requesting information about peer reviewer identities, may lead to significant changes in how the federal government examines grant applications. Confidentiality of records and accountability for decisions are at issue. (MSE)

  10. Peer Review of Teaching

    PubMed Central

    Fernandez, Charles E.; Yu, Jenny

    2007-01-01

    This article provides an overview and description of peer review of teaching for faculty members and administrators who would like to implement a peer review program. This may include classroom and clinical settings. A brief overview, procedure, and a teaching competence evaluation rubric are provided PMID:18483580

  11. 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…

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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)

  15. 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

  16. 'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woes.

    PubMed

    Kurdi, Madhuri S

    2015-08-01

    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

  17. 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…

  18. Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ausloos, Marcel; Nedic, Olgica; Dekanski, Aleksandar

    2016-08-01

    This paper aims at providing an introduction to the behavior of authors submitting a paper to a scientific journal. Dates of electronic submission of papers to the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society have been recorded from the 1st January 2013 till the 31st December 2014, thus over 2 years. There is no Monday or Friday effect like in financial markets, but rather a Tuesday-Wednesday effect occurs: papers are more often submitted on Wednesday; however, the relative number of going to be accepted papers is larger if these are submitted on Tuesday. On the other hand, weekend days (Saturday and Sunday) are not the best days to finalize and submit manuscripts. An interpretation based on the type of submitted work ("experimental chemistry") and on the influence of (senior) coauthors is presented. A thermodynamic connection is proposed within an entropy context. A (new) entropic distance is defined in order to measure the "opaqueness" = disorder) of the submission process.

  19. 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.

  20. The Potential of Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Johnson, Susan Moore; Fiarman, Sarah E.

    2012-01-01

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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…

  3. 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.

  4. Approaching Authentic Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Graff, Nelson

    2009-01-01

    Some scholars writing about improving students' reading and integrating reading and writing instruction suggest using think-aloud techniques to teach students reading comprehension skills. Using think-alouds to teach reading comprehension and then the read-aloud protocol technique (which is based on think-alouds) for peer review has two major…

  5. 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

  6. NIH Peer Review

    PubMed Central

    Vancea, Adrian; Chen, Mei-Ching; Chacko, George

    2015-01-01

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. Funding decisions are made largely based on the outcome of a peer review process that is intended to provide a fair, equitable, timely, and unbiased review of the quality, scientific merit, and potential impact of the research. There have been concerns about the criteria reviewers are using, and recent changes in review procedures at the NIH now make it possible to conduct an analysis of how reviewers evaluate applications for funding. This study examined the criteria and overall impact scores recorded by assigned reviewers for R01 grant applications. The results suggest that all the scored review criteria, including innovation, are related to the overall impact score. Further, good scores are necessary on all five scored review criteria, not just the score for research methodology, in order to achieve a good overall impact score. PMID:27239158

  7. Peer Review in the Classroom.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William W.

    2002-01-01

    Explains the importance of peer assessment in professional life and describes a course using peer review processes to teach modeling in natural resource management. Uses a typical scientific research protocol and assigns students to review peer proposals considering their expertise and area of interest. Presents guidelines for proposal review,…

  8. Further thoughts on peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Cottey, Alan; noamsoker

    2016-04-01

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

  9. 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...

  10. Who Is Writing? Author Affiliation across Peer-Reviewed Journals of Emotional or Behavioral Disorders, 2000-2011

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Schoenfeld, Naomi A.; Janney, Donna M.; Rekart, Jerome L.

    2013-01-01

    The importance of practitioner participation in identifying and maintaining use of best educational practice is well established; however, little is known about the ways in which practitioners contribute to the development and dissemination of those practices within the field of emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD). This review examines…

  11. Recommendations for pathology peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2010-12-01

    Pathology peer review verifies and improves the accuracy and quality of pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Pathology peer review is recommended when important risk assessment or business decisions are based on nonclinical studies. For pathology peer review conducted before study completion, the peer-review pathologist reviews sufficient slides and pathology data to assist the study pathologist in refining pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Materials to be reviewed are selected by the peer-review pathologist. Consultations with additional experts or a formal (documented) pathology working group may be used to resolve discrepancies. The study pathologist is solely responsible for the content of the final pathology data and report, makes changes resulting from peer-review discussions, initiates the audit trail for microscopic observations after all changes resulting from peer-review have been made, and signs the final pathologist's report. The peer-review pathologist creates a signed peer-review memo describing the peer-review process and confirming that the study pathologist's report accurately and appropriately reflects the pathology data. The study pathologist also may sign a statement of consensus. It is not necessary to archive working notes created during the peer-review process. PMID:20924082

  12. Peer review: from recognition to improved practices.

    PubMed

    Cintas, Pedro

    2016-06-01

    Scientific publishing has experienced profound changes in recent years, such as the advent of open-access journals, the increasing use of preprint archives or post-publication blogs, to name a few. One pillar still remains: peer review as a key ingredient that, in most cases, contributes to clarity and quality, often detecting errors and misinterpretations. Unfortunately, peer review is poorly recognized and good reviewers are rather a 'rare avis'. Even worse, this necessary task in science is generally overlooked in curricula and post-graduate education. Some considerations should help us all to ameliorate greatly our understanding and duties. PMID:27190154

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.

    PubMed

    Wagner, Amy K; Boninger, Michael L; Levy, Charles; Chan, Leighton; Gater, David; Kirby, R Lee

    2003-10-01

    Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despite these issues, a good peer review can provide positive feedback to authors and improve the quality of research reported in medical journals. This article reviews some issues and points of concern regarding the peer-review process, and it suggests guidelines for new (and established) reviewers in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. It also provides suggestions for editorial considerations and improvements in the peer-review process for physical medicine and rehabilitation research journals. PMID:14508411

  17. Mentoring Academic Journal Reviewers: Brokering Reviewing Knowledge

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Adamson, John

    2012-01-01

    This paper reports on an ongoing programme to develop new academic journal reviewers through mentoring. It analyses data from correspondence between experienced reviewer/mentors and new reviewer/mentees at an online journal. With the overlying objective of improving internal review quality, the mentoring programme has been initiated to raise…

  18. Peer review and refereeing in medicine and medical sciences.

    PubMed

    Ajao, O G

    1997-09-01

    Every academic scientist will come into contact with peer review process either as a reviewer of others work, or as an author whose work is being reviewed by others, or as an applicant for research grant. Historically, peer review process came at various times to various journals for a variety of reasons in haphazard manner. Many forms of criticisms have been made against the process of peer review, and some critics do not believe that the process prevents the publication of flawed articles and fraudulent research. Despite the criticisms, there are advantages of peer review. At present in medical journalism peer review process is an indispensable entity for assessing manuscripts intended for publication. PMID:19864786

  19. 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…

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

    PubMed

    Stahel, Philip F; Moore, Ernest E

    2014-01-01

    The lack of formal training programs for peer reviewers places the scientific quality of biomedical publications at risk, as the introduction of 'hidden' bias may not be easily recognized by the reader. The exponential increase in the number of manuscripts submitted for publication worldwide, estimated in the millions annually, overburdens the capability of available qualified referees. Indeed, the workload imposed on individual reviewers appears to be reaching a 'breaking point' that may no longer be sustainable. Some journals have made efforts to improve peer review via structured guidelines, courses for referees, and employing biostatisticians to ensure appropriate study design and analyses. Further strategies designed to incentivize and reward peer review work include journals providing continuing medical education (CME) credits to individual referees by defined criteria for timely and high-quality evaluations. Alternative options to supplement the current peer review process consist of 'post-publication peer review,' 'decoupled peer review,' 'collaborative peer review,' and 'portable peer review'. This article outlines the shortcomings and flaws in the current peer review system and discusses new innovative options on the horizon. PMID:25270270

  1. Peer Review: The CHAMPUS Program.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Stricker, George

    This paper examines the use of the peer review system in evaluating out-patient clinical services for a third-party payer seeking justification for payment of services. Peer review is defined as a process by which one professional, in an official capacity, makes a judgment about a co-professional in a matter involving professional functioning. The…

  2. Editorial behaviors in peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2016-01-01

    Editors play a critical role in the peer review system. How do editorial behaviors affect the performance of peer review? No quantitative model to date allows us to measure the influence of editorial behaviors on different peer review stages such as, manuscript distribution and final decision making. Here, we propose an agent-based model in which the process of peer review is guided mainly by the social interactions among three kinds of agents representing authors, editors and reviewers respectively. We apply this model to analyze a number of editorial behaviors such as decision strategy, number of reviewers and editorial bias on peer review. We find out that peer review outcomes are significantly sensitive to different editorial behaviors. With a small fraction (10 %) of biased editors, the quality of accepted papers declines 11 %, which indicates that effects of editorial biased behavior is worse than that of biased reviewers (7 %). While several peer review models exist, this is the first account for the study of editorial behaviors that is validated on the basis of simulation analysis. PMID:27386349

  3. 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.

  4. Shared Journaling as Peer Support in Teaching Qualitative Research Methods

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Humble, Aine M.; Sharp, Elizabeth

    2012-01-01

    Teaching qualitative research methods (QRM), particularly early on in one's academic career, can be challenging. This paper describes shared peer journaling as one way in which to cope with challenges such as complex debates in the field and student resistance to interpretive paradigms. Literature on teaching QRM and the pedagogical value of…

  5. 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.

  6. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology was created from the merger of two journals within the BMC series published by BioMed Central: BMC Pharmacology and BMC Clinical Pharmacology. BMC Pharmacology operated anonymous peer review whereas BMC Clinical Pharmacology operated a fully open peer review policy where the identity of the reviewers was known to the editors, authors and readers. The merged journal also adopted a fully open peer review policy. Two years on we discuss the views and experiences of our Editorial Board Members towards open peer review on this biomedical journal. PMID:25266119

  7. Science, Policy, and Peer Review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Kennedy, D.

    2006-12-01

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

  8. 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…

  9. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 45 Public Welfare 4 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Peer review. 1388.9 Section 1388.9 Public Welfare... PROGRAM THE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS § 1388.9 Peer review. (a) The purpose of the peer review... D, Section 152 of the Act, must be evaluated through the peer review process. (c) Panels must...

  10. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

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

  11. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 45 Public Welfare 4 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Peer review. 1388.9 Section 1388.9 Public Welfare... PROGRAM THE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS § 1388.9 Peer review. (a) The purpose of the peer review... D, Section 152 of the Act, must be evaluated through the peer review process. (c) Panels must...

  12. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 45 Public Welfare 4 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Peer review. 1388.9 Section 1388.9 Public Welfare... PROGRAM THE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS § 1388.9 Peer review. (a) The purpose of the peer review... D, Section 152 of the Act, must be evaluated through the peer review process. (c) Panels must...

  13. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 45 Public Welfare 4 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Peer review. 1388.9 Section 1388.9 Public Welfare... PROGRAM THE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS § 1388.9 Peer review. (a) The purpose of the peer review... D, Section 152 of the Act, must be evaluated through the peer review process. (c) Panels must...

  14. Factors in the Peer Review of Reviews.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Murray, Frank B.; Raths, James

    1996-01-01

    Factors that might influence the editorial process of peer review of articles are explored. These include the willingness of reviewers to perform the review, uninformed reviews, ideological or political bias, ethical conflicts of interest, and mistaken views of fairness. Awareness of these factors can help ensure article quality. (SLD)

  15. 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…

  16. A quick guide to writing a solid peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Nicholas, Kimberly A.; Gordon, Wendy S.

    2011-07-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Clark, R K F

    2012-08-01

    Peer review is an important stage in academic publishing, as a form of quality control to maintain the integrity of both the articles and the journals they appear in. However, the confidential nature of the relationship between reviewer and author does not necessarily benefit the system; with some reviewers using their anonymity to give unnecessary, injudicious comment. This paper explores the motives behind the reviewer's comments and how peer review could be improved by openness and honesty. PMID:22918342

  18. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

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

  19. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health PUBLIC....5 Peer review. An individual may not be considered for appointment into the SBRS unless his/her qualifications have been reviewed by a PHS peer review committee and the committee has recommended appointment...

  20. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health PUBLIC....5 Peer review. An individual may not be considered for appointment into the SBRS unless his/her qualifications have been reviewed by a PHS peer review committee and the committee has recommended appointment...

  1. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health PUBLIC....5 Peer review. An individual may not be considered for appointment into the SBRS unless his/her qualifications have been reviewed by a PHS peer review committee and the committee has recommended appointment...

  2. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ....5 Peer review. An individual may not be considered for appointment into the SBRS unless his/her qualifications have been reviewed by a PHS peer review committee and the committee has recommended appointment to... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health...

  3. 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…

  4. 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.

  5. 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)

  6. Graphite criteria peer review

    SciTech Connect

    1986-09-01

    This report documents a review of the stress criteria proposed for the graphite components of the modular high temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) core. The review was conducted by a panel of six independent consultants, chosen for their expertise over a range of relevant disciplines.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Reviewing post-publication peer review

    PubMed Central

    Knoepfler, Paul

    2015-01-01

    Post-publication peer review (PPPR) is transforming how the life sciences community evaluates published manuscripts and data. Unsurprisingly, however, PPPR is experiencing growing pains, and some elements of the process distinct from standard pre-publication review remain controversial. I discuss the rapid evolution of PPPR, its impact, and the challenges associated with it. PMID:25851694

  10. Peer-to-Peer Feedback: A Novel Approach to Nursing Quality, Collaboration, and Peer Review.

    PubMed

    LeClair-Smith, Colleen; Branum, Brandi; Bryant, Lindsay; Cornell, Betty; Martinez, Heather; Nash, Erin; Phillips, Lacy

    2016-06-01

    This article describes how an acute care organization in Texas, a peer review mandated state, created a nonpunitive peer feedback structure and process for nursing staff. Strategies were targeted to improve patient outcomes. A peer feedback committee designed, implemented, and evaluated the feedback model to coexist with the state-required formal peer review committee structure. Peer feedback provided opportunities to advance skill development, enhance quality improvement, improve patient outcomes, and support a culture of safety within the healthcare environment. PMID:27163874

  11. 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…

  12. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Peer review. 550.17 Section 550.17 Agriculture... § 550.17 Peer review. Upon request of the REE Agency, cooperators may be requested to provide documentation in support of peer review activities and cooperator personnel may be requested to participate...

  13. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Peer Reviews. 215.270 Section 215.270 Federal Acquisition Regulations System DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT... of Proposals and Information 215.270 Peer Reviews. Agency officials shall conduct Peer Reviews...

  14. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Peer Reviews. 215.270 Section 215.270 Federal Acquisition Regulations System DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT... of Proposals and Information 215.270 Peer Reviews. Agency officials shall conduct Peer Reviews...

  15. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Peer reviews. 201.170... OF DEFENSE GENERAL FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM Purpose, Authority, Issuance 201.170 Peer reviews. (a) DoD peer reviews. (1) The Office of the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition...

  16. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... CFR PART 191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS Compliance Certification and Re-certification General Requirements § 194.27 Peer review. (a) Any compliance application shall include documentation of peer review that has... 40 Protection of Environment 25 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Peer review. 194.27 Section...

  17. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Peer Reviews. 215.270 Section 215.270 Federal Acquisition Regulations System DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT... of Proposals and Information 215.270 Peer Reviews. Agency officials shall conduct Peer Reviews...

  18. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... CFR PART 191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS Compliance Certification and Re-certification General Requirements § 194.27 Peer review. (a) Any compliance application shall include documentation of peer review that has... 40 Protection of Environment 26 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Peer review. 194.27 Section...

  19. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

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

  20. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

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

  1. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Peer reviews. 201.170... OF DEFENSE GENERAL FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM Purpose, Authority, Issuance 201.170 Peer reviews. (a) DoD peer reviews. (1) The Office of the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition...

  2. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Peer review. 550.17 Section 550.17 Agriculture... § 550.17 Peer review. Upon request of the REE Agency, cooperators may be requested to provide documentation in support of peer review activities and cooperator personnel may be requested to participate...

  3. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... CFR PART 191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS Compliance Certification and Re-certification General Requirements § 194.27 Peer review. (a) Any compliance application shall include documentation of peer review that has... 40 Protection of Environment 25 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Peer review. 194.27 Section...

  4. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... CFR PART 191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS Compliance Certification and Re-certification General Requirements § 194.27 Peer review. (a) Any compliance application shall include documentation of peer review that has... 40 Protection of Environment 24 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review. 194.27 Section...

  5. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Peer review. 550.17 Section 550.17 Agriculture... § 550.17 Peer review. Upon request of the REE Agency, cooperators may be requested to provide documentation in support of peer review activities and cooperator personnel may be requested to participate...

  6. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Peer Reviews. 201.170... OF DEFENSE GENERAL FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM Purpose, Authority, Issuance 201.170 Peer... Procurement and Acquisition Policy, will organize teams of reviewers and facilitate Peer Reviews...

  7. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

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

  8. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... CFR PART 191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS Compliance Certification and Re-certification General Requirements § 194.27 Peer review. (a) Any compliance application shall include documentation of peer review that has... 40 Protection of Environment 26 2012-07-01 2011-07-01 true Peer review. 194.27 Section...

  9. Peer Reviewers Learn from Giving Comments

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cho, Young Hoan; Cho, Kwangsu

    2011-01-01

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

  10. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Peer reviews. 201.170... OF DEFENSE GENERAL FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM Purpose, Authority, Issuance 201.170 Peer reviews. (a) DoD peer reviews. (1) The Office of the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition...

  11. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Peer review. 550.17 Section 550.17 Agriculture... § 550.17 Peer review. Upon request of the REE Agency, cooperators may be requested to provide documentation in support of peer review activities and cooperator personnel may be requested to participate...

  12. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 3 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Peer Reviews. 215.270 Section 215.270 Federal Acquisition Regulations System DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT... of Proposals and Information 215.270 Peer Reviews. Agency officials shall conduct Peer Reviews...

  13. 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 ...

  14. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... Section 34.110 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.110 Management of peer reviews. A technical support contractor may assist in managing the peer review process....

  15. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders reviewer acknowledgement 2012

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

    Contributing reviewers The editors of Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders would like to thank all of our reviewers who have contributed to the journal in volume 4 (2012). High quality and timely reviews are critical to the overall quality of the journal. We are committed to providing a unique and important outlet for scholarship regarding neurodevelopmental disorders and are indebted to the outstanding reviewers who have contributed their time over the last year in helping us to reach this goal. PMID:23517765

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

    PubMed

    Faggion, C M

    2016-02-26

    The peer-review process is a fundamental component in the advancement of science. In this process, independent reviewers evaluate the quality of a manuscript and its suitability for publication in a particular scientific journal. Thus, to favour the publication of the highest-level information, the peer-review system should be as unbiased as possible. Although the peer-review system is the most commonly used method to select manuscripts for publication, it has several potential limitations. The main objective of this manuscript is to discuss some limitations of the peer-review system and suggest potential solutions from the perspective of an author and reviewer. This article may contribute to the always-dynamic development of the peer-review process. PMID:26917302

  17. 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.

  18. Peer Review: Promoting Efficient School District Operations

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hale, Jason S.

    2010-01-01

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

  19. Towards an effective data peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Düsterhus, André; Hense, Andreas

    2014-05-01

    Peer review is an established procedure to ensure the quality of scientific publications and is currently used as a prerequisite for acceptance of papers in the scientific community. In the past years the publication of raw data and its metadata got increased attention, which led to the idea of bringing it to the same standards the journals for traditional publications have. One missing element to achieve this is a comparable peer review scheme. This contribution introduces the idea of a quality evaluation process, which is designed to analyse the technical quality as well as the content of a dataset. It bases on quality tests, which results are evaluated with the help of the knowledge of an expert. The results of the tests and the expert knowledge are evaluated probabilistically and are statistically combined. As a result the quality of a dataset is estimated with a single value only. This approach allows the reviewer to quickly identify the potential weaknesses of a dataset and generate a transparent and comprehensible report. To demonstrate the scheme, an application on a large meteorological dataset will be shown. Furthermore, potentials and risks of such a scheme will be introduced and practical implications for its possible introduction to data centres investigated. Especially, the effects of reducing the estimate of quality of a dataset to a single number will be critically discussed.

  20. 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…

  1. Reviewing manuscripts for the Journal of Genetic Counseling: practical suggestions.

    PubMed

    Venne, Vickie

    2015-04-01

    The Journal of Genetic Counseling is the literary voice of our profession and our scholarship is only as good as the articles that are accepted. A quality review assists the editor in making publication decisions and enhances the manuscripts that are published, ultimately benefitting our profession and the public. Perhaps you are new to the reviewing process and/or you wonder about the sorts of things that make for a good review. The purpose of this article is to provide general guidance to enhance your experience of peer review. While the focus is research manuscripts, many of the guidelines will be similar for case reports, reviews, or professional issues papers. PMID:25527418

  2. 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

  3. 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; Nikolić, 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

  4. 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.

  5. Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    PubMed

    Moher, David

    2015-01-01

    Systematic reviews are popular. A recent estimate indicates that 11 new systematic reviews are published daily. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that the quality of reporting of systematic reviews is not optimal. One likely reason is that the authors' reports have received inadequate peer review. There are now many different types of systematic reviews and peer reviewing them can be enhanced by using a reporting guideline to supplement whatever template the journal editors have asked you, as a peer reviewer, to use. Additionally, keeping up with the current literature, whether as a content expert or being aware of advances in systematic review methods is likely be make for a more comprehensive and effective peer review. Providing a brief summary of what the systematic review has reported is an important first step in the peer review process (and not performed frequently enough). At its core, it provides the authors with some sense of what the peer reviewer believes was performed (Methods) and found (Results). Importantly, it also provides clarity regarding any potential problems in the methods, including statistical approaches for meta-analysis, results, and interpretation of the systematic review, for which the peer reviewer can seek explanations from the authors; these clarifications are best presented as questions to the authors. PMID:26521692

  6. 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…

  7. Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sims, Gerald K.

    1989-01-01

    A peer review process similar to that used by scientific journals which can be applied to class work is presented. Stressed is the advantage of using peer review when writing skills are a priority but instructor time is limited. Guidelines and examples of comments are provided. (CW)

  8. 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

  9. 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

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

    PubMed

    Lee, Christopher

    2012-01-01

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

  11. Dosage Parameters in Pediatric Outcome Studies Reported in 9 Peer-Reviewed Occupational Therapy Journals from 2008 to 2014: A Content Analysis

    PubMed Central

    Gee, Bryan M.; Lloyd, Kimberly; Devine, Nancy; Tyrrell, Erin; Evans, Trisha; Hill, Rebekah; Dineen, Stacee; Magalogo, Kristin

    2016-01-01

    Occupational therapists determine the dosage when establishing the plan of care for their pediatric clients. A content analysis was conducted using 123 pediatric occupational therapy outcomes studies from 9 scholarly international occupational therapy journals. The parameters of dosage were calculated using descriptive statistics in order to obtain a representation of dosage available within the current collage of pediatric occupational therapy outcomes studies. The results revealed that most studies reported portions of dosage parameters within the published studies. The average findings for the subcomponents related to dosage were session length (minutes) M = 58.7, duration of plan of care (weeks) M = 12.1, session frequency (per week) M = 3.4, and total hours of therapy (hours) M = 18.1. This first attempt at describing and calculating dosage related to pediatric occupational therapy practice indicates that evidence is lacking within the published literature to adequately guide OT dosage decisions. Further research related to dosage in pediatric occupational therapy practice is needed. PMID:26949547

  12. The Problem of Humiliation in Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Comer, Debra R.; Schwartz, Michael

    2014-01-01

    This paper examines the problem of vituperative feedback from peer reviewers. We argue that such feedback is morally unacceptable, insofar as it humiliates authors and damages their dignity. We draw from social-psychological research to explore those aspects of the peer-review process in general and the anonymity of blind reviewing in particular…

  13. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Use of peer review. 34.104 Section 34.104 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.104 Use of peer review. (a) Peer review for competitive and noncompetitive applications. (1)...

  14. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Number of peer reviewers. 34.106 Section 34.106 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.106 Number of peer reviewers. The number of peer reviewers will vary by program...

  15. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Number of peer reviewers. 34.106 Section 34.106 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.106 Number of peer reviewers. The number of peer reviewers will vary by program...

  16. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  17. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  18. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Peer review procedures. 34.102 Section 34.102 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.102 Peer review procedures. The OJJDP peer review process is contained in an OJJDP...

  19. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Use of peer review. 34.104 Section 34.104 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.104 Use of peer review. (a) Peer review for competitive and noncompetitive applications. (1)...

  20. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Number of peer reviewers. 34.106 Section 34.106 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.106 Number of peer reviewers. The number of peer reviewers will vary by program...

  1. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Peer review procedures. 34.102 Section 34.102 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.102 Peer review procedures. The OJJDP peer review process is contained in an OJJDP...

  2. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Use of peer review. 34.104 Section 34.104 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.104 Use of peer review. (a) Peer review for competitive and noncompetitive applications. (1)...

  3. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Use of peer review. 34.104 Section 34.104 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.104 Use of peer review. (a) Peer review for competitive and noncompetitive applications. (1)...

  4. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Peer review procedures. 34.102 Section 34.102 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.102 Peer review procedures. The OJJDP peer review process is contained in an OJJDP...

  5. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Use of peer review. 34.104 Section 34.104 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.104 Use of peer review. (a) Peer review for competitive and noncompetitive applications. (1)...

  6. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Number of peer reviewers. 34.106 Section 34.106 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.106 Number of peer reviewers. The number of peer reviewers will vary by program...

  7. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Peer review procedures. 34.102 Section 34.102 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.102 Peer review procedures. The OJJDP peer review process is contained in an OJJDP...

  8. 2006 Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    Each year hydrogen and fuel cell projects funded by DOE's Hydrogen Program are reviewed for their merit during an Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting. The 2006 Annual Merit Review, held May 16-19, 2006 in Arlington, Va., showcased approximately 250 projects. Principal investigators presented their project status and results in oral and poster presentations, which are available in the 2006 Annual Merit Review Proceedings. A panel of more than 150 community experts peer reviewed two-t

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cassidy, Alice; Lee, Jack

    2011-01-01

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

  13. 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.

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

    PubMed

    Skaik, Younis

    2015-01-01

    The main role of a peer reviewer is to make judgments on the research articles by asking a number of questions to evaluate the quality of the research article. Statistics is a major part of any biomedical research article, and most reviewers gain their experiences in manuscript reviewing by undertaking it but not through an educational process. Therefore, reviewers of the biomedical journals normally do not have enough knowledge and skills to evaluate the validity of statistical methods used in biomedical research articles submitted for consideration. Hence, inappropriate statistical analysis in medical journals can lead to misleading conclusions and incorrect results. In this paper, the most common basic statistical guidelines are described that might be a road map to the biomedical reviewers. It is not meant for statisticians or medical editors who have special interest and expertise in statistical analysis. PMID:26430447

  15. Research Review: Issues in Magazine Journalism Education.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    King, Elliot

    1994-01-01

    Argues that, hobbled by an impoverished underlying model and a lack of resources, very little empirical research has explored magazine journalism education. Investigates the underlying model, reviews existing research, and offers an optimistic assessment about future research possibilities. (SR)

  16. Critiquing Scholarship as Formal Review: The Role and Responsibilities of Readers for Academic Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nelson, Thomas

    2011-01-01

    This article describes the various components of a successful review from the standpoint of a veteran journal editor and encourages, in particular, young scholars to consider, if they have not already done so, becoming active participants not only in the authoring of scholarly work, but also as reviewers in the peer review process that is part of…

  17. 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…

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

    PubMed

    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

  19. 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…

  20. Procedures for Peer Review of Grant Applications

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    US Department of Education, 2006

    2006-01-01

    This guide presents information on the procedures for peer review of grant applications. It begins with an overview of the review process for grant application submission and review. The review process includes: (1) pre-submission procedures that enable the Institute to plan for specific review sessions; (2) application processing procedures; (3)…

  1. 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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Min, Hui-Tzu

    2008-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-07-26

    To investigate the effect of competitive incentives under peer review, we designed a novel experimental setup called the Art Exhibition Game. We present experimental evidence of how competition introduces both positive and negative effects when creative artifacts are evaluated and selected by peer review. Competition proved to be a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it fosters innovation and product diversity, but on the other hand, it also leads to more unfair reviews and to a lower level of agreement between reviewers. Moreover, an external validation of the quality of peer reviews during the laboratory experiment, based on 23,627 online evaluations on Amazon Mechanical Turk, shows that competition does not significantly increase the level of creativity. Furthermore, the higher rejection rate under competitive conditions does not improve the average quality of published contributions, because more high-quality work is also rejected. Overall, our results could explain why many ground-breaking studies in science end up in lower-tier journals. Differences and similarities between the Art Exhibition Game and scholarly peer review are discussed and the implications for the design of new incentive systems for scientists are explained. PMID:27402744

  4. Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game

    PubMed Central

    Goldstone, Robert L.; Helbing, Dirk

    2016-01-01

    To investigate the effect of competitive incentives under peer review, we designed a novel experimental setup called the Art Exhibition Game. We present experimental evidence of how competition introduces both positive and negative effects when creative artifacts are evaluated and selected by peer review. Competition proved to be a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it fosters innovation and product diversity, but on the other hand, it also leads to more unfair reviews and to a lower level of agreement between reviewers. Moreover, an external validation of the quality of peer reviews during the laboratory experiment, based on 23,627 online evaluations on Amazon Mechanical Turk, shows that competition does not significantly increase the level of creativity. Furthermore, the higher rejection rate under competitive conditions does not improve the average quality of published contributions, because more high-quality work is also rejected. Overall, our results could explain why many ground-breaking studies in science end up in lower-tier journals. Differences and similarities between the Art Exhibition Game and scholarly peer review are discussed and the implications for the design of new incentive systems for scientists are explained. PMID:27402744

  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. Where is the trust in the peer review dynamic?

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ucko, Daniel

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

  7. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  8. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Qualifications of peer reviewers. 34.109 Section 34.109 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.109 Qualifications of peer reviewers. The general reviewer qualification criteria...

  9. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Qualifications of peer reviewers. 34.109 Section 34.109 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.109 Qualifications of peer reviewers. The general reviewer qualification criteria...

  10. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Qualifications of peer reviewers. 34.109 Section 34.109 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.109 Qualifications of peer reviewers. The general reviewer qualification criteria...

  11. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Qualifications of peer reviewers. 34.109 Section 34.109 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.109 Qualifications of peer reviewers. The general reviewer qualification criteria...

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

    PubMed Central

    Pöschl, Ulrich

    2012-01-01

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

  13. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation.

    PubMed

    Pöschl, Ulrich

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2011-11-01

    Review articles comprehensively covering a specific topic are crucial for successful research and academic projects. Most editors consider review articles for special and regular issues of journals. Writing a review requires deep knowledge and understanding of a field. The aim of this review is to analyze the main steps in writing a narrative biomedical review and to consider points that may increase the chances of success. We performed a comprehensive search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science using the following keywords: review of the literature, narrative review, title, abstract, authorship, ethics, peer review, research methods, medical writing, scientific writing, and writing standards. Opinions expressed in the review are also based on personal experience as authors, peer reviewers, and editors. PMID:21800117

  15. CREDIBILITY, PEER REVIEW, AND NATURE, 1945-1990.

    PubMed

    Baldwin, Melinda

    2015-09-20

    This paper examines the refereeing procedures at the scientific weekly Nature during and after World War II. In 1939 former editorial assistants L. J. F. Brimble and A. J. V. Gale assumed a joint editorship of Nature. The Brimble-Gale era is now most famous for the editors' unsystematic approach to external refereeing. Although Brimble and Gale did sometimes consult external referees, papers submitted or recommended by scientists whom the pair trusted were often not sent out for further review. Their successor, John Maddox, would also print papers he admired without external refereeing. It was not until 1973 that editor David Davies made external peer review a requirement for publication in Nature. Nature's example shows that as late as the 1960s a journal could be considered scientifically respectable even if its editors were known to eschew systematic external peer review. PMID:26495581

  16. 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.

  17. 2013 Bioenergy Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    None, None

    2014-02-01

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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kumar, Prashant; Rafiq, Imran; Imam, Boulent

    2011-01-01

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

  1. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Peer review methods. 34.105 Section 34.105 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.105 Peer review methods. (a) For both competitive and noncompetitive applications,...

  2. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Management of peer reviews. 34.110 Section 34.110 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.110 Management of peer reviews. A technical support contractor may assist in...

  3. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Management of peer reviews. 34.110 Section 34.110 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.110 Management of peer reviews. A technical support contractor may assist in...

  4. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Management of peer reviews. 34.110 Section 34.110 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.110 Management of peer reviews. A technical support contractor may assist in...

  5. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review methods. 34.105 Section 34.105 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.105 Peer review methods. (a) For both competitive and noncompetitive applications,...

  6. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Peer review methods. 34.105 Section 34.105 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.105 Peer review methods. (a) For both competitive and noncompetitive applications,...

  7. 38 CFR 77.10 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 38 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief 2 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Peer review methods. 77....10 Peer review methods. (a) VA may subject both pre-applications and formal applications to a peer review process. For both competitive and noncompetitive applications, peer review will normally...

  8. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Management of peer reviews. 34.110 Section 34.110 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.110 Management of peer reviews. A technical support contractor may assist in...

  9. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Peer review methods. 34.105 Section 34.105 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.105 Peer review methods. (a) For both competitive and noncompetitive applications,...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hertling, Elizabeth

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

  11. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Peer review methods. 34.105 Section 34.105 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.105 Peer review methods. (a) For both competitive and noncompetitive applications,...

  12. 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... Research Grant Applications § 3415.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members and... need to maintain a balanced composition of peer review groups related to minority and...

  13. 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... Research Grant Applications § 3415.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members and... need to maintain a balanced composition of peer review groups related to minority and...

  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... Research Grant Applications § 3415.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members and... need to maintain a balanced composition of peer review groups related to minority and...

  15. 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... PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.11 Composition of peer review groups... need to maintain a balanced composition of peer review groups related to minority and...

  16. Procedures for Peer Review of Reports

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    US Department of Education, 2006

    2006-01-01

    Under the Education Sciences Reform Act, all research, statistics, and evaluation reports conducted by, or supported through, the Institute shall be subject to rigorous peer review before being published or otherwise made available to the public. Prior to review and approval by the NCEE Commissioner, NCEE reports are reviewed internally by the…

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

    PubMed

    Schmalbach, Cecelia E

    2016-07-01

    Current otolaryngology literature and future scientific direction rely heavily on a rigorous peer review process. Just as manuscripts warrant thoughtful review with constructive feedback to the authors, the same can be said for critiques written by novice peer reviewers. Formal scientific peer review training programs are lacking. Recognizing this knowledge gap, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery is excited to offer its new Resident Reviewer Development Program. All otolaryngology residents who are postgraduate year 2 and above and in excellent academic standing are eligible to participate in this mentored program, during which they will conduct 6 manuscript reviews under the direction of a seasoned reviewer in his or her subspecialty area of interest. By completing reviews alongside a mentor, participants gain the required skills to master the peer review process-a first step that often leads to journal editorial board and associate editor invitations. PMID:27371618

  18. Peer Review Re-Viewed: Investigating the Juxtaposition of Composition Students' Eye Movements and Peer-Review Processes

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Paulson, Eric J.; Alexander, Jonathan; Armstrong, Sonya

    2007-01-01

    While peer review is a common practice in college composition courses, there is little consistency in approach and effectiveness within the field, owing in part to the dearth of empirical research that investigates peer-review processes. This study is designed to shed light on what a peer reviewer actually reads and attends to while providing…

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. 'Peer review' for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies.

    PubMed

    Das, A K

    2016-04-01

    Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring quality control of scientific manuscripts published in any journal. The traditional double blind peer review, although a time-tested method, has come under increasing criticism in the face of emerging trends in the review process with the primary concern being the delays in completion of the review process. Other issues are the inability to detect errors/fraud, lack of transparency, lack of reliability, potential for bias, potential for unethical practices, lack of objectivity, inconsistencies amongst reviewers, lack of recognition and motivation of reviewers. Alternative options to classical peer review being propagated are: open review, immediate self-publication using preprint servers, nonselective review focusing primarily on the scientific content, and post-publication review. These alternative review processes, however, may suffer from the inability to validate quality control. In addition, anecdotal instances of peer review frauds are being reported more often than earlier. Suggested means to ensure quality of peer review process includes:(a) each journal to have its own database of reviewers, (b) verification of email IDs of reviewers provided by authors along with details of their institutions, (c) ensure credibility of reviewers before requesting for review, (d) check for plagiarism at the editorial level, (e) editors to distinguish between a good review from a possible biased/bad review, and (f) give recognition for reviewers once in a year. To conclude, quickness of review and publication should not dictate the scientific publication process at the cost of quality of contents. PMID:27257328

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2015-12-01

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

  3. Use of Trial Register Information during the Peer Review Process

    PubMed Central

    Mathieu, Sylvain; Chan, An-Wen; Ravaud, Philippe

    2013-01-01

    Introduction Evidence in the medical literature suggests that trial registration may not be preventing selective reporting of results. We wondered about the place of such information in the peer-review process. Method We asked 1,503 corresponding authors of clinical trials and 1,733 reviewers to complete an online survey soliciting their views on the use of trial registry information during the peer-review process. Results 1,136 authors (n = 713) and reviewers (n = 423) responded (37.5%); 676 (59.5%) had reviewed an article reporting a clinical trial in the past 2 years. Among these, 232 (34.3%) examined information registered on a trial registry. If one or more items (primary outcome, eligibility criteria, etc.) differed between the registry record and the manuscript, 206 (88.8%) mentioned the discrepancy in their review comments, 46 (19.8%) advised editors not to accept the manuscript, and 8 did nothing. The reviewers' reasons for not using the trial registry information included a lack of registration number in the manuscript (n = 132; 34.2%), lack of time (n = 128; 33.2%), lack of usefulness of registered information for peer review (n = 100; 25.9%), lack of awareness about registries (n = 54; 14%), and excessive complexity of the process (n = 39; 10.1%). Conclusion This survey revealed that only one-third of the peer reviewers surveyed examined registered trial information and reported any discrepancies to journal editors. PMID:23593154

  4. 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…

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

    PubMed

    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

  6. 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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2011-01-01

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

  8. Assessing the Quality of Feedback in the Peer-Review Process

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dobele, A. R.

    2015-01-01

    The feedback provided to authors by reviewers as part of a double-blind peer-review process was examined for two Australian conferences, one special international edition book and six international special edition journals (originating in the UK). The research sought to identify consistency of decision-making and the effectiveness of feedback for…

  9. 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,…

  10. 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

  11. Real-Time Peer Review: An Innovative Feature to an Evidence-Based Practice Conference

    PubMed Central

    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

  12. 2008 Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    Each year hydrogen and fuel cell projects funded by DOE's Hydrogen Program are reviewed for their merit during an Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting. The 2008 Annual Merit Review, held June 9-13, 2008 in Arlington, Va., showcased nearly 300 projects. Hydrogen and fuel cell principal investigators representing the offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science presented their project status and results in oral and poster presentations,

  13. 2007 Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    Each year hydrogen and fuel cell projects funded by DOE's Hydrogen Program are reviewed for their merit during an Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting. The 2007 Annual Merit Review, held May 15-18, 2007 in Washington, D.C., showcased approximately 300 projects. Hydrogen and fuel cell principal investigators representing the offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science presented their project status and results in oral and poster presen

  14. 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.

  15. Integration of radiologist peer review into clinical review workstation.

    PubMed

    McEnery, K W; Suitor, C T; Hildebrand, S; Downs, R L

    2000-05-01

    Professional peer review of random prior radiologist's interpretations is mandated by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). The JCAHO expects documentation of 5% rate of random peer-review cases. Countless hours are spent in departments fulfilling these requirements. The integration of the peer-review process into the radiologist's interpretation workflow was expected to increase the percentage of documented peer review, yet decrease the time and effort for this documentation. radStation clinical review workstations are deployed at every reading station. When a requisition is bar-coded, radStation retrieves the patient's clinical information and automatically displays the prior comparison report. If the radiologist agrees with the prior report, a single click on a "quality assurance' agree box documents the agreement. In the case of a discordance, an additional dialog box automatically appears and the radiologist enters the reason for disagreement and then submits the case as a discrepancy. The system holds the discordance for 3 to 5 working days, then notifies the original radiologist via E-mail that a prior interpretation has been submitted for peer review, lists the submitted discrepancy reason, and provides a link to display the discordant report. The peer-review database is separate from the existing radiology information system (RIS). At the end of every month, summary reports of all peer-review activity are generated automatically. Initial benchmarks of our deployed system anticipate documentation of long-term random peer-review rate at greater than 50% of interpreted cases. The system enhances the peer-review process by integrating it with the normal interpretation workflow. The time to complete peer review using radStation is less than 1 second per normal case and less than 60 seconds for a discordant case. The E-mail notification system is fully automated, eliminating the need for secretarial involvement in the data

  16. Journal between Peer Learners: An Innovative Project to Motivate EFL Writers

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Wang, Xiaohong; Shen, Lei; Lu, Xiao

    2016-01-01

    Writing is one of the most challenging skills for many EFL learners to master. It is also considered to be the most difficult to teach. To motivate students to write more without burdening teachers with additional rating work, college English teachers at a university in China introduced a journal project. Peer learners were paired anonymously and…

  17. Collaborative Learning through Formative Peer Review: Pedagogy, Programs and Potential

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sondergaard, Harald; Mulder, Raoul A.

    2012-01-01

    We examine student peer review, with an emphasis on formative practice and collaborative learning, rather than peer grading. Opportunities to engage students in such formative peer assessment are growing, as a range of online tools become available to manage and simplify the process of administering student peer review. We consider whether…

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 7 CFR 3405.16 - 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. 3405.16 Section... to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, CSREES will, upon request... reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be made available to respective...

  1. 7 CFR 3406.23 - 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. 3406.23 Section... Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request.... Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be...

  2. 7 CFR 3405.16 - 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. 3405.16 Section... to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request... reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be made available to respective...

  3. 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... Supplementary Information § 3405.16 Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced.... Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be...

  4. 7 CFR 3406.23 - 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. 3406.23 Section... Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request.... Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be...

  5. 7 CFR 3406.23 - 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. 3406.23 Section... Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, CSREES will, upon request.... Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be...

  6. 7 CFR 3405.16 - 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. 3405.16 Section... to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request... reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be made available to respective...

  7. 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…

  8. Using Peer Review with Chinese ESL Student Writers

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hu, Guangwei

    2005-01-01

    Peer review has a prominent place in process-oriented writing instruction. In this paper, I share my developing use of peer review in an academic writing course for Chinese ESL learners. After reviewing the relevant literature, I describe the context in which I implemented peer review and conducted practitioner research into its productive use.…

  9. 7 CFR 3405.16 - 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. 3405.16 Section... to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request... reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be made available to respective...

  10. 7 CFR 3406.23 - 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. 3406.23 Section... Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request.... Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be...

  11. 7 CFR 3400.11 - 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. 3400.11 Section 3400.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH... Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review...

  12. 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.

  13. Values, Influences, and Peers (VIP) Program Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fine, Judith

    This report reviews the Values, Influences, and Peers (VIP) program in the Peel, Ontario schools. Originally developed as a joint initiative of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the VIP program was first introduced in Peel in 1983 as a pilot initiative in one school. Launched as a response to an increase in…

  14. Student Reflection and Learning through Peer Reviews

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Boase-Jelinek, Daniel; Parker, Jenni; Herrington, Jan

    2013-01-01

    This paper describes lessons learnt whilst using an online peer review system in an undergraduate unit for pre-service teachers. In this unit, students learn to use information technologies as part of their future teaching practice. The unit aims to foster graduates who become lifelong reflective educators by providing opportunities to explore and…

  15. Peer Review Confidentiality: Is It Still Possible?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lee, Barbara A.

    This pamphlet analyzes the clash between higher education institutions' concerns for preserving the confidentiality of peer faculty review and the need for relevant evidence when a disappointed faculty member suspects that a negative tenure decision is infected with illegal bias. Until recently many institutions decided whether to give tenure to a…

  16. SMALL DRINKING WATER SYSTEM PEER REVIEW PROGRAM

    EPA Science Inventory

    The United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc., which is made up of twenty-four (24) tribes, ranging in location, geographically, from Maine to Texas, AND three (3) states, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Georgia, participated in a program, "The Small Drinking Water System Peer Review Prog...

  17. Peer Review Methods for ESL Writing Improvement

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Soares, Colleen J.

    2004-01-01

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

  18. Learning To Assess Students Using Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Pond, Keith; Ul-Haq, Rehan

    1997-01-01

    Peer Review is described as an assessment methodology that allows students to provide input into the assessment procedure through evaluating each others' performance in out-of-class learning activities, with control of the final grade remaining with the teacher. Responses of 51 students illustrate strengths and weaknesses of the approach. (SLD)

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2016-01-01

    Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications. Methods Here we examine an element of the editorial process at eLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions to eLife since June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis. Results The Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers. Conclusions An important aspect of eLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach. PMID:27508056

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-01-01

    Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications. Methods Here we examine an element of the editorial process at eLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions to eLife since June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis. Results The Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers. Conclusions An important aspect of eLife's peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach. PMID:27508056

  1. 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.

  2. The importance of peer review: thoughts on Knudson, Morrow, and Thomas (2014).

    PubMed

    Fischman, Mark G

    2014-12-01

    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 reviewer and associate editor recommendations to the editor, and the importance of editor decisions, in determining what becomes part of a discipline's body of knowledge. These recommendations and decisions ultimately affect what students learn, and what professionals practice, in their disciplines. This kind of power over the control of knowledge and the application of that knowledge is cause for all involved in science to do everything possible to improve our stewardship over peer review. PMID:25412126

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Novetsky, Marvin; Razzoog, Michael E.

    1981-01-01

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

  7. Testing the rebound peer review concept.

    PubMed

    Olson, Kenneth R

    2013-07-01

    This invited Editorial addresses the rescue of the article by Xue et al. "Hydrogen sulfide treatment promotes glucose uptake by increasing insulin receptor sensitivity and ameliorates kidney lesions in type 2 diabetes." The work was rejected by the standard peer review system and subsequently rescued via the Rebound Peer Review mechanism offered by Antioxidants and Redox Signaling (Antoxid Redox Signal 16: 293-296, 2012). The open reviewers rescuing the work were Jin-Song Bian, Samuel Dudley, Hideo Kimura, and Xian Wang. The initial article was reviewed by six reviewers who had valid concerns; they recommended extensive revision and additional experiments. In the subsequent two iterations, the authors nearly doubled the number of experiments and made substantial revisions. However, several reviewers were still not satisfied, and the authors requested the rebound pathway. The open reviewers, selected by the authors and experts in hydrogen sulfide biology, diabetes, and cardiovascular physiology, added a broad perspective to the review process. They acknowledged the anonymous reviewer's concerns, but felt that the merits of the study were sufficient to recommend acceptance. The open reviewers also identified several situations where the recommendations of the anonymous reviewers and the author's attempts to rectify them were moot, given the available methodology and present state of the field. From this perspective, the rebound track was a success; it rescued an article that otherwise would have been rejected and will stimulate further discussion and research in this area. Whether or not there are more efficient ways to accomplish, this remains to be determined. PMID:23425024

  8. 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…

  9. How important tasks are performed: peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Hartonen, T.; Alava, M. J.

    2013-04-01

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

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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... PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3406.23 Access to peer review information. After final decisions have... the peer reviewers, will be made available to the respective principal investigator/project...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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…

  16. New Union or New Rhetoric: The Case of Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lieberman, Myron

    1998-01-01

    Examines peer review within new teacher unionism, noting that union neglect of peer review costs illustrates the sharp contrast in union attitudes toward change. The paper describes peer review costs (consulting teacher salaries and fringe benefits, mileage for consulting teachers, and administrator costs), discusses the union stake in peer…

  17. 7 CFR 3411.11 - 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. 3411.11 Section... Research Grant Applications § 3411.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members and..., private consultant(s)) and geographic locations; and (4) The need to maintain a balanced composition...

  18. 7 CFR 3400.11 - 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. 3400.11 Section 3400.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... § 3400.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members will be selected based...

  19. 7 CFR 3401.13 - 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. 3401.13 Section 3401.13 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... Funding § 3401.13 Composition of peer review groups. Peer review group members will be selected based...

  20. 7 CFR 3401.13 - 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. 3401.13 Section 3401.13 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... Funding § 3401.13 Composition of peer review groups. Peer review group members will be selected based...

  1. 7 CFR 3400.11 - 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. 3400.11 Section 3400.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... § 3400.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members will be selected based...

  2. 7 CFR 3401.13 - 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. 3401.13 Section 3401.13 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... Funding § 3401.13 Composition of peer review groups. Peer review group members will be selected based...

  3. 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 3401.13 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH... Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding § 3401.13 Composition of peer review groups....

  4. 7 CFR 3400.11 - 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. 3400.11 Section 3400.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... § 3400.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members will be selected based...

  5. 7 CFR 3401.13 - 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. 3401.13 Section 3401.13 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... Funding § 3401.13 Composition of peer review groups. Peer review group members will be selected based...

  6. 7 CFR 3400.11 - 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. 3400.11 Section 3400.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... § 3400.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members will be selected based...

  7. 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…

  8. Peer Review of Classroom Teaching: An Interim Report.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Costello, John; Pateman, Brian; Pusey, Helen; Longshaw, Keith

    2001-01-01

    Data from peer reviews of 258 teaching sessions involving 129 nursing teachers and interviews with 14 teachers identified several themes. Initially perceived as a threat, peer review became a positive experience for both reviewer and reviewed. Preparation of reviewers and a process for changing nominated reviewers were recommended. (SK)

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Søndergaard, Harald; Mulder, Raoul A.

    2012-12-01

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

  10. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2015

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2016-04-01

    On behalf of the journal, AGU, and the scientific community, the editors would like to sincerely thank those who reviewed manuscripts for Water Resources Research in 2015. The hours reading and commenting on manuscripts not only improves the manuscripts themselves but it also increases the scientific rigor of future research in the field. Many of those listed below went beyond and reviewed three or more manuscripts for our journal, and those are indicated in italics. The refereeing contributions they made contributed to 3622 individual reviews of 1434 manuscripts. Thank you again. We look forward to a 2016 of exciting advances in the field and communicating those advances to our community and to the broader public.

  11. An Open Science Peer Review Oath

    PubMed Central

    Aleksic, Jelena; Alexa, Adrian; Attwood, Teresa K; Chue Hong, Neil; Dahlö, Martin; Davey, Robert; Dinkel, Holger; Förstner, Konrad U; Grigorov, Ivo; Hériché, Jean-Karim; Lahti, Leo; MacLean, Dan; Markie, Michael L; Molloy, Jenny; Schneider, Maria Victoria; Scott, Camille; Smith-Unna, Richard; Vieira, Bruno Miguel

    2015-01-01

    One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions. PMID:25653839

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2016-01-01

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

  13. 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...

  14. Acknowledging Students' Collaborations through Peer Review: A Footnoting Practice

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Poe, Shelli M.; Gravett, Emily O.

    2016-01-01

    Student-to-student peer review or peer feedback is commonly used in student-centered or active-learning classrooms. In this article, we describe a footnoting exercise that we implemented in two of our undergraduate courses as one way to encourage students to acknowledge collaborations and contributions made during peer-review processes. This…

  15. Training Effects on Computer-Mediated Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Liou, Hsien-Chin; Peng, Zhong-Yan

    2009-01-01

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

  16. 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…

  17. 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/).

  18. Organised Governmental Learning: Vocational Education and Training Practices between Peer Review and Peer Learning

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Speer, Sandra

    2011-01-01

    Peer learning has already existed for a long time, as an informal as well as a formal practice between people from the same professional area. However, peer learning systems on the macro level are relatively newer concepts. Policy learning can be fostered by various types of organised activities, ranging from peer review frameworks, which often…

  19. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    SciTech Connect

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

    1993-01-01

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

  20. 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…

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

    PubMed

    Del Mar, Chris; Hoffmann, Tammy C

    2015-01-01

    Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task. This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into 'major' (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and 'minor' (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable. Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper's strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role. PMID:26521647

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

    PubMed

    Spasovski, Goce

    2014-01-01

    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

  5. 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

  6. The Art of Reviewing Science Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Shepardson, Daniel P.; Britsch, Susan Jane

    2004-01-01

    Science journals are wonderful tools. They offer a glimpse into children's science understandings, and they are both diagnostic and pedagogically informative to teachers. Examining and reflecting on children's journal work lets teachers embed assessment in curriculum and instruction; however, effectively analyzing children's journal writing and…

  7. 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…

  8. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ..., including 42 CFR part 2. The reviewers shall examine the following: (1) Admission criteria/intake process... 45 Public Welfare 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Independent peer review. 96.136 Section 96.136... Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant § 96.136 Independent peer review. (a) The State shall for...

  9. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ..., including 42 CFR Part 2. The reviewers shall examine the following: (1) Admission criteria/intake process... 45 Public Welfare 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Independent peer review. 96.136 Section 96.136... Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant § 96.136 Independent peer review. (a) The State shall for...

  10. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ..., including 42 CFR Part 2. The reviewers shall examine the following: (1) Admission criteria/intake process... 45 Public Welfare 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Independent peer review. 96.136 Section 96.136... Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant § 96.136 Independent peer review. (a) The State shall for...

  11. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ..., including 42 CFR Part 2. The reviewers shall examine the following: (1) Admission criteria/intake process... 45 Public Welfare 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Independent peer review. 96.136 Section 96.136... Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant § 96.136 Independent peer review. (a) The State shall for...

  12. 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.

  13. 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…

  14. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... will improve patient/client health and safety status in the context of recovery. “Appropriateness,” for... fiscal year for which the grant is provided, provide for independent peer review to assess the quality... entities. (b) The purpose of independent peer review is to review the quality and appropriateness...

  15. 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.

  16. Reviewers for Journal of Power Sources January 2015 - March 2016

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-05-01

    The Editors and the publisher of Journal of Power Sources gratefully acknowledge the essential contribution of the following experts for their efforts in ensuring the continuing quality of the journal. The reviewers listed in boldface have reviewed twenty-five or more manuscripts. We regret any inadvertent omissions.

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. Do Latin American scientific journals follow dual-use review policies?

    PubMed

    Valles, Edith Gladys; Bernacchi, Adriana Silvina

    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. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

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

    PubMed

    Clarke, Imogen

    2015-03-01

    This essay analyzes the processes behind the publication of physics papers in two British journals in the 1920s: the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series A and the Philosophical Magazine. On the surface, it looked as though the Philosophical Magazine was managed very informally, while the Proceedings had in place a seemingly rigid system of committee approval and peer review. This essay shows, however, that in practice the two journals were both influenced by networks of expertise that afforded small groups of physicists considerable control over the content of these prestigious scientific publications. This study explores the nature of peer review, suggesting how a historical approach can contribute to contemporary debates. In studying these relationships, the essay also considers the interplay of "classical" and "modern" ideas and physicists in 1920s Britain and cautions against an anachronistic approach to this classification. PMID:26027308

  4. 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.

  5. "Echo attributions" and other risks when publishing on novel therapies without peer review.

    PubMed

    Rosen, G M; Davison, G C

    2001-10-01

    A special series on Thought Field Therapy in the Journal of Clinical Psychology provides an opportunity for psychologists to learn about techniques and theories outside the mainstream of our field. Unfortunately, by publishing this series of manuscripts without meeting the standards of peer review, the Journal also provides an avenue for the misuse of its good reputation and the improper promotion of untested methods. "Echo attributions" can be made whereby an author attributes the source of his own words to the professional journal in which the text appears. Historical examples illustrate that such misuse of scientific journals and institutions occurs. A formal statement of guidelines is needed to instruct authors on appropriate versus unethical representations of their publications. PMID:11526612

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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... GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After...

  9. Enhancing Teaching Quality through Peer Review of Teaching

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lomas, Laurie; Nicholls, Gill

    2005-01-01

    This paper examines the introduction of peer review of teaching in a pre-1992 university in England. The paper first considers the theoretical dimensions. Peer review of teaching is generally seen as a quality enhancement rather than a quality assurance instrument and a powerful means of encouraging the continuing professional development of…

  10. Reflections of a CHAMPUS-APA peer reviewer.

    PubMed

    Parlour, R R

    1986-02-01

    Peer review is a major professional response to the problems of health insurance coverage for psychiatric services. Standard insurance programs reimburse only services that are conventional and cost-effective. The system assumes that services are skillfully documented by providers. Experience as a peer reviewer helps clinicians acquire skill in documentation. PMID:3080412

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2002-01-01

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

  12. Peer Review Improves the Quality of MCQ Examinations

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Malau-Aduli, Bunmi S.; Zimitat, Craig

    2012-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rieber, Lloyd J.

    2006-01-01

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

  14. 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...

  15. 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…

  16. Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase II.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cole, Jonathan R.; Cole, Stephen

    A two part study was conducted to determine if the peer review system of proposals to the National Science Foundation (NSF) operates fairly and if changes are warranted. Part I (reported in ED 167376) extensively described the peer review process and indicated that it is indeed equitable. Phase II, summarized, investigated the issue further by…

  17. 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)

  18. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section 52h.4 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC... Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members...

  19. 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 52h.4 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC... Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members...

  20. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section 52h.4 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC... Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members...

  1. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section 52h.4 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC... Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members...

  2. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section 52h.4 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC... Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members...

  3. 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 of Research Grant Applications § 3415.11 Composition...

  4. Mentored peer reviewing for PhD faculty and students.

    PubMed

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

    2016-02-01

    There is a need for scholars to be prepared as peer reviewers in order to ensure the continual publication of quality science. However, developing the skills to craft a constructive critique can be difficult. In this commentary, we discuss the use of a group peer review mentoring model for PhD students to gain experience in peer review from a faculty member who is experienced in peer review. Central to this model, was the opportunity for each student and faculty mentor to openly discuss their critique of the manuscript. Through this enriching experience, novice researchers were able to learn the elements of a good peer review, better determine a manuscript's substantive contribution to science, and advance the quality of their own manuscript writing. PMID:26746591

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

    PubMed Central

    Vyas, Dinesh; Cronin, Sean

    2016-01-01

    The peer review processes as outlined in the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) is meant ensure quality standard of care through a self-policing mechanism by the medical community. This process grants immunity for people filing a peer review, which is meant to protect whistleblowers. However, it also creates a loophole that can be used maliciously to hinder competition. This is accentuated when surgeons are integrating new technologies, such as robotic surgery, into their practice. With more than 2000 da Vinci robots in use and more than 300 new units being shipped each year, robotic surgery has become a mainstay in the surgical field. The applications for robots continue to expand as surgeons discover their expanding capability. We need a better peer review process. That ensures the peer review is void of competitive bias. Peer reviewers need to be familiar with the procedure and the technology. The current process could stymie innovation in the name of competition. PMID:27517092

  6. 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…

  7. 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

  8. Peer review of classroom teaching: an interim report.

    PubMed

    Costello, J; Pateman, B; Pusey, H; Longshaw, K

    2001-08-01

    This paper provides interim findings from the implementation of peer review of classroom teaching in a large UK University School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. A total of 258 classroom teaching sessions, involving 129 teaching staff (n=129) were included over a period of 7 months. Teachers had two teaching sessions reviewed by a colleague. One reviewer was self-nominated and the Dean of School allocated the other. The paper is in two parts. Part one includes a short literature review followed by a descriptive account of how peer review was implemented. Part two focuses upon individual experiences from a small scale study with data obtained from 14 teachers (n=14) who took part in qualitative interviews based on their experiences of being both reviewer and reviewee. The larger study gathered data from several sources. This paper presents the initial findings from interview data with nurse teachers. Their perceptions form the basis of a discussion, which raises issues related to the experience of both implementing and being involved in, peer review of classroom teaching. Four themes emerged from the interview transcriptions; peer review was initially perceived as a threat; the experience of peer review was a positive one; teachers felt that being a reviewer was an interesting and worthwhile experience and perceived peer review positively when good relations existed between them and their reviewer. PMID:11466007

  9. Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation

    PubMed Central

    Birukou, Aliaksandr; Wakeling, Joseph Rushton; Bartolini, Claudio; Casati, Fabio; Marchese, Maurizio; Mirylenka, Katsiaryna; Osman, Nardine; Ragone, Azzurra; Sierra, Carles; Wassef, Aalam

    2011-01-01

    In this paper we review several novel approaches for research evaluation. We start with a brief overview of the peer review, its controversies, and metrics for assessing efficiency and overall quality of the peer review. We then discuss five approaches, including reputation-based ones, that come out of the research carried out by the LiquidPub project and research groups collaborated with LiquidPub. Those approaches are alternative or complementary to traditional peer review. We discuss pros and cons of the proposed approaches and conclude with a vision for the future of the research evaluation, arguing that no single system can suit all stakeholders in various communities. PMID:22174702

  10. The More You Know: The Impact of Publication and Peer-Review Experience on Psychology Graduate Students

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Doran, Jennifer M.; Somerville, William; Harlem-Siegel, Jessica; Steele, Howard

    2014-01-01

    The New School Psychology Bulletin (NSPB) is a peer-reviewed journal operated by clinical psychology graduate students. Forty-four members of the editorial board and 27 authors were surveyed before and after working with NSPB. Results of the survey demonstrated that experience with the publication process resulted in quantitative decreases in…

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. Exploring Reviewer Reactions to Manuscripts Submitted to Academic Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Coniam, David

    2012-01-01

    This paper extends a previous study (Coniam, 2011) into a corpus of manuscript (MS) reviews conducted for the journal System by one reviewer in the eight-year period 2003-2011. The current paper highlights additional facets of the review process that focus on issues involving authors themselves. The study examines two related sets of research…

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Somerville, R. C.

    2003-12-01

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

  15. 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…

  16. A Peer Review Process for Games and Software

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Mallon, Bride

    2008-01-01

    A peer-review process for assessing the contribution of artifacts, such as games and software to research, is proposed. Games and software produced as research output by academics tend to be accredited within their institution through discussion of the artifact, rather than directly. An independent judgment by peers confirming an artifact's…

  17. Facilitating Improved Writing among Students through Directed Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Crossman, Joanne M.; Kite, Stacey L.

    2012-01-01

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

  18. Evidence of Effective Teaching: Perceptions of Peer Reviewers

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Yon, Maria; Burnap, Charles; Kohut, Gary

    2002-01-01

    The use of peers in the evaluation of teaching is part of a larger trend in postsecondary education toward a more systematic assessment of classroom performance. Many scholars believe that certain aspects of teaching can be assessed only by classroom observation. This study examines the use that peer reviewers make of teaching products, especially…

  19. 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

  20. 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…

  1. Evidence-based practice, research, peer review, and publication.

    PubMed

    Gunn, I P

    1998-11-01

    For about a quarter of a century, concerns have been expressed about published biomedical research. It became more acute after some published research and broad dissemination was found fraudulent. With the emphasis now being placed on scientifically validated or evidence-based practice, it has become more imperative that clinical guidelines be based on credible information in our textbooks and research literature. Since the early 1990s, it has been found that much of the research in our electronic databases does not meet quality standards and often is irrelevant, calling into questions problems with peer review, including the selection and publication process of our journals. This column is devoted to calling attention to these problems not only to CRNAs and other researchers, but also to the consumers of research who often use it to make changes in their practice. It also calls attention to the CRNA community about the movement toward calls for greater accountability in practice, both as to quality and cost, from which the movement toward evidence-based practice, the identification and benchmarking of best practices, and the development and implementation of clinical practice guideline has evolved. To feel ownership in anesthesia-related clinical practice guidelines, CRNAs must become involved in their development and implementation. PMID:9866493

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

    PubMed Central

    Abdi, Fatemeh; Simbar, Masoumeh

    2013-01-01

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

  3. Dual-Use Review Policies of Biomedical Research Journals

    PubMed Central

    Barner, Dionne D.; Dinse, Gregg E.

    2011-01-01

    To address biosecurity issues, government agencies, academic institutions, and professional societies have developed policies concerning the publication of “dual-use” biomedical research—that is, research that could be readily applied to cause significant harm to the public, the environment, or national security. We conducted an e-mail survey of life science journals to determine the percentage that have a dual-use policy. Of the 155 journals that responded to our survey (response rate 39%), only 7.7% stated that they had a written dual-use policy and only 5.8% said they had experience reviewing dual-use research in the past 5 years. Among the potential predictors we investigated, the one most highly associated with a journal having a written dual-use policy was membership in the Nature Publishing Group (positive association). When considered individually, both previous experience with reviewing dual-use research and the journal's impact factor appeared to be positively associated with having a written dual-use policy, but only the former remained significant after adjusting for publishing group. Although preventing the misuse of scientific research for terrorist or criminal purposes is an important concern, few biomedical journals have dual-use review policies. Journals that are likely to review research that raises potential dual-use concerns should consider developing dual-use policies. PMID:21395429

  4. Challenges in the Ethical Review of Peer Support Interventions

    PubMed Central

    Simmons, David; Bunn, Christopher; Nakwagala, Fred; Safford, Monika M.; Ayala, Guadalupe X.; Riddell, Michaela; Graffy, Jonathan; Fisher, Edwin B.

    2015-01-01

    PURPOSE Ethical review processes have become increasingly complex. We have examined how 8 collaborating diabetes peer-support clinical trials were assessed by ethics committees. METHODS The ethical reviews from the 8 peer-support studies were collated and subjected to a thematic analysis. We mapped the recommendations of local Institutional Review Boards and ethics committees onto the “4+1 ethical framework” (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, along with concern for their scope of application). RESULTS Ethics committees did not consistently focus on tasks within the 4+1 framework: many conducted reviews of scientific, organizational, and administrative activities. Of the 20 themes identified across the ethical reviews, only 4 fell within the scope of the 4+1 framework. Variation in processes and requirements for ethics committees were particularly evident between study countries. Some of the consent processes mandated by ethical review boards were disproportionate for peer support, increased participant burden, and reduced the practicality of testing an ethical intervention. Across the 8 studies, ethics committees’ reviews included the required elements to ensure participant safety; however, they created a range of hurdles that in some cases delayed the research and required consent processes that could hinder the spontaneity and/or empathy of peer support. CONCLUSION Ethics committees should avoid repeating the work of other trusted agencies and consider the ethical validity of “light touch” consent procedures for peer-support interventions. The investigators propose an ethical framework for research on peer support. PMID:26304976

  5. Using clinical audit in practice: a pilot peer review project.

    PubMed

    Holt, V P; Earp, D P

    1996-09-01

    A well-established study group undertook a pilot peer review project testing the use of clinical audit in members' practices. Two peer review groups were formed involving a total of 16 practices. Practice visits were undertaken and a series of meetings were held to prepare and discuss the various projects. The progress of the groups was monitored by questionnaires. All practitioners reported benefits from the project (specifically, from the practice visits) and made changes in areas of their practice other than those specifically chosen for their project. The benefits of carrying out audit projects in a peer review setting are stressed as are the benefits of reciprocal practice visits. The importance of prior establishment of mutual trust and confidence in the peer review group is emphasised. PMID:10332335

  6. The JSC Engineering Directorate Product Peer Review Process

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Jenks, Kenneth C.

    2009-01-01

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

  7. 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…

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

    PubMed

    Bustin, Stephen A; Nolan, Tania

    2016-03-01

    The current, and welcome, focus on standardization of techniques and transparency of reporting in the biomedical, peer-reviewed literature is commendable. However, that focus has been intermittent as well as lacklustre and so failed to tackle the alarming lack of reliability and reproducibly of biomedical research. Authors have access to numerous recommendations, ranging from simple standards dealing with technical issues to those regulating clinical trials, suggesting that improved reporting guidelines are not the solution. The elemental solution is for editors to require meticulous implementation of their journals' instructions for authors and reviewers and stipulate that no paper is published without a transparent, complete and accurate materials and methods section. PMID:27077047

  9. Quality of Pharmaceutical Advertisements in Medical Journals: A Systematic Review

    PubMed Central

    Othman, Noordin; Vitry, Agnes; Roughead, Elizabeth E.

    2009-01-01

    Background Journal advertising is one of the main sources of medicines information to doctors. Despite the availability of regulations and controls of drug promotion worldwide, information on medicines provided in journal advertising has been criticized in several studies for being of poor quality. However, no attempt has been made to systematically summarise this body of research. We designed this systematic review to assess all studies that have examined the quality of pharmaceutical advertisements for prescription products in medical and pharmacy journals. Methods and Findings Studies were identified via searching electronic databases, web library, search engine and reviewing citations (1950 – February 2006). Only articles published in English and examined the quality of information included in pharmaceutical advertisements for prescription products in medical or pharmacy journals were included. For each eligible article, a researcher independently extracted the data on the study methodology and outcomes. The data were then reviewed by a second researcher. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. The data were analysed descriptively. The final analysis included 24 articles. The studies reviewed advertisements from 26 countries. The number of journals surveyed in each study ranged from four to 24 journals. Several outcome measures were examined including references and claims provided in advertisements, availability of product information, adherence to codes or guidelines and presentation of risk results. The majority of studies employed a convenience-sampling method. Brand name, generic name and indications were usually provided. Journal articles were commonly cited to support pharmaceutical claims. Less than 67% of the claims were supported by a systematic review, a meta-analysis or a randomised control trial. Studies that assessed misleading claims had at least one advertisement with a misleading claim. Two studies found that less than 28% of claims

  10. Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Thurner, S.; Hanel, R.

    2011-12-01

    It is widely believed that one of the virtues of peer review is that it provides a self-regulating selection mechanism for scientific work, papers and projects. Peer review as a selection mechanism is hard to evaluate in terms of its efficiency. Serious efforts to understand its strengths and weaknesses have not yet lead to conclusive answers. In theory peer review works if the involved parties (editors and referees) conform to a set of requirements, such as love for high quality science, objectiveness, and absence of biases, nepotism, friend and clique networks, selfishness, etc. If these requirements are violated, what is the effect on the selection of high quality work? We study this question with a simple agent based model. In particular we are interested in the effects of rational referees, who might not have any incentive to see high quality work other than their own published or promoted. We find that a small fraction of incorrect (selfish or rational) referees is sufficient to drastically lower the quality of the published (accepted) scientific standard. We determine the fraction for which peer review will no longer perform better than pure chance. Decline of quality of accepted scientific work is shown as a function of the fraction of rational and unqualified referees. We show how a simple quality-increasing policy of e.g. a journal can lead to additional loss in overall scientific quality, and how mutual support-networks of authors and referees deteriorate the system.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Stigmar, Martin

    2016-01-01

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

  12. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400... INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities. Scientific peer review is an evaluation of...

  13. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400... INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities. Scientific peer review is an evaluation of...

  14. 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...

  15. 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... INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities. Scientific peer review is an evaluation of...

  16. 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…

  17. 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…

  18. 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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Trautmann, Nancy M.

    2009-01-01

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

  20. 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].

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. An author's guide to publication ethics: a review of emerging standards in biomedical journals.

    PubMed

    Roberts, Jason

    2009-04-01

    Universal definitions of ethical issues related to medical publishing have remained somewhat elusive. Training in the art of writing for medical journals is inconsistent and most commonly informal, involving collaborative efforts between mentors and students. This approach inadvertently may perpetuate erroneous assumptions as to what constitutes acceptable behavior. In contrast to instruction on composition, ethical considerations related to the publication of a paper are likely to receive little attention. Even so, consequent to the ever-increasing scrutiny from the media and government agencies, journals are recognizing the need for greater transparency in peer review and are thus more inclined to enforce ethical standards. Understanding that some apparent ethical contraventions are the result of confusion or a lack of knowledge, some journals are assuming the responsibility of educating their community about ethical issues in publishing. This paper reviews the key ethical issues (eg, authorship criteria, conflicts of interest, redundant publication, data access and biases in data reporting, image manipulation) that authors should consider before submitting a manuscript. It also surveys some of the policies of the most highly cited clinical medical journals. In the future, authors can anticipate that their submissions will be required to meet an expanding array of ethical standards. PMID:19338617

  4. Conflict(s) of interest in peer review: its origins and possible solutions.

    PubMed

    Oleinik, Anton

    2014-03-01

    Scientific communication takes place at two registers: first, interactions with colleagues in close proximity-members of a network, school of thought or circle; second, depersonalised transactions among a potentially unlimited number of scholars can be involved (e.g., author and readers). The interference between the two registers in the process of peer review produces a drift toward conflict of interest. Three particular cases of peer review are differentiated: journal submissions, grant applications and applications for tenure. The current conflict of interest policies do not cover all these areas. Furthermore, they have a number of flaws, which involves an excessive reliance on scholars' personal integrity. Conflicts of interest could be managed more efficiently if several elements and rules of the judicial process were accepted in science. The analysis relies on both primary and secondary data with a particular focus on Canada. PMID:23292861

  5. 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

  6. 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

  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. Safeguarding children: the benefits of a peer-review process.

    PubMed

    Morris-Thompson, Trish; Shepherd, Janet; Rogers, Maggie; Ladbury, Briony; Kirk, Catherine; Marks-Maran, Di

    Nurses in hospitals and in the community are increasingly taking a leading role in safeguarding children. NHS London established a Safeguarding Improvement Team (SIT) in 2009. The SIT project was designed as a one-off activity to raise performance related to safeguarding children in London. This article presents a peer-review process that was established by NHS London and implemented across the 31 PCTs across London. This article presents the peer-review process methodology and a summary of the findings from the SIT visits. Feedback was requested from participants about participants' perceptions of the peer-review process immediately after the SIT visits and again, several months after the completion of all SIT visits. Findings show that the peer-review process was of value, both organisationally and professionally, and the process itself led to identification of good practice as well as gaps in existing practices. The non-threatening nature of the peer-review process was particularly valued, as was the feedback offered by the review teams. PMID:22874725

  9. Peer Review of Grant Applications: A Simple Method to Identify Proposals with Discordant Reviews

    PubMed Central

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

    2011-01-01

    Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some proposals may result in discordant peer-review ratings and therefore require discussion by the selection committee members. The issue is which peer-review ratings are considered as discordant. We propose a simple method to identify such proposals. Our approach is based on the intraclass correlation coefficient, which is usually used in assessing agreement in studies with continuous ratings. PMID:22110670

  10. Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty

    SciTech Connect

    Jagsi, Reshma; Bennett, Katherine Egan; Griffith, Kent A.; DeCastro, Rochelle; Grace, Calley; Holliday, Emma; Zietman, Anthony L.

    2014-08-01

    Purpose: Peer reviewers' knowledge of author identity may influence review content, quality, and recommendations. Therefore, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (“Red Journal”) implemented double-blinded peer review in 2011. Given the relatively small size of the specialty and the high frequency of preliminary abstract presentations, we sought to evaluate attitudes, the efficacy of blinding, and the potential impact on the disposition of submissions. Methods and Materials: In May through August 2012, all Red Journal reviewers and 1 author per manuscript completed questionnaires regarding demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of success of blinding. We also evaluated correlates of the outcomes of peer review. Results: Questionnaires were received from 408 authors and 519 reviewers (100%). The majority of respondents favored double blinding; 6% of authors and 13% of reviewers disagreed that double blinding should continue in the Red Journal. In all, 50% of the reviewers did not suspect the identity of the author of the paper that they reviewed; 19% of reviewers believed that they could identify the author(s), and 31% suspected that they could. Similarly, 23% believed that they knew the institution(s) from which the paper originated, and 34% suspected that they did. Among those who at least suspected author identity, 42% indicated that prior presentations served as a clue, and 57% indicated that literature referenced did so. Of those who at least suspected origin and provided details (n=133), 13% were entirely incorrect. Rejection was more common in 2012 than 2011, and submissions from last authors with higher H-indices (>21) were more likely to survive initial review, without evidence of interactions between submission year and author gender or H-index. Conclusions: In a relatively small specialty in which preliminary research presentations are common and occur in a limited number of venues, reviewers are often familiar with

  11. Comparing Peer Review and Self-Review as Ways to Improve College Students' Writing

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Covill, Amy E.

    2010-01-01

    The effect of three approaches to revision instruction on 61 college students' revision behavior and writing quality was investigated for this article. Students wrote three 5-page papers and received one of three instructional approaches: Formal Peer Review (n = 19), Formal Self-Review (n = 20), or No Formal Review (n = 22). Formal Peer Review…

  12. 34 CFR 350.50 - What is the peer review process for this Program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2011-07-01 2010-07-01 true What is the peer review process for this Program? 350.50... RESEARCH PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM How Does the Secretary Make an Award? § 350.50 What is the peer... regulations in this part to a peer review panel established by the Secretary. (b) Peer review panels...

  13. 34 CFR 350.50 - What is the peer review process for this Program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2014-07-01 2013-07-01 true What is the peer review process for this Program? 350.50... RESEARCH PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM How Does the Secretary Make an Award? § 350.50 What is the peer... regulations in this part to a peer review panel established by the Secretary. (b) Peer review panels...

  14. 34 CFR 350.50 - What is the peer review process for this Program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false What is the peer review process for this Program? 350... peer review process for this Program? (a) The Secretary refers each application for a grant governed by those regulations in this part to a peer review panel established by the Secretary. (b) Peer...

  15. 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... peer review process for this Program? (a) The Secretary refers each application for a grant governed by those regulations in this part to a peer review panel established by the Secretary. (b) Peer...

  16. 34 CFR 350.50 - What is the peer review process for this Program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false What is the peer review process for this Program? 350... peer review process for this Program? (a) The Secretary refers each application for a grant governed by those regulations in this part to a peer review panel established by the Secretary. (b) Peer...

  17. Zeitschriftenschau. Lernziel: Kommunikation (Review of Journals. Teaching Goal: Communication)

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Zielsprache Franzosisch, 1975

    1975-01-01

    Reviews four articles on communicative competence as a goal of study, chosen from 1974-75 issues of four journals. Topics discussed include: Setting goals, ascertaining levels of achievement in communication, possibility of sectioning groups according to ability, and actualizing communicative activity in the classroom. (Text is in German.)…

  18. SO2 SCRUBBING TECHNOLOGIES: A REVIEW: JOURNAL ARTICLE

    EPA Science Inventory

    NRMRL-RTP-P-585 Srivastava*, R.K., Jozewicz, W., and Singer, C. SO2 Scrubbing Technologies: a Review. Environmental Progress 20 (4):219-227 (2001). EPA/600/J-02/022, Available: Environmental Progress (journal), http://www.aiche.org/publications/tocs/issuedtl.asp, [NET]. 03...

  19. Some Consequences of Refusing to Participate in Peer Review.

    PubMed

    Dacso, Clifford C

    2014-01-01

    The proliferation of journals has had an unexpected side effect: it is now difficult to find qualified reviewers willing to devote the time necessary for assessing journal contributions. Although it is difficult to find data, most scientists involved in the academic world have their inboxes deluged with a cornucopia of invitations to submit to new journals, speak at conferences (as a keynote, for sure!), and review articles. New online journals (such as ours) strive to publish the finest and most relevant work for our readers while at the same time maintaining rapid "turn around times" for authors. This requires that a complex system function flawlessly. But, there are some aspects of the system that are creaky; some are broken entirely. PMID:27170862

  20. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. On the evolving open peer review culture for chemical information science.

    PubMed

    Walters, W Patrick; Bajorath, Jürgen

    2015-01-01

    Compared to the traditional anonymous peer review process, open post-publication peer review provides additional opportunities -and challenges- for reviewers to judge scientific studies. In this editorial, we comment on the open peer review culture and provide some guidance for reviewers of manuscripts submitted to the Chemical Information Science channel of F1000Research. PMID:26913193

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Selection of Journals for Index Medicus: A Historical Review

    PubMed Central

    Karel, Leonard

    1967-01-01

    From the inception of the first Index Medicus, published in 1879, to the present, the National Library of Medicine has been concerned with the quality of journals in the Index. The Library has, therefore, sought advice repeatedly on how best to maintain currency of the Index without sacrificing quality and subject matter balance. Responding to suggestions, the Library decided in June 1964 to base its selection of journals on recommendations made by a panel consisting primarily of extramural consultants widely regarded as specialists in the totality of biomedical literature. Beginning with its first meeting in September 1964, this panel has been fortified in its reviews by advice from subject matter specialists. The panel, by its own wishes, which bear the endorsement of the Board of Regents of the Library, will continue to rely heavily on such expert advice in future evaluations of journals. PMID:6072093

  8. 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 ...

  9. Letter of Appreciation to 2004 Journal of Optical Networking Reviewers

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2005-02-01

    The international scientific and engineering professions rely on the work of countless reviewers to ensure the quality of the research published in technical journals. Like all such journals, JON benefits from the tireless efforts of these volunteers. Below is a list of 2004 JON reviewers who have agreed to have their names published. We sincerely thank these reviewers, as well as those not listed, for their assistance to JON and praise them for their dedication to their profession. The system simply would not work without them. Charalambos Anastassiou Ivan Andonovic Nirwan Ansari Chris Bintjas Martin Birk Zoran Bojkovic Xiren Cao Yang Cao Calvin C.K. Chan Yongmao Chang Yang Chen Kwok-Wai Cheung Nim-Kwan Cheung Su Fong Chien Wilson Chu Yun Chung Tibor Cinkler Ignacio de Miguel Jiun S. Deng Jitender Deogun H.J.S. Dorren Mark Feuer Samrat Ganguly

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

    PubMed

    Thampy, Harish; Bourke, Michael; Naran, Prasheena

    2015-09-01

    Peer-supported review (also called peer observation) of teaching is a commonly implemented method of ascertaining teaching quality that supplements student feedback. A large variety of scheme formats with rather differing purposes are described in the literature. They range from purely formative, developmental formats that facilitate a tutor's reflection of their own teaching to reaffirm strengths and identify potential areas for development through to faculty- or institution-driven summative quality assurance-based schemes. Much of the current literature in this field focuses within general higher education and on the development of rating scales, checklists or observation tools to help guide the process. This study reports findings from a qualitative evaluation of a purely formative peer-supported review of teaching scheme that was implemented for general practice clinical tutors at our medical school and describes tutors' attitudes and perceived benefits and challenges when undergoing observation. PMID:26808793

  11. Submitting a manuscript for peer review – integrity, integrity, integrity

    PubMed Central

    Murphy, Sean P.; Bulman, Christopher; Shariati, Behnam; Hausmann, Laura

    2014-01-01

    Publication of a flawed manuscript has significant consequences for the progress of science. When this proves to be intentional, science is brought into disrepute and this puts even more pressure on the shrinking resources that society is prepared to invest in research. All scientific journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, have witnessed a marked increase in the number of corrections and retractions of published papers over the last 10 years, and uncovered a depressingly large number of fabrications amongst submitted manuscripts. The increase in number of ‘spoiled’ manuscripts reflects not only the improved methods that journals employ to detect plagiarism in its many forms, but also suggests a measurable change in the behavior of authors. The increased policing of submissions by reviewers, editors and publishers expends time and money. The sanctions imposed by journal editors on authors found guilty of malpractice are transparent and severe. PMID:24410543

  12. Submitting a manuscript for peer review--integrity, integrity, integrity.

    PubMed

    Murphy, Sean P; Bulman, Christopher; Shariati, Behnam; Hausmann, Laura

    2014-02-01

    Publication of a flawed manuscript has significant consequences for the progress of science. When this proves to be intentional, science is brought into disrepute and this puts even more pressure on the shrinking resources that society is prepared to invest in research. All scientific journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, have witnessed a marked increase in the number of corrections and retractions of published articles over the last 10 years, and uncovered a depressingly large number of fabrications among submitted manuscripts. The increase in number of 'spoiled' manuscripts reflects not only the improved methods that journals employ to detect plagiarism in its many forms but also suggests a measurable change in the behavior of authors. The increased policing of submissions by reviewers, editors, and publishers expends time and money. The sanctions imposed by journal editors on authors found guilty of malpractice are transparent and severe. PMID:24410543

  13. Open Review in Science Journals Gets Mixed Reviews

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brown, Susan

    2007-01-01

    This article reports an open-access journal from the Public Library of Science that has begun an online publication, offering all readers the opportunity to post comments. The site is in trial status, but registered readers will soon be able to rate each article on merit. The idea is that the best papers will bubble to the top; the wisdom of the…

  14. 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.

  15. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2015

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2016-06-01

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

  16. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2014

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2015-09-01

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

  17. 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

  18. 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... GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE FELLOWSHIP GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Patry, Jean-Luc; Gastager, Angela

    2012-01-01

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

  20. Peer Review and Evaluation of the Intellectual Work of Teaching

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bernstein, Daniel J.

    2008-01-01

    Institutional surveys of student opinion emerged out of the turmoil of the late 1960s. Never intended to serve as professional evaluations, the surveys were the only tangible evidence of teaching effectiveness until some faculty opened their classrooms for observation by chairs and colleagues. Historically, the "peer review of teaching" has…

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. Publishing Qualitative Adult Education Research: A Peer Review Perspective.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Taylor, Edward W.; Beck, Julie; Ainsworth, Elaine

    2001-01-01

    Grounded theory was used to design a content analysis of peer reviewer comments on qualitative research. Six themes emerged: What is the purpose of the study? How does it build on previous research? How thorough is the methodology? How are the findings presented? What are the contributions, implications, significance? and Is the paper well…

  5. Five Steps to Becoming a Better Peer Reviewer

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Carter, Vicki K.

    2008-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rangachari, P. K.

    2010-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2010-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Armstrong, Sonya L; Paulson, Eric J.

    2008-01-01

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

  9. Collaborative Learning through Formative Peer Review with Technology

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Eaton, Carrie Diaz; Wade, Stephanie

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Berry, David E.; Fawkes, Kelli L.

    2010-01-01

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

  11. Bristol Bay Assessment – Supplemental Peer Review Reports (May 2012)

    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.

    ...

  12. 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,…

  13. Development of Student Writing in Biochemistry Using Calibrated Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hartberg, Yasha; Gunersel, Adalet Baris; Simspon, Nancy J.; Balester, Valerie

    2008-01-01

    This study investigating the effectiveness of Calibrated Peer Review (CPR )[TM] in a senior-level biochemistry class had three purposes: to (a) compare the CPR process for feedback with TA-generated feedback in improving students' ability to write scientific abstracts; (b) compare CPR results for males and females; and (c) observe whether CPR…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Gunersel, Adalet Baris; Simpson, Nancy J.

    2010-01-01

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

  15. Doing More with Less: Effective Research and Peer Review

    EPA Science Inventory

    This short discourse is an excerpt from the Founders Award address presented by Dr. Ankley last fall at the Annual SETAC meeting in Tampa, FL. In it he discusses the importance of knowing when to quit pursuing a line of research, and the importance of peer review.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Booth, Sara; Beckett, Jeff; Saunders, Cassandra

    2016-01-01

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

  17. Teacher Immediacy: Reflections on a Peer Review of Teaching Scheme

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nixon, Sarah; Vickerman, Philip; Maynard, Carol

    2010-01-01

    Using a qualitative approach drawing on the experiences of four HE lecturers, this study provides an exploration of and insights into a peer review of teaching (PRT) scheme, which focused on teacher immediacy and communication skills. Within the United Kingdom, limited research has been undertaken in relation to teacher immediacy even though…

  18. 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…

  19. Review of Peer Evaluation Research. Technical Paper 342.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Downey, Ronald G.; Duffy, Paul J.

    Peer evaluation research was reviewed from three major perspectives--validity, methodology, and situational factors. Most of the studies focused on either concurrent or predicitve validity in a military training situation. Evaluation criteria included leadership potential, promotion potential, personality traits, and supervisory skills.…

  20. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ..., Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT PROVISIONS NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Accreditation of Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The... evaluate the National Organic Program's adherence to the accreditation procedures in this subpart F and...

  1. 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.

    ...

  2. Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review.

    PubMed

    Kornhaber, Rachel Anne; McLean, Loyola M; Baber, Rodney J

    2015-01-01

    Health professionals publishing within the field of health sciences continue to experience issues concerning appropriate authorship, which have clinical, ethical, and academic implications. This integrative review sought to explore the key issues concerning authorship from a bioethical standpoint, aiming to explore the key features of the authorship debate. Studies were identified through an electronic search, using the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus databases of peer-reviewed research, published between 2009 and 2014, limited to English language research, with search terms developed to reflect the current issues of authorship. From among the 279 papers identified, 20 research papers met the inclusion criteria. Findings were compiled and then arranged to identify themes and relationships. The review incorporated a wide range of authorship issues encompassing equal-credited authors, honorary (guest/gift) and ghost authorship, perception/experiences of authorship, and guidelines/policies. This review suggests that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) recommended guidelines for authorship are not reflected in current authorship practices within the domain of health sciences in both low-and high-impact-factor journals. This devaluing of the true importance of authorship has the potential to affect the validity of authorship, diminish the real contributions of the true authors, and negatively affect patient care. PMID:26257520

  3. Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review

    PubMed Central

    Kornhaber, Rachel Anne; McLean, Loyola M; Baber, Rodney J

    2015-01-01

    Health professionals publishing within the field of health sciences continue to experience issues concerning appropriate authorship, which have clinical, ethical, and academic implications. This integrative review sought to explore the key issues concerning authorship from a bioethical standpoint, aiming to explore the key features of the authorship debate. Studies were identified through an electronic search, using the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus databases of peer-reviewed research, published between 2009 and 2014, limited to English language research, with search terms developed to reflect the current issues of authorship. From among the 279 papers identified, 20 research papers met the inclusion criteria. Findings were compiled and then arranged to identify themes and relationships. The review incorporated a wide range of authorship issues encompassing equal-credited authors, honorary (guest/gift) and ghost authorship, perception/experiences of authorship, and guidelines/policies. This review suggests that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) recommended guidelines for authorship are not reflected in current authorship practices within the domain of health sciences in both low-and high-impact-factor journals. This devaluing of the true importance of authorship has the potential to affect the validity of authorship, diminish the real contributions of the true authors, and negatively affect patient care. PMID:26257520

  4. Peer Review as a QA Tool in Environmental Applications.

    PubMed

    Brilis, George M; Lyon, John G

    2005-01-01

    Peer Review is commonly applied during the final stage of a project and is used in the science community to determine the soundness of a conclusion and if the quality of information meets the standards of the scientific and technical community. Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures are most effective when applied to planning, then during the process stage of a project, and during the review of a product. The gold standard for validating the quality of a study's results is comparison with a referenced data set, model, or result (Azouzi, 1999). However, costs can severely limits this approach for many applications. This article proposes an additional means for quality assessment using peer review as a quality assessment tool during the planning, process, and review of a project. PMID:16393866

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. Peer Reviewers Describe Success in Grant Writing.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Pokrywczynski, James

    1992-01-01

    Presents specific criteria on acceptable grant proposals from people who review proposals in mass communication research. Discusses types of studies proposed, types of studies desired, common strengths, other criteria, and recommendations. (SR)

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. A Model to Explain Quality Improvement Effect of Peer Reviews

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Komuro, Mutsumi; Komoda, Norihisa

    Through the analysis of Rayleigh model, an explanatory model for the quality effect of peer reviews is constructed. The review activities are evaluated by the defect removal rate at each phase. We made hypotheses on how these measurements are related to the product quality. These hypotheses are verified through regression analysis of actual project data, and concrete calculation formulae are obtained as a model. Making use of the mechanism to construct this model, we can develop a method for making concrete review plan and setting objective values to manage on-going review activities.

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ...? § 359.30 How is peer review conducted under this program? Peer review is conducted under this program in accordance with 34 CFR 350.30-350.32, using the selection criteria in § 359.31. (Authority: Sec. 202(e); 29 U... 34 Education 2 2014-07-01 2013-07-01 true How is peer review conducted under this program?...

  14. 7 CFR 3401.12 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... 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 groups. Subject to § 3401.7,...

  15. 34 CFR 350.51 - What is the purpose of peer review?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2014-07-01 2013-07-01 true What is the purpose of peer review? 350.51 Section 350... PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM How Does the Secretary Make an Award? § 350.51 What is the purpose of peer review? The purpose of peer review is to insure that— (a) Those activities supported by the...

  16. 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... PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM How Does the Secretary Make an Award? § 350.51 What is the purpose of peer review? The purpose of peer review is to insure that— (a) Those activities supported by the...

  17. 7 CFR 3400.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... 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. Subject to § 3400.5,...

  18. 34 CFR 350.51 - What is the purpose of peer review?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false What is the purpose of peer review? 350.51 Section 350... PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM How Does the Secretary Make an Award? § 350.51 What is the purpose of peer review? The purpose of peer review is to insure that— (a) Those activities supported by the...

  19. 34 CFR 359.30 - How is peer review conducted under this program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ...? § 359.30 How is peer review conducted under this program? Peer review is conducted under this program in accordance with 34 CFR 350.30-350.32, using the selection criteria in § 359.31. (Authority: Sec. 202(e); 29 U... 34 Education 2 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false How is peer review conducted under this program?...

  20. 7 CFR 3400.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... 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. Subject to § 3400.5, the...