Science.gov

Sample records for peer reviewed journal

  1. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Ford, Emily

    2015-01-01

    Open peer review, peer review where authors' and reviewers' identities are disclosed to one another, is a growing trend in scholarly publishing. Through observation of four journals in STEM disciplines, PLOS One, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, PeerJ, and F1000Research, an observational overview is conducted. The overview relies on defined characteristics of open peer review. Results show that despite differing open peer review implementations, each journal retains editorial involvement in scholarly publishing. Further, the analysis shows that only one of these implementations is fully transparent in its peer review and decision making process. Finally, the overview contends that journals should clearly outline peer review and editorial processes in order to allow for open peer review to be better understood and adopted by authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of science communications. PMID:25767695

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

    Over the last century, Inuit have experienced rapid social changes that have greatly impacted their way of life, health, and intergenerational traditions. Although there is a growing body of research concerning Inuit youth, relatively little is known about elderly Inuit. In an effort to bridge this knowledge gap, a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles was conducted. This review identified a dearth of research on older Inuit, and highlighted limitations in service provision to this primarily rural and isolated population. Implications for policy and practice and recommendations for future research are also discussed. PMID:25826418

  7. 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)

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2014-01-01

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

  10. A new age of peer reviewed scientific journals

    PubMed Central

    Adler, John R.

    2012-01-01

    The principles of peer reviewed scientific publications date back two and one-half centuries to the origins of Medical Essays and Observations published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1731). This year (2012) is notable in that perhaps the most prestigious and best-known medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, crossed the second century mark. The methodologies of peer review have undeniably served medicine well and helped to usher in unimaginable advances in human health. Despite such illustrious history, the winds of change are in the air. PMID:23230526

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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 quality in new journals. PMID:26824759

  14. Excessive and disproportionate advertising in peer-reviewed journals.

    PubMed

    Friedman, Lee S; Richter, Elihu D

    2006-01-01

    The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has outlined ethical guidelines concerning the advertising practices of peer-reviewed journals that briefly discuss issues of excessive and disproportionate advertising. The authors evaluated these guidelines using quantitative data, assessing the types and frequencies of advertising in 2001 print issues of NEJM and JAMA, two principal members of ICMJE. Advertising ratios (ratio of advertisements to editorial content) were near unity in NEJM and 0.30 in JAMA, compared with reported ratios of 0.15 among low-circulation specialty science journals and 0.80 among high-circulation consumer magazines. In both journals, five corporations placed more than 50% of all display advertisements. The findings suggest a dissonance between the ethical guidelines and the de facto advertising practices of arguably the two most important member journals of the ICMJE. There is a need to define and apply standards for excessive and disproportionate advertising. PMID:16523984

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

    PubMed

    Grant, Maria J

    2014-12-01

    At its best, peer review can mean receiving constructive feedback to help you make the most of your writing. At the Health Information and Libraries Journal, we strive to make the peer review a positive process for both authors and referees. We adopt a process of double-blind peer review. To receive two reviews in a timely manner, three referees are initially invited for each article submitted. The referees are asked to submit their review noting errors, areas of ambiguity or clarification required before the editor and editorial team consider the manuscript ready for publication. As with most journals, it's unlikely that your writing will be accepted in its original form; a typical outcome will be for a recommendation for major or minor revisions. This is good! It means the editorial team has seen something of likely interest to their readership and wants to help you develop it to a publishable standard. There can be a surprising amount of development and change in a manuscript from original submission through to publication. While you may be experienced in your field, you may not have much experience of writing for publication. As a referee, you get an intriguing insight into the shape of manuscripts in their original form. PMID:25443027

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

    PubMed

    Jawaid, Shaukat A

    2004-01-01

    Forty-six medical and dental journals are published from Pakistan of which only 29 are currently recognized by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council. Only a few are peer reviewed. Six are indexed in Medline while EMBASE Excerpta Medica and World Health Organization Index Medicus for Eastern Mediterranean Region cover others. Editors of the peer reviewed medical journals are faced with numerous problems, which relate to the authors. Some of these are: shortage of quality of manuscripts, poor quality of reviewers, problems with indexation in international indexing services particularly Medline, duplicate submission and authorship and lastly, financial problems. Patronage from the Pharma industry is the major source of revenue which itself has serious implications. Editing a medical journal is a very stressful job and the editors have to work under too many pressures. A lot of useful data is presented at medical conferences, but a vast majority of it remains unpublished for various reasons, which adversely affects the citation rate from scientists from the developing third world countries in the world of medical literature. A few lectures on medical writing and research methodology to final year medical students will expose them to the art of medical writing. Specialty organizations can be persuaded to have a session on medical writing at their conferences, which will be extremely helpful not only to the potential new authors but also others, thereby improving the quality of their manuscripts. In addition to regular seminars, workshops for authors, reviewers and training courses for editors, subscribing to local medical journals by healthcare professionals and libraries are some of the measures that will help improve the situation to a great extent. PMID:14968187

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2011-01-01

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

  18. Reviewing the Review Process: Towards Good Practice in the Peer Review of Manuscripts Submitted to Nursing Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Burnard, Philip; Hannigan, Ben

    2001-01-01

    Notes that there is little consistency among review processes of nursing journals. Recommends a standardized peer review system, establishment of guidelines for referees, and introduction of open rather than anonymous reviewing. (SK)

  19. Improving the peer review process in orthopaedic journals

    PubMed Central

    Sprowson, A. P.; Rankin, K. S.; McNamara, I.; Costa, M. L.; Rangan, A.

    2013-01-01

    The peer review process for the evaluation of manuscripts for publication needs to be better understood by the orthopaedic community. Improving the degree of transparency surrounding the review process and educating orthopaedic surgeons on how to improve their manuscripts for submission will help improve both the review procedure and resultant feedback, with an increase in the quality of the subsequent publications. This article seeks to clarify the peer review process and suggest simple ways in which the quality of submissions can be improved to maximise publication success. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:245–7. PMID:24246426

  20. 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

  1. 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.

  2. Peer review.

    PubMed

    Twaij, H; Oussedik, S; Hoffmeyer, P

    2014-04-01

    The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals. This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions. PMID:24692607

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 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

  6. Behavioral Sciences: An International, Open-Access, Peer Reviewed Journal

    PubMed Central

    Coverdale, John

    2011-01-01

    On behalf of the Editorial Board and the editorial management staff of MDPI, it is my great pleasure to introduce this new journal Behavioral Sciences. Behavioral Sciences seeks to publish original research and scholarship contributing to our understanding of human behavior. The journal will provide a forum for work that furthers knowledge and stimulates research in the behavioral sciences. We are committed to building a diverse and methodologically rigorous literature of interest and benefit to behavioral and social scientists, as well as to clinical practitioners, educationalists, and the general public. PMID:25379211

  7. 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…

  8. A short guide to peer-reviewed, MEDLINE-indexed complementary and alternative medicine journals.

    PubMed

    Morgan, Sherry; Littman, Lynn; Palmer, Christina; Singh, Gurneet; LaRiccia, Patrick J

    2012-01-01

    Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) comprises a multitude of disciplines, for example, acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, biofeedback, herbal medicine, and homeopathic medicine. While research on CAM interventions has increased and the CAM literature has proliferated since the mid-1990s, a number of our colleagues have expressed difficulties in deciding where to publish CAM articles. In response, we created a short guide to peer-reviewed MEDLINE-indexed journals that publish CAM articles. We examined numerous English-language sources to identify titles that met our criteria, whether specific to or overlapping CAM. A few of the resources in which we found the journal titles that we included are Alternative Medicine Foundation, American Holistic Nurses Association, CINAHL/Nursing Database, Journal Citation Reports database, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Research Council for Complementary Medicine. We organized the 69 selected titles for easy use by creating 2 user-friendly tables, one listing titles in alphabetical order and one listing them in topical categories. A few examples of the topical categories are Acupuncture, CAM (general), Chinese Medicine, Herbal/Plant/Phytotherapy, Neuroscience/Psychology, Nursing/Clinical Care. Our study is the first to list general CAM journals, specialty CAM journals, and overlapping mainstream journals that are peer reviewed, in English, and indexed in MEDLINE. Our goal was to assist both authors seeking publication and mainstream journal editors who receive an overabundance of publishable articles but must recommend that authors seek publication elsewhere due to space and priority issues. Publishing in journals indexed by and included in MEDLINE (or PubMed) ensures that citations to articles will be found easily. PMID:22517352

  9. 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…

  10. 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 published on the JESSE web server, ensuring long term access to the resource as reviewed. JESSE is collaborating with the Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE) as a federated partner. Initial release is planned for Summer, 2001.

  11. 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

  12. Should authors submit previous peer-review reports when submitting research papers? Views of general medical journal editors.

    PubMed

    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

  13. Publication Rates of Public Health Theses in International and National Peer-Review Journals in Turkey

    PubMed Central

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

    2012-01-01

    Background: Thesis is an important part of specialisation and doctorate education and requires intense work. The aim of this study was to investigate the publication rates of Turkish Public Health Doctorate Theses (PHDT) and Public Health Specialization (PHST) theses in international and Turkish national peer-review journals and to analyze the distribution of research areas. Methods: List of all theses upto 30 September 2009 were retrieved from theses database of the Council of Higher Education of the Republic of Turkey. The publication rates of these theses were found by searching PubMed, Science Citation Index-Expanded, Turkish Academic Network and Information Center (ULAKBIM) Turkish Medical Database, and Turkish Medline databases for the names of thesis author and mentor. The theses which were published in journals indexed either in PubMed or SCI-E were considered as international publications. Results: Our search yielded a total of 538 theses (243 PHDT, 295 PHST). It was found that the overall publication rate in Turkish national journals was 18%. The overall publication rate in international journals was 11.9%. Overall the most common research area was occupational health. Conclusion: Publication rates of Turkish PHDT and PHST are low. A better understanding of factors affecting this publication rate is important for public health issues where national data is vital for better intervention programs and develop better public health policies. PMID:23193503

  14. 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

  15. 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, (??=??0.1, p?=?0.03), the frequency of encountering personal attacks in reviewers’ comments (??=??0.1, p?=?0.002) and the frequency of imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers (??=??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 review and to the establishment of an appeal system. Female academics, experience of personal attacks and imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers were related to disagreement about fairness of the peer review system of biomedical journals. PMID:23758823

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor.

    PubMed

    Jones, Alan Wayne

    2007-01-17

    This article presents information about journals specializing in the forensic sciences and legal medicine, their development and distribution and their current status as reflected in the journal impact factor. The first scientific journal devoted to spreading information and reporting new developments in social and legal medicine seemingly originated in Germany about 150 years ago. The official journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFS) was founded in 1956 and has enjoyed 50 years of scholarly publishing. The two leading European journals specializing in forensics are Forensic Science International (FSI) and International Journal of Legal Medicine (IJLM). Besides the size of the circulation, the readership numbers, the quality of the editorial staff and the peer-reviewers, the number of submitted and accepted manuscripts, considerable interest has focused on the journal's impact factor as a measure of prestige. The 2006 impact factor of a certain journal is derived by counting the number of citations in 2006 to all material published in the journal in the previous 2 years (2004 and 2005) and dividing this total by the number of citable items (articles and reviews) published in the same 2 years. Impact factors for several thousand scientific journals are compiled and published by a company called Thomson Institute for Scientific Information (Thomson ISI) and are available on-line via the database Journal Citation Reports. Forensic journals are grouped within the subject category Medicine, Legal, which currently comprises nine journals a few of which are seemingly unrelated to mainstream forensics. The top-ranked forensic journal in terms of its impact factor was IJLM with a score of just over 2.0 in 2004. This means that the average article published in 2003 and 2002 was cited twice per year in the 2-year window after publication. Impact factors of forensic journals are fairly low in comparison with many other disciplines, probably because of the small size of the field, fewer active researchers and less pressure to publish. The relatively low impact factors of forensic journals should be less of a concern than ensuring that manuscripts receive a rigorous and preferably an open peer-review prior to acceptance for publication. The information, conclusions and opinions published in forensic science journals might one day be proffered as evidence in criminal or civil litigation. PMID:16784827

  20. 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…

  1. 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…

  2. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-07-01

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

  3. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-06-01

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

  4. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-08-01

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

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

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

    Background An estimated $100 billion is lost to ‘waste’ in biomedical research globally, annually, much of which comes from the poor quality of published research. One area of waste involves bias in reporting research, which compromises the usability of published reports. In response, there has been an upsurge in interest and research in the scientific process of writing, editing, peer reviewing, and publishing (that is, journalology) of biomedical research. One reason for bias in reporting and the problem of unusable reports could be due to authors lacking knowledge or engaging in questionable practices while designing, conducting, or reporting their research. Another might be that the peer review process for journal publication has serious flaws, including possibly being ineffective, and having poorly trained and poorly motivated reviewers. Similarly, many journal editors have limited knowledge related to publication ethics. This can ultimately have a negative impact on the healthcare system. There have been repeated calls for better, more numerous training opportunities in writing for publication, peer review, and publishing. However, little research has taken stock of journalology training opportunities or evaluations of their effectiveness. Methods We will conduct a systematic review to synthesize studies that evaluate the effectiveness of training programs in journalology. A comprehensive three-phase search approach will be employed to identify evaluations of training opportunities, involving: 1) forward-searching using the Scopus citation database, 2) a search of the MEDLINE In-Process and Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO databases, as well as the databases of the Cochrane Library, and 3) a grey literature search. Discussion This project aims to provide evidence to help guide the journalological training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors. While there is ample evidence that many members of these groups are not getting the necessary training needed to excel at their respective journalology-related tasks, little is known about the characteristics of existing training opportunities, including their effectiveness. The proposed systematic review will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of training, therefore giving potential trainees, course designers, and decision-makers evidence to help inform their choices and policies regarding the merits of specific training opportunities or types of training. PMID:23773340

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

    PubMed

    Weng, Naidong

    2012-11-01

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

  13. 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

  14. 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…

  15. 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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

    Objectives To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations. Design Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys. Setting BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models. Sample Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation. Results For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used. Conclusions Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind. PMID:26423855

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-09-01

    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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-11-01

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

  7. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-12-01

    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.

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. 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…

  11. 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…

  12. Thanking our peer reviewers

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    de Lusignan, Simon

    2015-01-01

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

  14. 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,…

  15. 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,…

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. From Abstract to Publication in a Peer-Reviewed Journal: Evaluation of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the German Society of Neurosurgery.

    PubMed

    Czorlich, Patrick; Regelsberger, Jan; Meixensberger, Jürgen; Westphal, Manfred; Eicker, Sven Oliver

    2016-01-01

    Background The presentation and academic discussion of the latest scientific research is the central purpose of meetings like the annual meeting of the German Society of Neurosurgery (DGNC). The aim of this study was to investigate the publication rate of all oral and poster abstracts of the DGNC meeting 2012 held in Leipzig, Germany, in peer-reviewed journals and to identify factors that are associated with a higher publication rate. Material and Methods We reviewed all accepted oral and poster presentations of the meeting. Then a search in PubMed was performed to determine the publication rate within 3 years after the abstract submission deadline. We used the information to identify factors associated with a higher publication rate. Results The publication rate in a peer-reviewed journal was 40.4% for all presented abstracts. Overall, 41.5% of all poster presentations and 40.1% of all oral presentations were published within 3 years. Abstracts presenting prospective studies or university research had a statistically higher chance of publication. The average journal impact factor for all published abstracts was 2.99, and 81 different journals were chosen for publication. Conclusions Overall, 40.4% of all presented abstracts at the 2012 DGNC were published in a peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, which reflects the high scientific standard of this meeting. Prospective studies and studies presented by authors from universities had a higher chance of being published. PMID:26444960

  19. 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…

  20. 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…

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. The evolution of editorial peer review.

    PubMed

    Burnham, J C

    1990-03-01

    Practically no historical accounts of the evolution of peer review exist. Biomedical journals appeared in the 19th century as personal organs, following the model of more general journalism. Journal editors viewed themselves primarily as educators. The practice of editorial peer reviewing did not become general until sometime after World War II. Contrary to common assumption, editorial peer review did not grow out of or interact with grant peer review. Editorial peer review procedures did not spread in an orderly way; they were not developed from editorial boards and passed on from journal to journal. Instead, casual referring out of articles on an individual basis may have occurred at any time, beginning in the early to mid-19th century. Institutionalization of the process, however, took place mostly in the 20th century, either to handle new problems in the numbers of articles submitted or to meet the demands for expert authority and objectivity in an increasingly specialized world. PMID:2406470

  9. 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).

  10. 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.

  11. 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…

  12. Evaluative Language in Peer Review Referee Reports

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fortanet, Inmaculada

    2008-01-01

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

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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…

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2009-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Yolcu, Umit; Ozcan, Ayse

    2015-11-01

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

  18. 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…

  19. 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…

  20. 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.

  1. Peer Review Undergoing Revitalization

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sawchuk, Stephen

    2009-01-01

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

  2. 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…

  3. 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

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

    PubMed Central

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Hrynaszkiewicz, Iain; Cockerill, Matthew J

    2012-01-01

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

  6. 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.

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2010-01-01

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

  8. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2012-11-01

    All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the editors of the 26th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems proceedings. Reviews were conducted by expert referees from the International Technical Committee to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. The members of the Scientific Committee who selected and reviewed the papers included in the Proceedings of the 26th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems are: Yulin WU Tsinghua University China François AVELLAN EPFL-LMH Switzerland (principal) Xingqi LUO Xi'an University of Sci & Tech China Martin BÖHLE Kaiserslautern University Germany Gerard BOIS Arts et Métiers ParisTech France Luca D'AGOSTINO University of Pisa Italy Eduard EGUSQUIZA Polytechnical University Catalonia Spain Richard FISHER Voith Hydro Inc USA Regiane FORTES-PATELLA Institute Polytechnique de Grenoble France Aleksandar GAJIC University of Belgrade Serbia Wei YANG China Agriculture University China YinLu YOUNG University of Michigan USA Adrian LUNGU Dunarea de Jos University of Galati Romania Arpad FAY University of Miskolcz Hungary José GONZÁLEZ Universidad de Oviedo Spain Baoshan ZHU Tsinghua University China Hongxun CHEN Shanghai University China Chisachi KATO University of Tokyo Japan Zhenyue MA Dalian University of Sci & Tech China Honggang FAN Tsinghua University China François GUIBAULT Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Canada Pengcheng GUO Xian University of Technology China Leqing WANG Zhejiang University China Toshiaki IKOHAGI Tohoku University Japan Jiandong YANG Wuhan University China Jianzhong ZHOU Huazhong University of Sci & Tech China Jinwei LI NULL China Rennian LI Lanzhou University of Sci & Tech China Houlin LIU NULL China Juan LIU Tsinghua University China Shuhong LIU Tsinghua University China Xianwu LUO Tsinghua University China Michihiro NISHI Tsinghua University China Peter PELZ Darmstadt University Germany František POCHYLY Brno University Czech Republic Rudolf SCHILLING Technische Universität München Germany Minguan YANG Jiangsu University China Smaine KOUIDRI Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris 6) France Kazuhiro TANAKA Kyushu Institute of Technology Japan Xuelin TANG Tsinghua University China Yoshinobu TSUJIMOTO Osaka University Japan Fujun WANG China Agriculture University China Guoyu WANG Beijing University of Sci & Tech China Wenwu SONG NULL China Zhengwei WANG Tsinghua University China Hongyuan XU Tsinghua University China Lefu XIAO NULL China Fan YANG Tsinghua University China Yuan ZHENG Hehai University China Zhigang ZUO Tsinghua University China Hongwu ZHU China Petroleum University China Lixiang ZHANG Yunnan University of Sci & Tech China Shengchang ZHANG Zhejiang University of Tech China

  9. '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

  10. 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…

  11. Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2012-01-01

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

  12. Role of Editorial and Peer Review Processes in Publication Bias: Analysis of Drug Trials Submitted to Eight Medical Journals

    PubMed Central

    van Lent, Marlies; Overbeke, John; Out, Henk Jan

    2014-01-01

    Background Publication bias is generally ascribed to authors and sponsors failing to submit studies with negative results, but may also occur after submission. We evaluated whether submitted manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with drugs are more likely to be accepted if they report positive results. Methods Manuscripts submitted from January 2010 through April 2012 to one general medical journal (BMJ) and seven specialty journals (Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, British Journal of Ophthalmology, Gut, Heart, Thorax, Diabetologia, and Journal of Hepatology) were included, if at least one study arm assessed the efficacy or safety of a drug and a statistical test was used to evaluate treatment effects. Publication status was retrospectively retrieved from submission systems or provided by journals. Sponsorship and trial results were extracted from manuscripts and classified according to predefined criteria. Main outcome measure was acceptance for publication. Results Of 15,972 manuscripts submitted, 472 (3.0%) were drug RCTs, of which 98 (20.8%) were published. Among submitted drug RCTs, 287 (60.8%) had positive and 185 (39.2%) negative results. Of these, 60 (20.9%) and 38 (20.5%), respectively, were published. Manuscripts on non-industry trials (n?=?213) reported positive results in 138 (64.8%) manuscripts, compared to 71 (47.7%) on industry-supported trials (n?=?149), and 78 (70.9%) on industry-sponsored trials (n?=?110). Twenty-seven (12.7%) non-industry trials were published, compared to 27 (18.1%) industry-supported and 44 (40.0%) industry-sponsored trials. After adjustment for other trial characteristics, manuscripts reporting positive results were not more likely to be published (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.66). Submission to specialty journals, sample size, multicentre status, journal impact factor, and corresponding authors from Europe or US were significantly associated with publication. Conclusions For the selected journals, there was no tendency to preferably publish manuscripts on drug RCTs that reported positive results, suggesting that publication bias may occur mainly prior to submission. PMID:25118182

  13. Peer-review: An IOP Publishing Perspective

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Smith, Timothy

    2015-03-01

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

  14. 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.

  15. 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…

  16. 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.

  17. 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…

  18. Water Peer Review

    SciTech Connect

    2014-05-02

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

  19. 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…

  20. 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…

  1. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2010-08-01

    All papers published in this Volume 12 of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the editors of the 25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems proceedings, Professor Romeo Susan-Resiga, Dr Sebastian Muntean and Dr Sandor Bernad. Reviews were conducted by expert referees from the Scientific Committee to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. The members of the Scientific Committee who selected and reviewed the papers included in the Proceedings of the 25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems are: Anton ANTONTechnical University of Civil Engineering, BucharestRomania François AVELLANEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneSwitzerland Fidel ARZOLAEDELCAVenezuela Thomas ASCHENBRENNERVoith Hydro Gmb H & Co. KG, HeidenheimGermany Anton BERGANTLitostroj Power d.o.o., LjubljanaSlovenia Gerard BOISENSAM, LilleFrance Hermod BREKKENTNU, TrondheimNorway Stuart COULSON Voith Hydro Inc., YorkUSA Eduard EGUSQUIZAPolytechnical University Catalonia BarcelonaSpain Arpad FAYUniversity of MiskolczHungary Richard FISHERVoith Hydro Inc., York USA Regiane FORTES-PATELLAInstitut Polytechnique de GrenobleFrance Aleksandar GAJICUniversity of BelgradeSerbia Arno GEHRERAndritz Hydro GrazAustria José GONZÁLEZUniversidad de OviedoSpain François GUIBAULTEcole Polytechnique de MontrealCanada Chisachi KATOUniversity of TokyoJapan Kwang-Yong KIMInha University, IncheonKorea Jiri KOUTNIKVoith Hydro Gmb H & Co. KG, HeidenheimGermany Adrian LUNGUDunarea de Jos University of GalatiRomania Christophe NICOLETPower Vision Engineering Sàrl, LausanneSwitzerland Torbjøm K. NIELSENNTNU, TrodheimNorway Michihiro NISHIKyushu Institute of TechnologyJapan Maryse PAGEHydro Quebec IREQ, VarennesCanada Etienne PARKINSONAndritz Hydro LtdSwitzerland František POCHYLYBrno UniversityCzech Republic Stefan RIEDELBAUCHVoith Hydro Gmb H & Co. KG, HeidenheimGermany Albert RUPRECHTUniversity of StuttgartGermany Michel SABOURINAlstom Hydro Canada Inc.Canada Rudolf SCHILLINGTechnische Universität MünchenGermany Qing-Hua SHIDong Fang Electrical Machinery Co.China Aleš SKOTAKCKD Blansko Engineering, a. s.Czech Republic Romeo F. SUSAN-RESIGAPolitehnica University of TimisoaraRomania Geraldo TIAGO FILHOUniversidade Federal de ItajubaBrazil Yoshinobu TSUJIMOTOOsaka UniversityJapan Bart van ESCHTechnische Universiteit EindhovenNetherland Thi C. VUAndritz Hydro Ltd, QuebecCanada Satoshi WATANABEKyushu University, FukuokaJapan Yulin WUTsinghua University, BeijingChina The reviewing process was organized in several steps. First, the 238 abstracts submitted for the symposium were reviewed, and 197 were accepted, with 30 abstracts having recommendations. Second, the authors have submitted 152 full-length papers, and each paper has been reviewed by two referees. The recommendations have been sent back to the authors, in order to prepare the final form or the paper. Third, 118 papers have been received in final form, accounting for the referees recommendations, to be included in the proceedings and to be presented at the symposium.

  2. 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,…

  3. 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...

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. [Guide for peer reviewers of scientific article].

    PubMed

    Marusi?, Matko; Sambunjak, Dario; Marusi?, Ana

    2005-01-01

    Despite its shortcomings, peer review is still the best tool of scientific publishing. It brings benefits not only to the journal and its authors, but to the peer reviewers: they are privileged to have an insight into the latest research and still unpublished results in their scientific field. Reviewers also build up their ability to critically assess scientific papers, which may be useful in their own professional work and development. We wrote these brief guidelines to help Croatian-speaking physicians to satisfactorily respond in case they receive a scientific journal editor's request for a manuscript review. The guidelines were created primarily for new reviewers, but they may be useful as a refresher text for experienced reviewers. PMID:16281469

  7. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.

    PubMed

    Navalta, James W; Lyons, T Scott

    2010-12-01

    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 study was to determine whether graduate students returned similar decisions compared with faculty reviewers who evaluated the same manuscript. In addition, decisions of faculty peers reviewing graduate student- versus faculty-submitted manuscripts were compared. Mean comparisons between groups were evaluated using independent t-tests with significance at P ≤ 0.05. Graduate students (2.21 ± 0.69) and faculty peers (2.24 ± 0.66) returned similar decisions on student-submitted manuscripts (P = 0.84). Faculty decisions on manuscripts submitted by a professional primary author (1.86 ± 0.77) were not different compared with faculty peers reviewing student manuscripts (P = 0.06). Statistics revealed that graduate students are just as stringent in the peer review process as established reviewers. Additionally, faculty reviewers evaluated manuscripts equally regardless of submission type. PMID:21098383

  8. The Ethics of Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hamilton, Neil W.

    2003-01-01

    Discusses the need for a self-audit of the academic profession's ethics and peer culture, including clarifying the responsibilities of the profession and articulating the first principles of peer review. (EV)

  9. 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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Warner, J. S.

    2010-01-01

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

  11. 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.

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. 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…

  15. 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…

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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…

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  1. 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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fischman, Mark G.

    2014-01-01

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

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 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.

  6. 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…

  7. 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...

  8. 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…

  9. 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.

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

    PubMed

    Sen, Chandan K

    2012-02-15

    Scholarly peer review represents the linchpin of academic publishing. Recognized benefits of the peer review system are manifold. Critics raise several valid concerns that deserve attention. Several studies show that the current peer review system lacks robustness and is subject to bias in favor of well-established research groups and "mainstream" theories. Hypotheses that harmonize with that of the leaders in the field are more likely to be accepted for publication in prestigious journals than heretic or radical ones. Then, there is the risk posed by the potentially unscrupulous reviewer. Alternatives to traditional peer review have been tried but the outcomes fall much short of expectations. Postreview rejection can be equally frustrating for the author and editor particularly when they are victims of limitations of the blinded forms of review. To provide recourse for authors who felt that their work has been rejected not because of the quality of science but because of the constraints of the peer review system, ARS introduces a rebound track for peer review ( www.liebertpub.com/ars ). The rebound peer review track is a two-tier process that represents a hybrid of partially blinded and open peer review systems. The goal is to make sure that every author has the opportunity to rescue their rejected work which they feel may have been victimized by the glitches of the current peer review system. I invite affected authors to make full use of this experimental mechanism so we know whether the rebound peer review should prevail as a viable recourse. PMID:22098370

  11. 2009 Water Power Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Murphy, Michael; Higgins, Mark; Reed, Mike

    2011-04-01

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

  12. Reviewing post-publication peer review.

    PubMed

    Knoepfler, Paul

    2015-05-01

    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

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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 ...

  19. 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 process is to provide the Commissioner, ADD, with technical and qualitative evaluation of UAP...

  20. 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…

  1. Peer-Review Assessment.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Mumma, John

    2002-01-01

    Describes a procedure that encourages both earnest participation in the reviewing process (the production of detailed responses) and revision that actually takes student responses into consideration. Concludes that by requiring students to tell the teacher what they chose to leave alone and what they chose to change, the teacher is able to get…

  2. 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…

  3. The ethics of peer review in bioethics.

    PubMed

    Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

    2014-10-01

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

  4. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 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....

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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…

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

    PubMed

    Strickland, N H

    2015-11-01

    Peer review in radiology means an assessment of the accuracy of a report issued by another radiologist. Inevitably, this involves a judgement opinion from the reviewing radiologist. Peer feedback is the means by which any form of peer review is communicated back to the original author of the report. This article defines terms, discusses the current status, identifies problems, and provides some recommendations as to the way forward, concentrating upon the software requirements for efficient peer review and peer feedback of reported imaging studies. Radiologists undertake routine peer review in their everyday clinical practice, particularly when reporting and preparing for multidisciplinary team meetings. More formal peer review of reported imaging studies has been advocated as a quality assurance measure to promote good clinical practice. It is also a way of assessing the competency of reporting radiologists referred for investigation to bodies such as the General Medical Council (GMC). The literature shows, firstly, that there is a very wide reported range of discrepancy rates in many studies, which have used a variety of non-comparable methodologies; and secondly, that applying scoring systems in formal peer review is often meaningless, unhelpful, and can even be detrimental. There is currently a lack of electronic peer feedback system software on the market to inform radiologists of any review of their work that has occurred or to provide them with clinical outcome information on cases they have previously reported. Learning opportunities are therefore missed. Radiologists should actively engage with the medical informatics industry to design optimal peer review and feedback software with features to meet their needs. Such a system should be easy to use, be fully integrated with the radiological information and picture archiving systems used clinically, and contain a free-text comment box, without a numerical scoring system. It should form a temporary record that cannot be permanently archived. It must provide automated feedback to the original author. Peer feedback, as part of everyday reporting, should enhance daily learning for radiologists. Software requirements for everyday peer feedback differ from those needed for a formal peer review process, which might only be necessary in the setting of a formal GMC enquiry into a particular radiologist's reporting competence, for example. PMID:26223739

  9. 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

  10. How to review scientific manuscripts and clinical case reports for Journal of Oral Implantology.

    PubMed

    Rutkowski, James L; Cairone, Joseph V

    2009-01-01

    Peer review is a vital component of the publication process for the Journal of Oral Implantology (JOI), as with any scientific or professional journal. The ability to write constructive critical reviews, therefore, is a valued skill of benefit to authors, editors, and the journal. The purpose of this article is to discuss techniques for crafting useful reviews. A review should address both broad issues of wording and perception. A review should include specific issues of what to look for in each section of research papers and clinical case reports. While the article is written with JOI in mind, most guidelines expressed therein are applicable to reviewing for any journal. PMID:20017649

  11. 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

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. Avoiding currently unavoidable conflicts of interest in medical publishing by transparent peer review.

    PubMed

    Gleicher, Norbert

    2013-05-01

    The medical literature frequently addresses potential conflicts of interest, involving scientists and authors. Conflicts involving editorial offices of medical journals, have, however, only rarely been subject to discussion. The biggest opportunity for editorial conflicts presents during peer review. This commentary, therefore, argues in favour of changes in peer review. Improved and more transparent peer review will quite automatically avoid most potential conflicts of interest in medical publishing, including those currently widely considered unavoidable. PMID:23507135

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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)

  18. 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…

  19. 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…

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... Section 34.109 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.109 Qualifications of peer reviewers. The general reviewer qualification criteria to...). Additional details concerning peer reviewer qualifications are provided in the OJJDP “Peer Review Guideline”....

  5. 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...

  6. 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)...

  7. 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...

  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 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  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. Pandora's Dilemma: Some Reflections on Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Roworth, Wendy Wassyng

    1997-01-01

    Provides a case study of the use of departmental peer review at the University of Rhode Island, focusing on the differing attitudes toward the peer review process held by tenured and untenured faculty, the apprehension of women and minority faculty toward the process, and the "ratcheting up" of the research and publication requirements for tenure…

  14. 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... barrier evaluation as required in § 194.44. (b) Peer review processes required in paragraph (a) of this... 40 Protection of Environment 24 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review. 194.27 Section...

  15. 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

  16. Peer health promotion in prisons: a systematic review.

    PubMed

    Wright, Nat; Bleakley, Adam; Butt, Christine; Chadwick, Oliver; Mahmood, Khaver; Patel, Kiran; Salhi, Aicha

    2011-01-01

    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to review systematically the available literature relating to the implementation of peer education to promote health and healthy behaviour in prisons. Design/methodology/approach - The authors undertook a narrative systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Web of Science and Cochrane databases. Relevant journals and reference lists were hand searched for relevant articles to be included in the review. Of the abstracts found, full-text papers were retrieved for those papers deemed as possibly fulfilling the inclusion criteria of the review. Findings - A total of 3,033 abstracts were identified leading to 46 full-text articles being retrieved, of which ten were included in the review. Peer education in prisons can have an impact on attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour intention regarding HIV risk behaviour. The research findings were inconclusive for the impact of peer education upon illicit drug use and injecting practice. There was a paucity of research evaluating the impact of peer education upon mental ill health, obesity, diet, smoking, or self-management of chronic physical diseases. Originality/value - Peer education is effective in reducing risk of HIV transmission. It is possible that peer education for mental health issues is stigmatising, presenting an opportunity for further research activity. The impact of peer education upon illicit drug use practice, obesity, diet, smoking, and self-management of chronic physical diseases also presents further research opportunities. Research evaluating models of active peer educator involvement in health service delivery and organisation is also lacking. PMID:25757711

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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)

  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. Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers

    PubMed Central

    Snell, Richard R.

    2015-01-01

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

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. Examining Marketing Journals' Publication Process and Reviewer Practices

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2011-01-01

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

  5. 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…

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

    PubMed

    Benson, P J

    2015-10-01

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

  7. 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…

  8. 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 the life sciences and economics. Multi-stage open peer review can be flexibly adjusted to the needs and peculiarities of different scientific communities. Due to the flexibility and compatibility with traditional structures of scientific publishing and peer review, the multi-stage open peer review concept enables efficient evolution in scientific communication and quality assurance. It has the potential for swift replacement of hidden peer review as the standard of scientific quality assurance, and it provides a basis for open evaluation in science. PMID:22783183

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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...

  14. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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,...

  18. 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…

  19. 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…

  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. 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…

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

    PubMed

    Kluge, S; Bause, H

    2015-01-01

    The intensive care unit (ICU) is one area of the hospital in which processes and communication are of primary importance. Errors in intensive care units can lead to serious adverse events with significant consequences for patients. Therefore quality and risk-management are important measures when treating critically ill patients. A pragmatic approach to support quality and safety in intensive care is peer review. This approach has gained significant acceptance over the past years. It consists of mutual visits by colleagues who conduct standardised peer reviews. These reviews focus on the systematic evaluation of the quality of an ICU's structure, its processes and outcome. Together with different associations, the State Chambers of Physicians and the German Medical Association have developed peer review as a standardized tool for quality improvement. The common goal of all stakeholders is the continuous and sustainable improvement in intensive care with peer reviews significantly increasing and improving communication between professions and disciplines. Peer reviews secure the sustainability of planned change processes and consequently lead the way to an improved culture of quality and safety. PMID:25421137

  5. Citation of non-English peer review publications--some Chinese examples.

    PubMed

    Fung, Isaac C H

    2008-01-01

    Articles published in English language journals with citations of non-English peer reviewed materials are not very common today. However, as epidemiologists are becoming more aware of data and information being readily available and accessible in the non-English literature, the question of whether non-English materials can be cited in English language journals and if so, how should they be cited, has become an increasingly important issue. Bringing together personal insights from the author's familiarity with both the English and Chinese language epidemiological literature and results from a survey on the use of citations of non-English peer reviewed materials across a sample of epidemiology and public health journals, this commentary discusses the different ways authors cite non-English articles in different English language journals and the different methods used by journals to handle non-Latin scripts (e.g. transliteration). This commentary will be useful to both epidemiologists and editors alike. PMID:18826566

  6. Citation of non-English peer review publications – some Chinese examples

    PubMed Central

    Fung, Isaac CH

    2008-01-01

    Articles published in English language journals with citations of non-English peer reviewed materials are not very common today. However, as epidemiologists are becoming more aware of data and information being readily available and accessible in the non-English literature, the question of whether non-English materials can be cited in English language journals and if so, how should they be cited, has become an increasingly important issue. Bringing together personal insights from the author's familiarity with both the English and Chinese language epidemiological literature and results from a survey on the use of citations of non-English peer reviewed materials across a sample of epidemiology and public health journals, this commentary discusses the different ways authors cite non-English articles in different English language journals and the different methods used by journals to handle non-Latin scripts (e.g. transliteration). This commentary will be useful to both epidemiologists and editors alike. PMID:18826566

  7. 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…

  8. 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

  9. 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…

  10. 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,…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. 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,…

  14. Anonymous Peer Assessment of Medication Management Reviews

    PubMed Central

    Ryan, Greg; Woulfe, Jim; Bartimote-Aufflick, Kathryn

    2010-01-01

    Objectives To investigate whether pharmacy students' anonymous peer assessment of a medication management review (MMR) was constructive, consistent with the feedback provided by an expert tutor, and enhanced the students' learning experience. Design Fourth-year undergraduate pharmacy students were randomly and anonymously assigned to a partner and participated in an online peer assessment of their partner's MMR. Assessment An independent expert graded a randomly selected sample of the MMR's using a schedule developed for the study. A second expert evaluated the quality of the peer and expert feedback. Students also completed a questionnaire and participated in a focus group interview. Student peers gave significantly higher marks than an expert for the same MMR; however, no significant difference between the quality of written feedback between the students and expert was detected. The majority of students agreed that this activity was a useful learning experience. Conclusions Anonymous peer assessment is an effective means of providing additional constructive feedback on student performance on the medication review process. Exposure to other students' work and the giving and receiving of peer feedback were perceived as valuable by students. PMID:20798808

  15. 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…

  16. Enhancing peer review with communication skill building.

    PubMed

    Mitchell, M B; Hunt, C; Johnson, J; Ovitt, B; Lemon, D

    1995-12-01

    The purpose of this pilot was to improve the peer review process by enhancing the communication skills of staff nurses. Communication skill building was taught to staff members with practice time allotted. The paradigm shift occurred in teaching staff that communication is a learned skill built through practice and not solely a cognitive skill. The results of this pilot demonstrated improved verbal communication, increased comfort with peer review, improved ability to separate performance from individual style differences, and increased accuracy with which staff rate themselves on self evaluations. An indirect benefit has been improved teamwork from increased support among the staff. PMID:10153622

  17. 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.

  18. 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…

  19. 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…

  20. Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?

    PubMed Central

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

    2012-01-01

    One of the most frequently voiced criticisms of the peer review process is gender bias. In this study we evaluated the grant peer review process (external reviewers’ ratings, and board of trustees’ final decision: approval or no approval for funding) at the Austrian Science Fund with respect to gender. The data consisted of 8,496 research proposals (census) across all disciplines from 1999 to 2009, which were rated on a scale from 1 to 100 (poor to excellent) by 18,357 external reviewers in 23,977 reviews. In line with the current state of research, we found that the final decision was not associated with applicant’s gender or with any correspondence between gender of applicants and reviewers. However, the decisions on the grant applications showed a robust female reviewer salience effect. The approval probability decreases (up to 10%), when there is parity or a majority of women in the group of reviewers. Our results confirm an overall gender null hypothesis for the peer review process of men’s and women’s grant applications in contrast to claims that women’s grants are systematically downrated. PMID:23480982

  1. Appreciation of Peer Reviewers for 2014

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Baratoux, David; Hauck, Steven A., II; Stanley, Sabine; Wieczorek, Mark A.

    2015-03-01

    Scientific publishing relies heavily on the process of peer review to ensure that the most well-founded and clearly described science is communicated to our colleagues and beyond. Papers published in JGR Planets benefit from the time, effort, and talents of the reviewers who provide thoughtfully considered advice on each manuscript. This role is critical to the advancement of planetary science as these reviews lead to even clearer and higher-quality papers. In 2014, papers submitted to JGR Planets were the beneficiaries of more than 520 reviews provided by 340 members of the planetary science community. To everyone who volunteers their time and intellect to peer reviewing, thank you for helping us share the best science possible.

  2. 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.

  3. Private Journals versus Public Blogs: The Impact of Peer Readership on Low-Stakes Reflective Writing

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Foster, Drew

    2015-01-01

    This article isolates and observes the impact of peer readership on low-stakes reflective writing assignments in two large Introduction to Sociology classes. Through a comparative content analysis of over 2,000 private reflective journal entries and semipublic reflective blog posts, I find that both practices produce distinct forms of reflection.…

  4. 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.…

  5. 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…

  6. 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.

  7. Peer Review in the English Classroom.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nelson, Marylin J.

    1987-01-01

    Describes one method of peer review used by a secondary school department head when asked to evaluate teachers in her department. Visits to individual classrooms included observation and notetaking, a narrative response to each teacher, and a final conference during which each teacher could respond to the narrative. ( NKA)

  8. 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…

  9. 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.

    ...

  10. 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 Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY FOR NON-ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS Formation of...

  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 Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY FOR NON-ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS Formation of...

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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…

  19. Peer review practicalities in clinical medicine.

    PubMed

    Metcalfe, Matthew J; Farrant, Mal; Farrant, Jm

    2010-01-01

    Peer review processes in teaching requires a reviewer to observe a teacher's practice in a planned manner. Conversation between the two enables the teacher to reflect on their own teaching, promoting self-improvement. Although a central part of the teaching process, and despite its crucial role in continuing professional development, peer review is not widely practiced in hospital settings. This article explains the process and its benefits. Practical implementations of the process in busy clinical settings are suggested. Its evaluation and incorporation into undergraduate learning and postgraduate clinical practice are described. With enthusiastic support for colleagues and allowances for its implementation, it should become part of the regular teaching practice, improving the quality of teaching delivered. PMID:23745062

  20. How important tasks are performed: peer review.

    PubMed

    Hartonen, T; Alava, M J

    2013-01-01

    The advancement of various fields of science depends on the actions of individual scientists via the peer review process. The referees' work patterns and stochastic nature of decision making both relate to the particular features of refereeing and to the universal aspects of human behavior. Here, we show that the time a referee takes to write a report on a scientific manuscript depends on the final verdict. The data is compared to a model, where the review takes place in an ongoing competition of completing an important composite task with a large number of concurrent ones - a Deadline -effect. In peer review human decision making and task completion combine both long-range predictability and stochastic variation due to a large degree of ever-changing external "friction". PMID:23591935

  1. 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 PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PROJECTS § 52h.4 Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the...

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

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

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. Peer Review of Teaching: Improving College Instruction Through Formative Assessment.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Keig, Larry W.; Waggoner, Michael D.

    1995-01-01

    Examines use of collaborative college faculty peer review for instructional improvement. Establishes rationales for formative evaluation of teaching, peer review in instructional improvement, and comprehensive faculty evaluation that includes peer review. Examines roles faculty might play in assessing colleagues' teaching; describes five methods…

  6. 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…

  7. 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 AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.11 Composition of peer review groups....

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

    PubMed

    Moustafa, Khaled

    2015-08-01

    To make the peer-review process as objective as possible, I suggest the introduction of an 'equal peer-review' statement that preserves author anonymity across the board, thus removing any potential bias related to nominal or institutional 'prestige'; this would guarantee an equal peer-review process for all authors and grant applicants. PMID:26112779

  9. 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…

  10. 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)

  11. 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...

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

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

  13. 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…

  14. 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…

  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. 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 AND AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding § 3401.13 Composition of peer...

  17. A Modestly Rewarding Proposal Concerning Peer Review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Helffrich, George

    2013-11-01

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

  18. 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/).

  19. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    SciTech Connect

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

    1993-01-01

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

  20. A Model for Peer Review in Instructional Design.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Casey, Carl; And Others

    1996-01-01

    Describes an instructional design review process in which peers offer feedback through "structured walkthroughs." Discusses types of reviews, guidelines, and success factors, and summarizes a formal peer review structure developed and tested at Hewlett-Packard Company. Two tables present advantages and disadvantages of types of design reviews and…

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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…

  4. Commercial Lighting Solutions, Webtool Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Jones, Carol C.; Meyer, Tracy A.

    2009-06-17

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

  5. 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 papers have been published in the past 11 years, in 21 regular issues and 3 supplements. It may be said that the journal is the "glue" between the nephrologists from the Balkan cities, reflecting the high quality research and scientific potential of Balkan nephrologists. The entire process of submitting and reviewing the manuscripts is electronically done and after their acceptance they are freely available (open access journal) on the website of the association and the journal: www.bantao.org. In this regard, the current President of BANTAO has already signed a contract with De Gruyter Open as leading publisher of Open Access academic content for further improvement and promotion of the journal and Medline application for the further success of the journal. PMID:25711225

  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. 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…

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

    PubMed

    Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A; Dobránszki, Judit

    2015-01-01

    Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers' money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak. PMID:25275622

  9. Improving Writing for International Business through Peer Reviews.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Jones, Nathan B.

    This article reviews the development of interactive business letters as a form of peer review of writing, presents the activities's general operation, and discusses its benefits by presenting examples of actual student peer reviews from the International Trade Institute graduate school in Taiwan. Rather than have students read and critique each…

  10. 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…

  11. 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.

  12. 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…

  13. 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.

  14. 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

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

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-04-09

    ...EPA is announcing that Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review, will convene an independent panel of experts and organize and conduct an external peer review meeting to review two draft documents entitled, ``Using Probabilistic Methods to Enhance the Role of Risk Analysis in Decision- Making, with Case Study Examples'' and a ``Managers'......

  16. 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

  17. 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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

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

  19. Utilization and Peer Review — Medicine's Privilege and Responsibility

    PubMed Central

    Schaffarzick, Ralph W.; Parke, Harry J.

    1970-01-01

    Peer review affords a privilege for medicine to participate in the shaping of its future. As a corollary, however, medicine must accept the responsibility of stewardship which attends this privilege. Physicians must be willing to participate even more actively in peer review. Properly, utilization review of professional medical services can be performed only by physicians. They may be assisted by informed lay personnel and by computer-derived data. In no instances, however, should judgment of medical necessity be rendered by computer alone. Although an important function of peer review is the control of health care costs, even more important is the evaluation of the quality of care provided the consumers—our patients. “Due process” must be an integral feature of peer review. Any provider must be given the opportunity to discuss his pattern of practice with his peers, and an appellate mechanism must be available. Prospective, rather than retrospective review is preferable, although both approaches are necessary. PMID:5527892

  20. 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.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  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. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

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

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. Hints and Tips for Addressing Accommodations Issues for Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Christensen, Laurene L.; Lail, Kathryn E.; Thurlow, Martha L.

    2007-01-01

    A peer review process is used by the U.S. Department of Education to determine whether states are meeting requirements for funds that they receive. Starting in 2004, a peer review process was initiated on states' standards and assessments. Several of the criteria attend to accommodations and their effects. This report summarizes the key…

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

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

  10. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

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

  11. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

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

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3415.11 Composition of peer review groups... experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account the following factors: (1) The level of formal scientific or technical education by the individual and the extent to which...

  15. 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 3411.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.11...

  16. 7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.11 Composition of peer review groups... experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account the following factors: (1) The level of formal scientific or technical education and other relevant experience of the individual...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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... GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE FELLOWSHIP GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, HEP will, upon request, inform the PD...

  20. 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)

  1. Scientific Misconduct and Editorial and Peer Review Processes.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fox, Mary Frank

    1994-01-01

    The role of editors and peer reviewers in detecting and sanctioning scientific misconduct is analyzed, structural problems inherent in the process are examined, and best means of enabling peer and editorial roles in correction of misconduct are discussed. It is argued that the review process plays a limited corrective role. (MSE)

  2. "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

  3. 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

  4. 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…

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Who Writes the Most About Community Colleges? An Analysis of Selected Academic and Practitioner-Oriented Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2003-01-01

    Argues that because peer-reviewed journals are not likely to be read by practitioners, peer-reviewed articles about the community college may have little or no direct influence on the field. Discusses an analysis of six peer-reviewed academic journals and two practitioner journals, which found that the majority of high-producing authors were male…

  8. 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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2013-01-01

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

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

  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. Does Publication in Top-Tier Journals Affect Reviewer Behavior?

    PubMed Central

    Aarssen, Lonnie W.; Lortie, Christopher J.; Budden, Amber E.; Koricheva, Julia; Leimu, Roosa; Tregenza, Tom

    2009-01-01

    We show that when ecologists act as reviewers their reported rejection rates recommended for manuscripts increases with their publication frequency in high impact factor journals. Rejection rate however does not relate to reviewer age. These results indicate that the likelihood of getting a paper accepted for publication may depend upon factors in addition to scientific merit. Multiple reviewer selection for a given manuscript therefore should consider not only appropriate expertise, but also reviewers that have variable publication experience with a range of different journals to ensure balanced treatment. Interestingly since age did not relate to rejection rates, more senior scientists are not necessarily more jaded in reviewing practices. PMID:19621085

  14. The Availability of Ethnic Materials in Psychology Journals: A Review of 20 Years of Journal Publication.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Santos de Barona, Maryann

    1993-01-01

    Twenty years of journal publications of the American Psychological Association were reviewed for ethnic content. Results indicate a significant decline in the number of ethnic content articles published between 1970 and 1989. Potential factors that may influence the decline are presented, and research needs are reviewed. (SLD)

  15. Student Revision with Peer and Expert Reviewing

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cho, Kwangsu; MacArthur, Charles

    2010-01-01

    In a previous study we found that students receiving feedback from multiple peers improve their writing quality more than students receiving feedback from a single expert. The present study attempted to explain that finding by analyzing the feedback types provided by experts and peers, how that feedback was related to revisions, and how revisions…

  16. Is Peer Review an Effective Approach for Evaluating Teachers?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kumrow, David; Dahlen, Becky

    2002-01-01

    Suggests that there is a need to change the traditional evaluative process that treats teachers as supervised workers rather than collegial professionals. Examines the process, purpose, effectiveness, financial implications, and the future of peer review programs. Explains the process, purpose, and benefits of the program Peer Assistance and…

  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. 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…

  19. 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…

  20. 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…

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. Using Peer Review to Improve Research and Promote Collaboration

    PubMed Central

    Kupfer, David J.; Murphree, Anneliese N.; Pilkonis, Paul A.; Cameron, Judy A.; Giang, Rosary; Dodds, Nathan E.; Godard, Kasey A.; Lewis, David A

    2013-01-01

    Background The declining success rate of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications highlights the need for interdisciplinary work within a large, diverse department to improve chances of federal funding success. Objective To demonstrate how systematic peer review promotes two goals: Enhancing the quality of research proposals and cultivating a collaborative departmental culture. Methods Changes to the Research Review Committee (RRC) in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh were instituted to accommodate the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of grant applications, integrate revisions to NIH grant application processes, and incorporate advances in computer technology. Results The internal peer review process is associated with success in obtaining research support and with significant levels of collaborative scientific work reflected in both grant applications and peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions A rich collaborative environment promoted through a rigorous internal peer review system has many benefits for both the quality of scholarly work and the collegiality of the research environment. PMID:24449224

  4. 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…

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2011-07-01 2010-07-01 true What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52... composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and... information, or conferences, must be reviewed by a peer review panel that consists of a majority of...

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52... composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and... information, or conferences, must be reviewed by a peer review panel that consists of a majority of...

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. Peer Relationships of the Academically Gifted: A Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Austin, Ann Berghout; Draper, Dianne C.

    1981-01-01

    The article reviews research regarding the peer relationships of children considered gifted because of IQ or academic rank. Studies are noted with preschool, elementary, and high school gifted populations. (SB)

  14. 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.

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Showstack, Randy

    2004-04-01

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

  16. The academic welfare state: making peer-review count.

    PubMed

    Veríssimo, Diogo; Roberts, David L

    2013-11-01

    The peer-review process is a central pillar of academic publishing. However, the work that goes into ensuring the quality of published content is rarely recognised. Here we present a correction factor for the h-index, one of the most popular metrics for quantifying academic output, that will allow for the inclusion of peer-review effort in the evaluation of the outputs produced by an academic. PMID:23932409

  17. 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

  18. Dual-use review policies of biomedical research journals.

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Barner, Dionne D; Dinse, Gregg E

    2011-03-01

    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

  19. 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…

  20. 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…

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 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 relevance... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities....

  6. 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…

  7. 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 were unambiguous clinical claims. Most advertisements with quantitative information provided risk results as relative risk reduction. Studies were conducted in 26 countries only and then the generalizability of the results is limited. Conclusions Evidence from this review indicates that low quality of journal advertising is a global issue. As information provided in journal advertising has the potential to change doctors' prescribing behaviour, ongoing efforts to increase education about drug promotion are crucial. The results from our review suggest the need for a global pro-active and effective regulatory system to ensure that information provided in medical journal advertising is supporting the quality use of medicines. PMID:19623259

  8. [The "Medical Peer Review" curriculum of the German Medical Association].

    PubMed

    Chop, Ines

    2012-01-01

    Considering the increasing interest in peer review procedures over the past few years, the German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) published a curriculum document in 2011 titled "Medical Peer Review". This curriculum has been conceived to offer guidance for establishing this particularly promising voluntary instrument which links medical quality development with professional learning, focusing and promoting communication and knowledge transfer between experts. Therefore the peers' communicative and social competencies play a central role, including respect and appreciation for each other, the ability to create an atmosphere of trust, to reflect one's own role, to focus on concrete solutions and to constructively deal with conflicts, resistance and fear. For these reasons, the practice-oriented curriculum accentuates both the skills of designing, planning and conducting peer reviews and the necessary personal skills such as the techniques of solution-focused communication and conflict management. (As supplied by publisher). PMID:23084860

  9. 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.

  10. 75 FR 4062 - Peer Review Best Practices Workshop

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-01-26

    ... Review Best Practices Workshop AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable... chosen to select research and development projects, and on ``best practices'' for reviewing and selecting... the Meeting: To examine best practices for peer review of research, development, demonstration...

  11. 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].

  12. Current Status of Biomedical Book Reviewing: Part I. Key Biomedical Reviewing Journals with Quantitative Significance

    PubMed Central

    Chen, Ching-Chih; Wright, Arthuree M.

    1974-01-01

    This is the first part of a comprehensive, quantitative study of biomedical book reviewing. The data base of the total project was built from statistics taken from all 1970 issues of biomedical journals held in the Science Library of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Of 285 so-called “life sciences” journals held by that library, fifty-four English journals (excluding Science and Nature) were found to contain bona fide book reviews (as contrasted with mere author-title lists) and were therefore selected for close study. The statistical results reveal that there were 3,347 reviews of 2,067 biomedical books in these fifty-four selected journals in 1970. Part I of the study identifies key biomedical reviewing journals of quantitative significance. The top ten journals, British Medical Journal, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Archives of Internal Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, Quarterly Review of Biology, Bioscience, Canadian Medical Association Journal,* and American Journal of the Medical Sciences, accounted for 63.03% of the total number of reviews in 1970. PMID:4826479

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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…

  17. 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…

  18. 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…

  19. 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 research findings and suspect author identity even when manuscript review is blinded. Nevertheless, blinding appears to be effective in many cases, and support for continuing blinding was strong.

  20. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... treatment services. The review will focus on treatment programs and the substance abuse service system... Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant § 96.136 Independent peer review. (a) The State shall for the... with expertise in the field of alcohol and drug abuse treatment. Because treatment services may...

  1. CES4Health.info: A Web-Based Mechanism for Disseminating Peer-Reviewed Products of Community-Engaged Scholarship--Reflections on Year One

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Jordan, Catherine; Gelmon, Sherril; Ryan, Katharine; Seifer, Sarena D.

    2012-01-01

    CES4Health.info was launched in November 2009 as an online mechanism for peer reviewing and disseminating products of community-engaged scholarship in forms other than journal articles. One year after its launch, the authors conducted an online survey of CES4Health.info contributing authors, reviewers, and users of published products. Early…

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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...

  6. Reviews of Instructional Software in Scholarly Journals: A Selected Bibliography.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bantz, David A.; And Others

    This bibliography lists reviews of more than 100 instructional software packages, which are arranged alphabetically by discipline. Information provided for each entry includes the topical emphasis, type of software (i.e., simulation, tutorial, analysis tool, test generator, database, writing tool, drill, plotting tool, videodisc), the journal…

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

    PubMed Central

    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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. On the pitfalls of peer review.

    PubMed

    van Gunsteren, Wilfred

    2015-01-01

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

  11. 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

  12. 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 ...

  13. Peer review and the process of publishing of adverse drug event reports.

    PubMed

    Karch, Steven B

    2007-02-01

    Most doctors finish their careers without ever having published a scientific paper. The small percent that do mostly end up writing "case reports". But, unless the report describes some truly extraordinary event, very little ever comes of it, and their publication may do more harm than good. The problem is particularly acute in cases of alleged drug toxicity. Case reports are incomplete, uncontrolled, retrospective, lack operational criteria for identifying when an adverse event has actually occurred, and resemble nothing so much as hearsay evidence, a type of evidence that is prohibited in all courts in all of industrialized societies. When a journal, even a highly respected one, decides to publish hearsay, readers are utterly reliant on the integrity of the journal, the author, and the peer review process; such reliance may not always be warranted. Some recent examples of process failure are provided, as well as some suggestions about possible remedies, including the use of pharmaco-vigilance algorithms. PMID:17654770

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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!

  19. 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…

  20. Concurrent Peer Review of Psychiatric Care: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

    PubMed Central

    Luckey, James W.; Broughton, Andrew; Zelman, William; Sorensen, James E.

    1980-01-01

    This paper emerges from an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of peer review in altering either utilization patterns or reimbursement for two CHAMPUS-eligible populations receiving psychiatric care. The major focus is on a methodological problem heretofore overlooked in PSRO evaluation: autocorrelated data. Our results show that by taking autocorrelation of data into account, the findings were altered significantly.

  1. 38 CFR 77.10 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... of written comments based on the selection criteria established in § 77.5 and any weighting factors.... The method of peer review anticipated for each announced competitive program, including the weighting... requirements as listed in § 77.5 and weighting factors will be specified in the NOFA. Applications...

  2. 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 Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Standards, Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION...

  3. 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…

  4. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

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

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

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

  6. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Stine, M.D.

    1994-09-01

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

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. Rochester City School District Peer Assistance Review Program

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Zuroski, Kathryn

    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. The paper addresses the benefits to teachers and the school district that…

  11. 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 3406.23 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1890 INSTITUTION CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information §...

  12. 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 3405.16 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HIGHER EDUCATION CHALLENGE GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3405.16 Access...

  13. 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.

  14. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ..., 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ..., 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...

  17. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ..., 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...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2004-01-01

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

  19. 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…

  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. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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,…

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR Ch. I and III) and the requirements of the pertinent Request for Proposal. (b... Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635) and Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive... geography, to the extent practicable. (d) Term of peer review group members. Notwithstanding section...

  10. 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,…

  11. 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.

    ...

  12. 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…

  13. NIH Mulls Ways to Lure Back Veteran Peer Reviewers

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brainard, Jeffrey

    2008-01-01

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

  14. 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 AND AGRICULTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE...

  15. 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 AND AGRICULTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE...

  16. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

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

  17. 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…

  18. 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…

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

    PubMed

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

    2014-02-01

    The Joint Commission and other regulatory bodies have mandated that health care organizations implement processes for ongoing physician performance review. Software solutions, such as RADPEER™, have been created to meet this need efficiently. However, the authors believe that available systems are not optimally designed to produce changes in practice and overlook many important aspects of quality by excessive focus on diagnosis. The authors present a new model of peer review known as consensus-oriented group review, which is based on group discussion of cases in a conference setting and places greater emphasis on feedback than traditional systems of radiology peer review. By focusing on the process of peer review, consensus-oriented group review is intended to optimize performance improvement and foster group standards of practice. The authors also describe the software tool developed to implement this process of enriched peer review. PMID:24139321

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

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

    PubMed

    Kadar, Nicholas

    2014-12-01

    Appropriately conducted peer review of medical practices provides the greatest opportunity for health care professionals to learn from their mistakes and improve the quality and safety of health care. But in practice, peer review has not been an effective learning tool because it is subjective and irreproducible. Physicians reviewing the same cases disagree over the cause(s) of adverse outcomes and the quality and appropriateness of care, and agreement is not improved by training, use of objective review criteria, or having the reviewers discuss the cases. The underlying reason is a general lack of understanding and an oversimplified view of the causes of medical errors in complex, high-risk organization and a preoccupation with attributing medical errors to particular individuals. This approach leads to judgments, not understanding, and creates a culture of blame that stops learning and undermines the potential for improvement. For peer review to have an impact on the quality of care and patient safety, it must be standardized to remove cognitive biases and subjectivity from the process. PMID:25151185

  10. Scholarly Electronic Journals: Economic and Technical Issues.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Ganesh, Tirupalavanam G.; Glass, Gene V.; Andrews, Sandra; Middleton, James A.; Jennings, Tara A.; Leavy, Aisling

    This paper discusses scholarly communication and the emergence of electronic journals. Scholarly electronic journals are expanding their influence. Currently, about 70 peer-reviewed scholarly journals in education are freely available through the World Wide Web. Wider access to scholarship, new possibilities inherent in the electronic medium, and…

  11. 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,...

  12. 7 CFR 3401.12 - 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 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,...

  13. 7 CFR 3411.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Knight, Linda V.; Steinbach, Theresa A.

    2011-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Yankulov, Krassimir; Couto, Richard

    2012-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    White, Kiri; Boehm, Emilia; Chester, Andrea

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Adamek, Margaret Ellen

    2015-01-01

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

  19. Issues of Cultural Appropriateness and Pedagogical Efficacy: Exploring Peer Review in a Second Language Writing Class

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hu, Guangwei; Lam, Sandra Tsui Eu

    2010-01-01

    This paper reports on a study designed to investigate (a) whether peer review is an effective pedagogical activity with adult Chinese students in the teaching of second language (L2) academic writing and (b) how factors such as perceptions of the influence of peer reviewers' L2 proficiency, previous experience with peer review, feedback…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Ruecker, Todd

    2011-01-01

    This article explores the potential of dual-language cross-cultural peer review and how it improves on traditional monolingual and monocultural peer review. Drawing on scholarship related to international exchange programmes, peer review, and two-way immersion programmes in the United States as well as data collected while facilitating the…

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

  4. 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...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Yankulov, Krassimir; Couto, Richard

    2012-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2012-01-01

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

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    White, Kiri; Boehm, Emilia; Chester, Andrea

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Schwegler, Andria F.; Altman, Barbara W.

    2015-01-01

    Because feedback is a critical component of the continuous improvement cycle of the Quality Matters (QM) peer review process, the present research analyzed the feedback that peer reviewers provided to course developers after a voluntary, nonofficial QM peer review of online courses. Previous research reveals that the effects of feedback on…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Adamek, Margaret Ellen

    2015-01-01

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

  14. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52... composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists and... for awards of $60,000 or more, except those for the purposes of evaluation, dissemination...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Schwegler, Andria F.; Altman, Barbara W.

    2015-01-01

    Because feedback is a critical component of the continuous improvement cycle of the Quality Matters (QM) peer review process, the present research analyzed the feedback that peer reviewers provided to course developers after a voluntary, nonofficial QM peer review of online courses. Previous research reveals that the effects of feedback on…

  16. 7 CFR 3400.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 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...

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 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...

  18. 7 CFR 3401.12 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 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,...

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 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,...

  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...

  1. 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,...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Knight, Linda V.; Steinbach, Theresa A.

    2011-01-01

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

  3. 77 FR 19126 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: New Threshold for Peer Reviews of...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-03-30

    ... Register at 74 FR 37625 on July 29, 2009, to address the requirements for peer reviews of DoD solicitations... Regulation Supplement: New Threshold for Peer Reviews of Noncompetitive Contracts (DFARS Case 2012-D018... modify the threshold for noncompetitive contract peer reviews. DATES: Effective Date: April 30, 2012....

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Ruecker, Todd

    2011-01-01

    This article explores the potential of dual-language cross-cultural peer review and how it improves on traditional monolingual and monocultural peer review. Drawing on scholarship related to international exchange programmes, peer review, and two-way immersion programmes in the United States as well as data collected while facilitating the…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hoogeveen, Mariëtte; van Gelderen, Amos

    2013-01-01

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

  6. Peer review of teaching in Web-based courses in nursing.

    PubMed

    Cobb, K L; Billings, D M; Mays, R M; Canty-Mitchell, J

    2001-01-01

    With the explosion of college-level Web-based courses, concern has arisen about the quality of online courses. Peer review of online courses is one method of ensuring that these courses meet the highest standards. Although numerous colleges and universities use peer review for classroom presentations, clinical experiences, and course materials, peer review of an online course may require a different type of expertise. This article describes the process for conducting a peer review of teaching in Web-based courses and explains how documentation of peer review of an online course can be used for faculty development, promotion and tenure decisions, curriculum decisions, and program review. PMID:12141644

  7. Pulsed power peer review committee report.

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    2004-08-01

    As part of meeting the GRPA (Government Performance and Results Act) requirements and to provide input to Sandia's annual Performance Evaluation Assessment Report (PEAR) to the National Nuclear Security Administration in FY2004, a 14-member external review committee chaired by Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece was convened by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) on May 4-6, 2004 to review Sandia National Laboratories' Pulsed Power Programs. The scope of the review included activities in high energy density physics (HEDP), inertial confinement fusion (ICF), radiation/weapon physics, the petawatt laser initiative (PW) and fast ignition, equation-of state studies, radiation effects science and lethality, x-ray radiography, ZR development, basic research and pulsed power technology research and development, as well as electromagnetics and work for others. In his charge to the Committee, Dr. Jeffrey P. Quintenz, Director of Pulsed Power Sciences (Org. 1600) asked that the evaluation and feedback be based on three criteria: (1) quality of technical activities in science, technology, and engineering, (2) programmatic performance, management, and planning, and (3) relevance to national needs and agency missions. In addition, the director posed specific programmatic questions. The accompanying report, produced as a SAND document, is the report of the Committee's finding.

  8. Peer review of RELAP5/MOD3 documentation

    SciTech Connect

    Craddick, W.G.

    1993-12-31

    A peer review was performed on a portion of the documentation of the RELAP5/MOD3 computer code. The review was performed in two phases. The first phase was a review of Volume 3, Developmental Assessment problems, and Volume 4, Models and Correlations. The reviewers for this phase were Dr. Peter Griffith, Dr. Yassin Hassan, Dr. Gerald S. Lellouche, Dr. Marino di Marzo and Mr. Mark Wendel. The reviewers recommended a number of improvements, including using a frozen version of the code for assessment guided by a validation plan, better justification for flow regime maps and extension of models beyond their data base. The second phase was a review of Volume 6, Quality Assurance of Numerical Techniques in RELAP5/MOD3. The reviewers for the second phase were Mr. Mark Wendel and Dr. Paul T. Williams. Recommendations included correction of numerous grammatical and typographical errors and better justification for the use of Lax`s Equivalence Theorem.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Beeson, Tracy A.; Jones, Carol C.

    2010-02-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Heimdahl, Olaf E. R.; LaHoud, Paul; Chapman, Leon Darrel

    2004-08-01

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

  12. Stakeholder Perspectives on Citation and Peer-Based Rankings of Higher Education Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Wilkins, Stephen; Huisman, Jeroen

    2015-01-01

    The purpose of this article is to identify and discuss the possible uses of higher education journal rankings, and the associated advantages and disadvantages of using them. The research involved 40 individuals--lecturers, university managers, journal editors and publishers--who represented a range of stakeholders involved with research into…

  13. Impact of peer nutrition education on dietary behaviors and health outcomes among Latinos: A systematic literature review

    PubMed Central

    Pérez-Escamilla, Rafael; Hromi-Fiedler, Amber; Vega-López, Sonia; Bermúdez-Millán, Angela; Segura-Pérez, Sofia

    2009-01-01

    Objective This systematic review assesses the impact of peer education/counseling on nutrition and health outcomes among Latinos, and identifies future research needs. Design A systematic literature search was conducted by: a) searching internet databases, b) conducting backward searches from reference lists of articles of interest, c) manually reviewing the archives of the Center for Eliminating Health Disparities among Latinos (CEHDL), d) searching the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, and e) directly contacting researchers in the field. We reviewed 22 articles derived from experimental or quasi-experimental studies. Outcomes Type 2 diabetes behavioral and metabolic outcomes, breastfeeding, nutrition knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Results Peer nutrition education has a positive influence on diabetes self-management, breastfeeding outcomes, as well as on general nutrition knowledge and dietary intake behaviors among Latinos. Conclusions and implications There is a need for longitudinal randomized trials testing the impact of peer nutrition education interventions grounded on goal setting and culturally appropriate behavioral change theories. Inclusion of reliable scales and the construct of acculturation is needed for further advancing the knowledge in this promising field. Operational research is also needed to identify the optimal peer educator characteristics, the type of training that they should receive, the client loads and dosage (i.e., frequency and amount of contact needed between needed peer educator and client), and the best educational approaches and delivery settings. PMID:18565462

  14. An approach to peer review in forensic pathology.

    PubMed

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

    2013-07-01

    Peer review in forensic pathology has been a long time in evolution but may provide a very useful mechanism to check for, and to correct, errors, in addition to establishing an important educative vehicle for pathologists. A process is reported that has been established at our institution that involves both informal peer review in the mortuary and formal auditing of a set number of cases. Every autopsy case is discussed at a daily meeting of pathologists before a provisional cause of death is released. In addition, one in ten cases including all homicides, deaths in custody, suspicious and paediatric cases, and randomly selected additional cases undergo formal auditing by a second pathologist. Finally, administrative staff check the completed report. This formalized process, in a jurisdiction where autopsies are usually performed by only one pathologist, has been extremely useful in standardizing autopsy reports and in enabling pathologists to discuss cases and associated issues on a regular basis. PMID:23756506

  15. Peer Review: Lessons Learned in A Pediatric Radiology Department.

    PubMed

    Stanescu, A Luana; Parisi, Marguerite T; Weinberger, Edward; Ferguson, Mark R; Otto, Randolph K; Iyer, Ramesh S

    2016-01-01

    The purpose of this article is to illustrate types of diagnostic errors and feedback given to radiologists, using cases to support and clarify these categories. A comment-enhanced peer review system may be leveraged to generate a comprehensive feedback categorization scheme. These include errors of observation, errors of interpretation, inadequate patient data gathering, errors of communication, interobserver variability, informational feedback, and compliments. Much of this feedback is captured through comments associated with interpretative agreements. PMID:26489791

  16. The Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials: An Innovation in Electronic Journal Publishing.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Keyhani, Andrea

    1993-01-01

    Describes the "Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials," a joint venture of OCLC and the American Association for the Advancement of Science that is the first electronic peer-reviewed science journal with graphics and searchable full text. Topics discussed include library automation, document delivery, benefits of electronic journals, system…

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

    PubMed Central

    Vyas, Dinesh; Hozain, Ahmed E

    2014-01-01

    The Joint Commission on Accreditation requires hospitals to conduct peer review to retain accreditation. Despite the intended purpose of improving quality medical care, the peer review process has suffered several setbacks throughout its tenure. In the 1980s, abuse of peer review for personal economic interest led to a highly publicized multimillion-dollar verdict by the United States Supreme Court against the perpetrating physicians and hospital. The verdict led to decreased physician participation for fear of possible litigation. Believing that peer review was critical to quality medical care, Congress subsequently enacted the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) granting comprehensive legal immunity for peer reviewers to increase participation. While serving its intended goal, HCQIA has also granted peer reviewers significant immunity likely emboldening abuses resulting in Sham Peer Reviews. While legal reform of HCQIA is necessary to reduce sham peer reviews, further measures including the need for standardization of the peer review process alongside external organizational monitoring are critical to improving peer review and reducing the prevalence of sham peer reviews. PMID:24914357

  18. Medical journals' conflicts of interest in the publication of book reviews.

    PubMed

    Davis, Ronald M; Neale, Anne Victoria; Monsur, Joseph C

    2003-10-01

    The purpose of the study was to assess medical journals' conflicts of interest in the publication of book reviews. We examined book reviews published in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (N = 1,876) in five leading medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine. The main outcome measure was journal publication of reviews of books that had been published by the journal's own publisher, that had been edited or authored by a lead editor of the journal, or that posed another conflict of interest. We also surveyed the editors-in-chief of the five journals about their policies on these conflicts of interests. During the study period, four of the five journals published 30 book reviews presenting a conflict of interest: nineteen by the BMJ, five by the Annals, four by JAMA, and two by the Lancet. These reviews represent 5.8%, 2.7%, 0.7%, and 0.7%, respectively, of all book reviews published by the journals. These four journals, respectively, published reviews of 11.9%, 25.0%, 0.9%, and 1.0% of all medical books published by the journals' publishers. Only one of the 30 book reviews included a disclosure statement addressing the conflict of interest. None of the journals had a written policy pertaining to the conflicts of interest assessed in this study, although four reported having unwritten policies. We recommend that scientific journals and associations representing journal editors develop policies on conflicts of interest pertaining to book reviews. PMID:14652900

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Woodman, Richard J.; Parappilly, Maria B.

    2015-01-01

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

  20. References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Objectives To examine indexed health science journals to evaluate the prevalence of Wikipedia citations, identify the journals that publish articles with Wikipedia citations, and determine how Wikipedia is being cited. Design Bibliometric analysis. Study selection Publications in the English language that included citations to Wikipedia were retrieved using the online databases Scopus and Web of Science. Data sources To identify health science journals, results were refined using Ulrich’s database, selecting for citations from journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase. Using Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, 2011 impact factors were collected for all journals included in the search. Data extraction Resulting citations were thematically coded, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results 1433 full text articles from 1008 journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase with 2049 Wikipedia citations were accessed. The frequency of Wikipedia citations has increased over time; most citations occurred after December 2010. More than half of the citations were coded as definitions (n=648; 31.6%) or descriptions (n=482; 23.5%). Citations were not limited to journals with a low or no impact factor; the search found Wikipedia citations in many journals with high impact factors. Conclusions Many publications are citing information from a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone, although permanent, evidence based sources are available. We encourage journal editors and reviewers to use caution when publishing articles that cite Wikipedia. PMID:24603564