Science.gov

Sample records for peer reviewed journal

  1. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

    Scientific peer review is pivotal in health care research in that it facilitates the evaluation of findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. While the origins of peer review can be traced to the societies of the eighteenth century, it became an institutionalized part of the scholarly process in the latter half of the twentieth century. This was a response to the growth of research and greater subject specialization. With the current increase in the number of specialty journals, the peer review process continues to evolve to meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The peer review process itself faces challenges. Unblinded peer review might suffer from positive or negative bias towards certain authors, specialties, and institutions. Peer review can also suffer when editors and/or reviewers might be unable to understand the contents of the submitted manuscript. This can result in an inability to detect major flaws, or revelations of major flaws after acceptance of publication by the editors. Other concerns include potentially long delays in publication and challenges uncovering plagiarism, duplication, corruption and scientific misconduct. Conversely, a multitude of these challenges have led to claims of scientific misconduct and an erosion of faith. These challenges have invited criticism of the peer review process itself. However, despite its imperfections, the peer review process enjoys widespread support in the scientific community. Peer review bias is one of the major focuses of today's scientific assessment of the literature. Various types of peer review bias include content-based bias, confirmation bias, bias due to conservatism, bias against interdisciplinary research, publication bias, and the bias of conflicts of interest. Consequently, peer review would benefit from various changes and improvements with appropriate training of reviewers to provide quality reviews to maintain the quality and integrity of

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

    PubMed Central

    Ford, Emily

    2015-01-01

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

  3. Accelerated Peer-Review Journal Usage Technique for Undergraduates

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Wallace, J. D.

    2008-01-01

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

  4. Peer reviews and the role of a journal editor

    Technology Transfer Automated Retrieval System (TEKTRAN)

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cullen, David J.; Macaulay, Anne

    1992-01-01

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

  7. Reporting statistical analyses in peer review journal articles.

    PubMed

    Stephens, Richard; Grant, Maria J

    2015-06-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Wicherts, Jelte M.

    2016-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2011-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Weller, Anne C.

    2000-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2003-02-01

    This article provides an extensive tutorial for writers and reviewers involved with the preparation and evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication in dental journals. The contents were compiled from the Instructions for Authors printed in various peer-reviewed dental journals and from feedback from 10 workshops conducted for the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. The 10 major sections of a scientific manuscript are reviewed in detail in terms of content, format, and common errors; examples of good content are provided. The review process is described, and instructions on conducting fair and expeditious manuscript evaluations are provided for reviewers. In addition, a number of special topics are addressed, including potential conflicts of interest for an author, institutional review of experiments that involve human subjects or animals, and the reproduction of photographs and other images in color versus black and white. In summary, this article presents key guidelines to ensure compliance with the principles of sound scientific writing and the expeditious review of manuscripts prepared for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals. PMID:12616242

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Porter, Stephen R.

    2007-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Caulfield, Timothy; DeBow, Suzanne

    2005-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Paltridge, Brian

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Elmore, Susan A

    2016-02-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Forrester, M B

    2016-07-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Eysenbach, Gunther

    2004-09-30

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Widanski, Bozena Barbara; Courtright-Nash, Debra

    2006-01-01

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2001-05-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2013-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    PubMed 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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-06-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2012-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fischman, Josh

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    1991-04-01

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

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2013-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2013-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

  5. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-09-01

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

  6. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-11-01

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

  7. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-11-01

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

  8. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-12-01

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

  9. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-01-01

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

  10. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-02-01

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

  11. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-02-01

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

  12. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-10-01

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

  13. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-03-01

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

  14. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-12-01

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

  15. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Deonandan, Raywat; Patel, Premal; Winterbottom, Robyn

    2012-01-01

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

  17. Advancing Kinesiology through Improved Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

  18. Peer Review: Has It a Future?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Soh, Kay Cheng

    2013-01-01

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

  19. Thanking our peer reviewers

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rubin, Robert S.

    2006-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed 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

  3. 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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kumashiro, Kevin K.

    2005-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Francis, Mary

    2013-01-01

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

  6. 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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Tuten, Holly; Temesvari, Lesly

    2013-01-01

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

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

    EPA Science Inventory

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

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

    EPA Science Inventory

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Baethge, Christopher; Franklin, Jeremy; Mertens, Stephan

    2013-01-01

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

  11. Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2014-06-01

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

  12. Peer-review thoughts

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Barnes, Bill; Goodman, Maurice

    2016-03-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Navalta, James W.; Lyons, T. Scott

    2010-01-01

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ausloos, Marcel

    2015-11-01

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

  15. The "Peer" in "Peer Review"

    USGS Publications Warehouse

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

    2011-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

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

  17. The Art and Politics of Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rojewski, Jay W.; Domenico, Desirae M.

    2004-01-01

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

  18. Thank you reviewers- CytoJournal 2007

    PubMed Central

    2007-01-01

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

  19. Peer review and innovation.

    PubMed

    Spier, Raymond E

    2002-01-01

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

  20. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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…

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

    PubMed

    Yolcu, Umit; Ozcan, Ayse

    2015-11-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-01-01

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

  5. 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…

  6. NASA Product Peer Review Process

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Jenks, Ken

    2009-01-01

    This viewgraph presentation describes NASA's product peer review process. The contents include: 1) Inspection/Peer Review at NASA; 2) Reasons for product peer reviews; 3) Different types of peer reviews; and 4) NASA requirements for peer reviews. This presentation also includes a demonstration of an actual product peer review.

  7. Peer Review 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…

  8. Challenge to Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Burd, Stephen

    1994-01-01

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

  9. Peer Review of Teaching

    PubMed Central

    Fernandez, Charles E.; Yu, Jenny

    2007-01-01

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

  10. 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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2012-01-01

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

  13. EERE Peer Review Guide

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    The primary purpose of this guide is to provide managers and staff guidance in establishing formal in-progress peer review that provides intellectually fair expert evaluation of EERE RD3 and supporting business administration programs, both retrospective and prospective.

  14. Issues in Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sawamura, Mark H.

    2001-01-01

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

  15. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2012-11-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Kurdi, Madhuri S

    2015-08-01

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

  17. Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2012-01-01

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ausloos, Marcel; Nedic, Olgica; Dekanski, Aleksandar

    2016-08-01

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

  19. 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…

  20. 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.

  1. MELCOR Peer Review

    SciTech Connect

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

    1992-03-01

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

  2. Methodologies of Peer and Editorial Review: Changing Practices

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Selfe, Cynthia; Hawisher, Gail

    2012-01-01

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

  3. 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…

  4. 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.

  5. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2010-08-01

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

  6. NIH Peer Review

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

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

  7. 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…

  8. 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...

  9. Further thoughts on peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Cottey, Alan; noamsoker

    2016-04-01

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

  10. 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,…

  11. Recommendations for pathology peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2010-12-01

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

  12. Peer review: from recognition to improved practices.

    PubMed

    Cintas, Pedro

    2016-06-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Warner, J. S.

    2010-01-01

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

  14. Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.

    PubMed

    Lauer, Michael S; Nakamura, Richard

    2015-11-12

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

  15. CONTAIN independent peer review

    SciTech Connect

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

    1995-01-01

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

  16. 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…

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

    PubMed

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

    2003-10-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Ajao, O G

    1997-09-01

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

  19. Journalism and Institutional Review Boards

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dash, Leon

    2007-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Stahel, Philip F; Moore, Ernest E

    2014-01-01

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

  1. Peer Review: The CHAMPUS Program.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Stricker, George

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

  2. Editorial behaviors in peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2016-01-01

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

  3. 2011 OBP Peer Review Portal

    SciTech Connect

    2012-01-04

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Humble, Aine M.; Sharp, Elizabeth

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

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

  7. Science, Policy, and Peer Review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Kennedy, D.

    2006-12-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fischman, Mark G.

    2014-01-01

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

  9. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

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

  10. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

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

  11. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

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

  12. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

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

  13. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

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

  14. Factors in the Peer Review of Reviews.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Murray, Frank B.; Raths, James

    1996-01-01

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

  15. The Dedisciplining of Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Frodeman, Robert; Briggle, Adam

    2012-01-01

    The demand for greater public accountability is changing the nature of ex ante peer review at public science agencies worldwide. Based on a four year research project, this essay examines these changes through an analysis of the process of grant proposal review at two US public science agencies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the…

  16. A quick guide to writing a solid peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Nicholas, Kimberly A.; Gordon, Wendy S.

    2011-07-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Clark, R K F

    2012-08-01

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

  18. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

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

  19. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

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

  20. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

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

  1. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

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

  2. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

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

  3. Peer Review of Teaching: Sharing Best Practices

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Golparian, Shaya; Chan, Judy; Cassidy, Alice

    2015-01-01

    In this paper, we share examples of best peer review of teaching practices, drawing on our involvement in the design and implementation of the Peer Review of Teaching program at the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology. We review the history of the Peer Review of Teaching Initiative at the University of British Columbia and explain key…

  4. Independent Peer Reviews

    SciTech Connect

    2012-03-16

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

  5. Group Projects and Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dyrud, Marilyn A.

    2001-01-01

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

  6. 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…

  7. Graphite criteria peer review

    SciTech Connect

    1986-09-01

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-06-01

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

  12. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

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

  13. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

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

  14. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

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

  15. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

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

  16. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

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

  17. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

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

  18. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

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

  19. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

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

  20. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

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

  1. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

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

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

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

  5. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

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

  6. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  7. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  8. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

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

  9. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

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

  10. 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...

  11. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

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

  12. 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…

  13. Demystifying the peer-review process - workshop

    EPA Science Inventory

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

  14. 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

  15. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Faggion, C M

    2016-02-26

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

  17. Peer Review of Launch Environments

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Wilson, Timmy R.

    2011-01-01

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

  18. 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

  19. 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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

  1. Towards an effective data peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Düsterhus, André; Hense, Andreas

    2014-05-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Steinhauser, Georg; Adlassnig, Wolfram; Risch, Jesaka Ahau; Anderlini, Serena; Arguriou, Petros; Armendariz, Aaron Zolen; Bains, William; Baker, Clark; Barnes, Martin; Barnett, Jonathan; Baumgartner, Michael; Baumgartner, Thomas; Bendall, Charles A; Bender, Yvonne S; Bichler, Max; Biermann, Teresa; Bini, Ronaldo; Blanco, Eduardo; Bleau, John; Brink, Anthony; Brown, Darin; Burghuber, Christopher; Calne, Roy; Carter, Brian; Castaño, Cesar; Celec, Peter; Celis, Maria Eugenia; Clarke, Nicky; Cockrell, David; Collins, David; Coogan, Brian; Craig, Jennifer; Crilly, Cal; Crowe, David; Csoka, Antonei B; Darwich, Chaza; Del Kebos, Topiciprin; Derinaldi, Michele; Dlamini, Bongani; Drewa, Tomasz; Dwyer, Michael; Eder, Fabienne; de Palma, Raúl Ehrichs; Esmay, Dean; Rött, Catherine Evans; Exley, Christopher; Falkov, Robin; Farber, Celia Ingrid; Fearn, William; Felsmann, Sophie; Flensmark, Jarl; Fletcher, Andrew K; Foster, Michaela; Fountoulakis, Kostas N; Fouratt, Jim; Blanca, Jesus Garcia; Sotelo, Manuel Garrido; Gittler, Florian; Gittler, Georg; Gomez, Juan; Gomez, Juan F; Polar, Maria Grazia Gonzales; Gonzalez, Jossina; Gösselsberger, Christoph; Habermacher, Lynn; Hajek, Michael; Hakala, Faith; Haliburton, Mary-Sue; Hankins, John Robert; Hart, Jason; Hasslberger, Sepp; Hennessey, Donalyn; Herrmann, Andrea; Hersee, Mike; Howard, Connie; Humphries, Suzanne; Isharc, Laeeth; Ivanovski, Petar; Jenuth, Stephen; Jerndal, Jens; Johnson, Christine; Keleta, Yonas; Kenny, Anna; Kidd, Billie; Kohle, Fritz; Kolahi, Jafar; Koller-Peroutka, Marianne; Kostova, Lyubov; Kumar, Arunachalam; Kurosawa, Alejandro; Lance, Tony; Lechermann, Michael; Lendl, Bernhard; Leuchters, Michael; Lewis, Evan; Lieb, Edward; Lloyd, Gloria; Losek, Angelika; Lu, Yao; Maestracci, Saadia; Mangan, Dennis; Mares, Alberto W; Barnett, Juan Mazar; McClain, Valerie; McNair, John Sydney; Michael, Terry; Miller, Lloyd; Monzani, Partizia; Moran, Belen; Morris, Mike; Mößmer, Georg; Mountain, Johny; Phuthe, Onnie Mary Moyo; Muñoz, Marcos; Nakken, Sheri; Wambui, Anne Nduta; Neunteufl, Bettina; 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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

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

    PubMed

    Moher, David

    2015-01-01

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

  6. 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)

  7. 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…

  8. 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

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

    PubMed

    Lee, Christopher

    2012-01-01

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

  10. Sealed source peer review plan

    SciTech Connect

    Feldman, Alexander; Leonard, Lee; Burns, Ron

    2009-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2016-01-01

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

  12. The Problem of Humiliation in Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Comer, Debra R.; Schwartz, Michael

    2014-01-01

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

  13. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

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

  14. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

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

  15. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

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

  16. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

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

  17. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

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

  1. 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)...

  2. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

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

  3. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

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

  4. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  5. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

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

  6. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  7. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

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

  8. 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

  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. 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

  11. The power of nursing peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2014-11-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cassidy, Alice; Lee, Jack

    2011-01-01

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

  13. 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)

  14. 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.

  15. 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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nelson, Thomas

    2011-01-01

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

  17. 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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lakshmi, B. Samrajya

    2014-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Snell, Richard R

    2015-01-01

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

  20. Procedures for Peer Review of Grant Applications

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    US Department of Education, 2006

    2006-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Benson, P J

    2015-10-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Min, Hui-Tzu

    2008-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-07-26

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

  4. Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game

    PubMed Central

    Goldstone, Robert L.; Helbing, Dirk

    2016-01-01

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

  5. Understanding Peer Review of Scientific Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Association of American Universities, 2011

    2011-01-01

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

  6. Where is the trust in the peer review dynamic?

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ucko, Daniel

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

  7. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  8. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

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

  9. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

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

  10. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  11. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

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

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

    PubMed

    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

  13. 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

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

    PubMed

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

    2011-11-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Baldwin, Melinda

    2015-09-20

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

  16. 2013 Bioenergy Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    None, None

    2014-02-01

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

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. Rochester City School District Peer Assistance Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Chierichella, Patrick

    2010-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kumar, Prashant; Rafiq, Imran; Imam, Boulent

    2011-01-01

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

  1. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

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

  2. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  3. 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...

  4. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  5. 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...

  6. 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,...

  7. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

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

  8. 38 CFR 77.10 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  9. 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...

  10. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

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