Augmented Articles: The Future of Peer-Reviewed Publications?

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2015-08-01

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

Ethical Issues in Radiology Journalism, Peer Review, and Research.

PubMed

Katz, Douglas S; Gardner, James B; Hoffmann, Jason C; Patlas, Michael N; Bhargava, Puneet; Moshiri, Mariam; Remer, Erick M; Gould, Elaine S; Smith, Stacy

2016-08-17

Although some research and publication practices are clearly unethical, including fraud and plagiarism, other areas of research and publication, such as informed consent and conflicts of interest, fall into grayer areas. The purposes of this article are, therefore, to review a variety of relevant ethical issues in radiology-related journalism, peer review, and research; to review the radiology literature to date that has addressed these issues; and to present position statements and potential solutions to these problems.

Writing a journal article: guidance for novice authors.

PubMed

Price, Bob

2014-05-06

This article focuses on writing for journal publication. The purpose of writing is explored, paying particular attention to the message to be conveyed and the readership to which that message is addressed.The process of drafting and revising an article for publication is outlined, after which attention is turned to the peer-review process, what peer reviewers are looking for in an article, and what might then be required of the author in redrafting the article to meet the expectations of the journal. Prospective authors are encouraged to research the journal to which they plan to submit their work, and to then target their writing to the readership of that publication.

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

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

Underutilisation of routinely collected data in the HIV programme in Zambia: a review of quantitatively analysed peer-reviewed articles.

PubMed

Munthali, Tendai; Musonda, Patrick; Mee, Paul; Gumede, Sehlulekile; Schaap, Ab; Mwinga, Alwyn; Phiri, Caroline; Kapata, Nathan; Michelo, Charles; Todd, Jim

2017-06-13

The extent to which routinely collected HIV data from Zambia has been used in peer-reviewed published articles remains unexplored. This paper is an analysis of peer-reviewed articles that utilised routinely collected HIV data from Zambia within six programme areas from 2004 to 2014. Articles on HIV, published in English, listed in the Directory of open access journals, African Journals Online, Google scholar, and PubMed were reviewed. Only articles from peer-reviewed journals, that utilised routinely collected data and included quantitative data analysis methods were included. Multi-country studies involving Zambia and another country, where the specific results for Zambia were not reported, as well as clinical trials and intervention studies that did not take place under routine care conditions were excluded, although community trials which referred patients to the routine clinics were included. Independent extraction was conducted using a predesigned data collection form. Pooled analysis was not possible due to diversity in topics reviewed. A total of 69 articles were extracted for review. Of these, 7 were excluded. From the 62 articles reviewed, 39 focused on HIV treatment and retention in care, 15 addressed prevention of mother-to-child transmission, 4 assessed social behavioural change, and 4 reported on voluntary counselling and testing. In our search, no articles were found on condom programming or voluntary male medical circumcision. The most common outcome measures reported were CD4+ count, clinical failure or mortality. The population analysed was children in 13 articles, women in 16 articles, and both adult men and women in 33 articles. During the 10 year period of review, only 62 articles were published analysing routinely collected HIV data in Zambia. Serious consideration needs to be made to maximise the utility of routinely collected data, and to benefit from the funds and efforts to collect these data. This could be achieved with government support

"Press Start": The Value of an Online Student-Led, Peer-Reviewed Game Studies Journal

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Barr, Matthew

2017-01-01

In this article, an online student journal is described, and the ways in which student participants value the journal are discussed. "Press Start" is a peer-reviewed international journal of game studies, which aims to publish the best student work related to the academic study of video games. Content analysis of qualitative survey data…

Peer-Reviewed Articles on Inclusive Research: Do Co-Researchers with Intellectual Disabilities Have a Voice?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Strnadová, Iva; Walmsley, Jan

2018-01-01

Background: Inclusive research is increasingly common in intellectual disabilities research, but ways in which voice of co-researchers with intellectual disabilities is presented remain underexplored in the literature. Materials and Method: The authors conducted a literature review and analysis of peer-reviewed journal articles reporting on…

Predatory Journals, Peer Review, and Education Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Beall, Jeffrey

2017-01-01

This commentary examines the problem of predatory journals, low-quality open-access journals that seek to earn revenue from scholarly authors without following scholarly publishing best practices. Seeking to accept as many papers as possible, they typically do not perform a standard peer review, leading to the publication of improperly vetted…

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers.

PubMed

Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-01-01

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) comprises a multitude of disciplines, for example, acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, biofeedback, herbal medicine, and homeopathic medicine. While research on CAM interventions has increased and the CAM literature has proliferated since the mid-1990s, a number of our colleagues have expressed difficulties in deciding where to publish CAM articles. In response, we created a short guide to peer-reviewed MEDLINE-indexed journals that publish CAM articles. We examined numerous English-language sources to identify titles that met our criteria, whether specific to or overlapping CAM. A few of the resources in which we found the journal titles that we included are Alternative Medicine Foundation, American Holistic Nurses Association, CINAHL/Nursing Database, Journal Citation Reports database, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Research Council for Complementary Medicine. We organized the 69 selected titles for easy use by creating 2 user-friendly tables, one listing titles in alphabetical order and one listing them in topical categories. A few examples of the topical categories are Acupuncture, CAM (general), Chinese Medicine, Herbal/Plant/Phytotherapy, Neuroscience/Psychology, Nursing/Clinical Care. Our study is the first to list general CAM journals, specialty CAM journals, and overlapping mainstream journals that are peer reviewed, in English, and indexed in MEDLINE. Our goal was to assist both authors seeking publication and mainstream journal editors who receive an overabundance of publishable articles but must recommend that authors seek publication elsewhere due to space and priority issues. Publishing in journals indexed by and included in MEDLINE (or PubMed) ensures that citations to articles will be found easily. Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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…

Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data.

PubMed

Kovanis, Michail; Porcher, Raphaël; Ravaud, Philippe; Trinquart, Ludovic

Scientific peer-review and publication systems incur a huge burden in terms of costs and time. Innovative alternatives have been proposed to improve the systems, but assessing their impact in experimental studies is not feasible at a systemic level. We developed an agent-based model by adopting a unified view of peer review and publication systems and calibrating it with empirical journal data in the biomedical and life sciences. We modeled researchers, research manuscripts and scientific journals as agents. Researchers were characterized by their scientific level and resources, manuscripts by their scientific value, and journals by their reputation and acceptance or rejection thresholds. These state variables were used in submodels for various processes such as production of articles, submissions to target journals, in-house and external peer review, and resubmissions. We collected data for a sample of biomedical and life sciences journals regarding acceptance rates, resubmission patterns and total number of published articles. We adjusted submodel parameters so that the agent-based model outputs fit these empirical data. We simulated 105 journals, 25,000 researchers and 410,000 manuscripts over 10 years. A mean of 33,600 articles were published per year; 19 % of submitted manuscripts remained unpublished. The mean acceptance rate was 21 % after external peer review and rejection rate 32 % after in-house review; 15 % publications resulted from the first submission, 47 % the second submission and 20 % the third submission. All decisions in the model were mainly driven by the scientific value, whereas journal targeting and persistence in resubmission defined whether a manuscript would be published or abandoned after one or many rejections. This agent-based model may help in better understanding the determinants of the scientific publication and peer-review systems. It may also help in assessing and identifying the most promising alternative systems of peer

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

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. © The Author(s) 2015.

Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers.

PubMed

Kearney, Margaret H; Baggs, Judith G; Broome, Marion E; Dougherty, Molly C; Freda, Margaret C

2008-01-01

To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role. Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study. A 69-question survey containing both fixed-option and open-ended questions and accessed via the World Wide Web was completed by 1,675 nursing journal reviewers who had been invited to participate by editors of 52 nursing journals. Participants were from 44 countries, with 74% from the US, and 90% were nurses. The majority were doctorally prepared academics who were involved in research. They reported spending an average of 5 hours on each critique and completed an average of 7-8 reviews per year. The most common reason reported for becoming involved was personal contact with an editor. Lack of time because of competing work commitments was the most commonly cited barrier to reviewing and negative aspect of the role. The most common positive aspect was keeping up to date with the field. Nursing journal peer reviewers express rewards and challenges similar to those reported elsewhere for biomedical journal reviewers. Based on these findings, editors might consider new approaches to recruiting and supporting reviewers, and potential reviewers might gain insight into the role. Support of these distinguished scholars in this important role is critical to sustain the quality of scholarship that informs nursing practice, education, and research. Clinicians, researchers, and educators who rely on the quality of the articles published in nursing journals can learn from this survey about the background and experiences of those who protect that quality by providing expert feedback to authors and editors.

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

PubMed

Rigby, J; Cox, D; Julian, K

2018-01-01

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

The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality

PubMed Central

Callaham, Michael L; Tercier, John

2007-01-01

Background Peer review is considered crucial to the selection and publication of quality science, but very little is known about the previous experiences and training that might identify high-quality peer reviewers. The reviewer selection processes of most journals, and thus the qualifications of their reviewers, are ill defined. More objective selection of peer reviewers might improve the journal peer review process and thus the quality of published science. Methods and Findings 306 experienced reviewers (71% of all those associated with a specialty journal) completed a survey of past training and experiences postulated to improve peer review skills. Reviewers performed 2,856 reviews of 1,484 separate manuscripts during a four-year study period, all prospectively rated on a standardized quality scale by editors. Multivariable analysis revealed that most variables, including academic rank, formal training in critical appraisal or statistics, or status as principal investigator of a grant, failed to predict performance of higher-quality reviews. The only significant predictors of quality were working in a university-operated hospital versus other teaching environment and relative youth (under ten years of experience after finishing training). Being on an editorial board and doing formal grant (study section) review were each predictors for only one of our two comparisons. However, the predictive power of all variables was weak. Conclusions Our study confirms that there are no easily identifiable types of formal training or experience that predict reviewer performance. Skill in scientific peer review may be as ill defined and hard to impart as is “common sense.” Without a better understanding of those skills, it seems unlikely journals and editors will be successful in systematically improving their selection of reviewers. This inability to predict performance makes it imperative that all but the smallest journals implement routine review ratings systems to

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

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

Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.

PubMed

Pierie, J P; Walvoort, H C; Overbeke, A J

1996-11-30

Academic biomedical journals use peer review and editing to help to select and improve the quality of articles. We have investigated whether articles accepted by the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, the Dutch Journal of Medicine, were improved after peer review and editing (post-acceptance scientific and copy editing). 400 readers of the journal (100 each of medical students, recent medical graduates, general practitioners, and specialists) were invited to participate in a questionnaire survey. The first 25 from each group who agreed to participate were included. We posted a pack containing a set of identically appearing typescripts (ie, blinding) of the submitted, accepted, and published versions of 50 articles that had been published in Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. Each evaluator received two of the sets of versions, and each set was evaluated by one person from each group. The package also included two questionnaires: the first was used to compare the submitted with the accepted version (25 questions), the second compared the accepted with the published version (17 questions). The questions were answered on five-point scales, and were about the quality of the articles or were general/overall scores. We analysed the data as scores of 3-5 (ie, improvement) versus 1-2. After peer review, the quality in 14 of 23 questions (61%) was significantly improved (p = 0.03 or smaller). In particular, the overall score and general medical value were significantly improved (p = 0.00001 for each). Editing led to significant improvement in 11 of 16 questions (69%, p = 0.017 or smaller), and especially in style and readability (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004). Generally, we found no differences between the scores of the four categories of evaluators. 72% of the evaluators correctly identified which version was which. Evaluations by readers of the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd indicated significant improvement of published articles after both peer review and editing. We think that peer review

Do review articles boost journal impact factors? A longitudinal analysis for five pharmacology journals.

PubMed

Amiri, Marjan; Michel, Martin C

2018-06-21

The impact factor is a frequently applied tool in research output analytics. Based on five consecutive publication years each of five pharmacology journals, we have analyzed to which extent review articles yield more impact factor-relevant citations than original articles. Our analysis shows that review articles are quoted about twice as often as original articles published in the same year in the same journal. We conclude that inclusion of review articles does not substantially affect the impact factor of a journal unless they account for considerably more than 10% of all published articles.

Research Integrity and Peer Review-past highlights and future directions.

PubMed

Boughton, Stephanie L; Kowalczuk, Maria K; Meerpohl, Joerg J; Wager, Elizabeth; Moylan, Elizabeth C

2018-01-01

In May 2016, we launched Research Integrity and Peer Review , an international, open access journal with fully open peer review (reviewers are identified on their reports and named reports are published alongside the article) to provide a home for research on research and publication ethics, research reporting, and research on peer review. As the journal enters its third year, we reflect on recent events and highlights for the journal and explore how the journal is faring in terms of gender and diversity in peer review. We also share the particular interests of our Editors-in-Chief regarding models of peer review, reporting quality, common research integrity issues that arise during the publishing process, and how people interact with the published literature. We continue to encourage further research into peer review, research and publication ethics and research reporting, as we believe that all new initiatives should be evidence-based. We also remain open to constructive discussions of the developments in the field that offer new solutions.

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

PubMed

Pytynia, Kristen B

2017-06-01

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

Peer Review and Publication of Research Protocols and Proposals: A Role for Open Access Journals

PubMed Central

2004-01-01

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

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.

Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review.

PubMed

Sandewall, Erik

2012-01-01

Open peer review has been proposed for a number of reasons, in particular, for increasing the transparency of the article selection process for a journal, and for obtaining a broader basis for feedback to the authors and for the acceptance decision. The review discussion may also in itself have a value for the research community. These goals rely on the existence of a lively review discussion, but several experiments with open-process peer review in recent years have encountered the problem of faltering review discussions. The present article addresses the question of how lively review discussion may be fostered by relating the experience of the journal Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI) which was an early experiment with open peer review. Factors influencing the discussion activity are identified. It is observed that it is more difficult to obtain lively discussion when the number of contributed articles increases, which implies difficulties for scaling up the open peer review model. Suggestions are made for how this difficulty may be overcome.

Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review

PubMed Central

Sandewall, Erik

2011-01-01

Open peer review has been proposed for a number of reasons, in particular, for increasing the transparency of the article selection process for a journal, and for obtaining a broader basis for feedback to the authors and for the acceptance decision. The review discussion may also in itself have a value for the research community. These goals rely on the existence of a lively review discussion, but several experiments with open-process peer review in recent years have encountered the problem of faltering review discussions. The present article addresses the question of how lively review discussion may be fostered by relating the experience of the journal Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI) which was an early experiment with open peer review. Factors influencing the discussion activity are identified. It is observed that it is more difficult to obtain lively discussion when the number of contributed articles increases, which implies difficulties for scaling up the open peer review model. Suggestions are made for how this difficulty may be overcome. PMID:22363282

Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals

PubMed Central

Hirst, Allison; Altman, Douglas G.

2012-01-01

Background Pre-publication peer review of manuscripts should enhance the value of research publications to readers who may wish to utilize findings in clinical care or health policy-making. Much published research across all medical specialties is not useful, may be misleading, wasteful and even harmful. Reporting guidelines are tools that in addition to helping authors prepare better manuscripts may help peer reviewers in assessing them. We examined journals' instructions to peer reviewers to see if and how reviewers are encouraged to use them. Methods We surveyed websites of 116 journals from the McMaster list. Main outcomes were 1) identification of online instructions to peer reviewers and 2) presence or absence of key domains within instructions: on journal logistics, reviewer etiquette and addressing manuscript content (11 domains). Findings Only 41/116 journals (35%) provided online instructions. All 41 guided reviewers about the logistics of their review processes, 38 (93%) outlined standards of behaviour expected and 39 (95%) contained instruction about evaluating the manuscript content. There was great variation in explicit instruction for reviewers about how to evaluate manuscript content. Almost half of the online instructions 19/41 (46%) mentioned reporting guidelines usually as general statements suggesting they may be useful or asking whether authors had followed them rather than clear instructions about how to use them. All 19 named CONSORT for reporting randomized trials but there was little mention of CONSORT extensions. PRISMA, QUOROM (forerunner of PRISMA), STARD, STROBE and MOOSE were mentioned by several journals. No other reporting guideline was mentioned by more than two journals. Conclusions Although almost half of instructions mentioned reporting guidelines, their value in improving research publications is not being fully realised. Journals have a responsibility to support peer reviewers. We make several recommendations including wider

Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles.

PubMed

Lee, Kirby P; Schotland, Marieka; Bacchetti, Peter; Bero, Lisa A

2002-06-05

The ability to identify scientific journals that publish high-quality research would help clinicians, scientists, and health-policy analysts to select the most up-to-date medical literature to review. To assess whether journal characteristics of (1) peer-review status, (2) citation rate, (3) impact factor, (4) circulation, (5) manuscript acceptance rate, (6) MEDLINE indexing, and (7) Brandon/Hill Library List indexing are predictors of methodological quality of research articles, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 243 original research articles involving human subjects published in general internal medical journals. The mean (SD) quality score of the 243 articles was 1.37 (0.22). All journals reported a peer-review process and were indexed on MEDLINE. In models that controlled for article type (randomized controlled trial [RCT] or non-RCT), journal citation rate was the most statistically significant predictor (0.051 increase per doubling; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.037-0.065; P<.001). In separate analyses by article type, acceptance rate was the strongest predictor for RCT quality (-0.113 per doubling; 95% CI, -0.148 to -0.078; P<.001), while journal citation rate was the most predictive factor for non-RCT quality (0.051 per doubling; 95% CI, 0.044-0.059; P<.001). High citation rates, impact factors, and circulation rates, and low manuscript acceptance rates and indexing on Brandon/Hill Library List appear to be predictive of higher methodological quality scores for journal articles.

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

PubMed Central

Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara

2014-01-01

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current

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.

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. Copyright © 2016 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Do peer review models affect clinicians' trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors.

PubMed

Patel, Jigisha; Pierce, Mary; Boughton, Stephanie L; Baldeweg, Stephanie E

2017-01-01

The aim of this survey was to determine the level of awareness and understanding of peer review and peer review models amongst junior hospital doctors and whether this influences clinical decision-making. A 30-question online anonymous survey was developed aimed at determining awareness of peer review models and the purpose of peer review, perceived trustworthiness of different peer review models and the role of peer review in clinical decision-making. It was sent to 800 trainee doctors in medical specialties on the University College London Partners trainee database. The response rate was (178/800) 22%. Most respondents were specialist registrars. Checking that research is conducted correctly (152/178, 85%) and the data interpreted correctly (148/178, 83%) were viewed as the most important purposes of peer review. Most respondents were aware of open (133/178, 75%), double-blind (125/178, 70%) and single-blind peer review (121/178, 68%). 101/178 (57%) had heard of collaborative, 87/178 (49%) of post publication and 29/178 (16%) of decoupled peer review. Of those who were aware of double-blind, single-blind open and collaborative peer review, 85 (68%), 82 (68%), 74 (56%) and 24 (24%), respectively, understood how they worked. The NEJM , Lancet and The BMJ were deemed to have most trustworthy peer review, 137/178 (77%), 129/178 (72%) and 115/178 (65%), respectively. That peer review had taken place was important for a journal content to be used for clinical decision-making 152/178 (85%), but the ability to see peer review reports was not as important 22/178 (12%). Most felt there was a need for peer review training and that this should be at the specialist registrar stage of training. Junior hospital doctors view peer review to be important as a means of quality control, but do not value the ability to scrutinize peer review themselves. The unquestioning acceptance of peer review as final validation in the field of medicine emphasises not only the responsibility held

The Peer Education Approach in Adolescents- Narrative Review Article.

PubMed

Abdi, Fatemeh; Simbar, Masoumeh

2013-11-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

Excessive and disproportionate advertising in peer-reviewed journals.

PubMed

Friedman, Lee S; Richter, Elihu D

2006-01-01

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

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2015-09-29

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

Prevalence of articles with honorary and ghost authors in three pharmacy journals.

PubMed

Dotson, Bryan; Slaughter, Richard L

2011-09-15

The prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in articles published in 2009 in three peer-reviewed pharmacy journals was studied. A 20-question survey was e-mailed to corresponding authors of articles with two or more authors published in 2009 in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Annals of Pharmacotherapy, and Pharmacotherapy. The survey solicited the following information: demographic characteristics of the corresponding author, information about the published article, information to determine whether any of the authors did not meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship, and information to determine if an individual contributed substantially to the research or writing of the article but was not listed as an author. Of the 491 corresponding authors to whom the survey was sent, 457 had a working e-mail address; 114 surveys were completed (24.9% response rate). Usable responses were provided by 112 authors. The prevalence of articles with honorary and ghost authors was 14.3% and 0.9%, respectively. Honorary authorship was more common in original research than review articles. Articles with honorary authors had longer bylines than articles without honorary authors (mean number of authors, 4.9 versus 3.7; p = 0.002). The proportion of articles with an honorary author was 1.9% for articles with fewer than 4 authors, 25% for articles with 4 or 5 authors, and 29.4% for articles with more than 5 authors (p = 0.001). A survey sent to the corresponding authors of articles published in 2009 in three peer-reviewed pharmacy journals revealed that a substantial percentage of articles demonstrated evidence of honorary or ghost authorship.

College Reading Research and Practice: Articles from "The Journal of College Literacy and Learning."

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Paulson, Eric J., Ed.; Laine, Michaeline E., Ed.; Biggs, Shirley A., Ed.; Bullock, Terry L., Ed.

This volume presents 27 articles from "The Journal of College Literacy and Learning," a peer-reviewed journal (formerly the "Forum for Reading") produced by the International Reading Association's College Literacy and Learning Special Interest Group. Following "Foreword" (Donna E. Alvermann) and…

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…

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

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…

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

A corpus and a concordancer of academic journal articles.

PubMed

Kwary, Deny A

2018-02-01

This data article presents a corpus (i.e. a selection of a big number of words in an electronic form) and a concordancer (i.e. a tool to show the word in its context of use) of academic journal articles. As the title suggests, the data were collected from research articles published in academic journals. The corpus contains 5,686,428 words selected from 895 journal articles published by Elsevier in 2011-2015. The corpus is classified into four subject areas: Health sciences, Life sciences, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences, following the classifications of Scopus, which is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. To ease the access and utilization of the corpus, a program to produce the key word in context (KWIC) and word frequency was created and placed on the website: corpus.kwary.net. The corpus is a valuable resource for researchers, teachers, and translators working on academic English.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Alderman, Pamela Lea McCloud

2012-01-01

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

Peer review.

PubMed

Twaij, H; Oussedik, S; Hoffmeyer, P

2014-04-01

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

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…

Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process.

PubMed

Hojat, Mohammadreza; Gonnella, Joseph S; Caelleigh, Addeane S

2003-01-01

High publication demands and the low acceptance rate of peer review journals place the journal editors and their reviewers in a powerful position. Journal reviewers have a vital role not only in influencing the journal editor's publication decisions, but also in the very nature and direction of scientific research. Because of their influence in peer review outcomes, journal reviewers are aptly described as the "gatekeepers of science." In this article we describe several pitfalls that can impede reviewers' impartial judgement. These include such issues as confirmatory bias, the negative results bias (the file drawer problem), the Matthew effect, the Doctor Fox effect, and gender, race, theoretical orientation, and "political correctness." We argue that procedures currently used by many professional journals, such as blind or masked review, may not completely alleviate the effects of these pitfalls. Instead, we suggest that increasing reviewers' awareness of the pitfalls, accountability, and vigilance can improve fairness in the peer review process. The ultimate responsibilities belong to the journal editors who are confronted with the difficult task of satisfying journal readers, contributors, reviewers, and owners. We recommend that the journal editors conduct periodic internal and external evaluations of their journals' peer review process and outcomes, with participation of reviewers, contributors, readers and owners.

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

PubMed Central

2018-01-01

Artificial intelligence (AI) is projected to substantially influence clinical practice in the foreseeable future. However, despite the excitement around the technologies, it is yet rare to see examples of robust clinical validation of the technologies and, as a result, very few are currently in clinical use. A thorough, systematic validation of AI technologies using adequately designed clinical research studies before their integration into clinical practice is critical to ensure patient benefit and safety while avoiding any inadvertent harms. We would like to suggest several specific points regarding the role that peer-reviewed medical journals can play, in terms of study design, registration, and reporting, to help achieve proper and meaningful clinical validation of AI technologies designed to make medical diagnosis and prediction, focusing on the evaluation of diagnostic accuracy efficacy. Peer-reviewed medical journals can encourage investigators who wish to validate the performance of AI systems for medical diagnosis and prediction to pay closer attention to the factors listed in this article by emphasizing their importance. Thereby, peer-reviewed medical journals can ultimately facilitate translating the technological innovations into real-world practice while securing patient safety and benefit. PMID:29805337

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

PubMed

Park, Seong Ho; Kressel, Herbert Y

2018-05-28

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

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.

Peer-reviewed public health journals from Arabic-speaking countries: An updated snapshot.

PubMed

Aboul-Enein, Basil H; Bernstein, Joshua; Bowser, Jacquelyn E

2017-02-01

There is a positive association between availability of regional peer-reviewed public health information systems and progressive change in community and population health. The objective of this brief report was to identify public health journals in Arabic-speaking countries actively publishing as of 2016. We conducted an electronic search in several electronic database records for public health journals using a combination of search terms. We excluded journals that focused on human medicine, veterinary medicine, nursing, and other discipline-specific or clinical health professions. We identified twenty-five public health journals for review. Five journals were interrupted or discontinued. Only three journals had a consistent, uninterrupted active publication history of greater than 20 years. Most journals were not in the regional native language. Introduction of regional public health-dedicated journals with in-print and electronic availability and also to be published in region-native languages may require interdisciplinary partnerships. Region-wide public health journals such as the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal could serve as an ideal model for the establishment of additional local and regional public health journals in Arabic-speaking countries.

Open access to scientific articles: a review of benefits and challenges.

PubMed

Björk, Bo-Christer

2017-03-01

The Internet has fundamentally changed the publishing of scholarly peer reviewed journals, and the way readers find and access articles. Digital access is nowadays the norm, in particular for researchers. The Internet has enabled a totally new business model, Open Access (OA), in which an article is openly available in full text for anyone with Internet access. This article reviews the different options to achieve this, whether by journals changing their revenue structures from subscription to publishing charges, or authors utilizing a number of options for posting OA versions of article manuscripts in repositories. It also discusses the regrettable emergence of "predatory" publishers, who spam academics, and make money by promising them rapid publication with only the semblance of peer review. The situation is further discussed from the viewpoints of different stakeholders, including academics as authors and readers, practicing physicians and the general public.

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

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

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, mechanismsmore » 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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-02-01

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.

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-04-01

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.

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-05-01

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.

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-03-01

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

Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research.

PubMed

Iantorno, Stephanie E; Andras, Lindsay M; Skaggs, David L

2016-07-01

Retrospective analysis of peer review comments. To assess the likelihood that comments provided by peer reviewers of one orthopaedic journal would be similar to comments of reviewers from the same journal and a second journal. The consistency of the peer review process in orthopedic research has not been objectively examined. Nine separate clinical papers related to spinal deformity were submitted for publication in major peer-reviewed journals and initially rejected. The exact same manuscripts were then submitted to different journals. All papers were returned with comments from two to three reviewers from each journal. Reviews were divided into distinct conceptual criticisms that were regarded as separate comments. Comments were compared between reviewers of the same journal and to comments from reviewers of the second journal. When comparing comments from reviewers of the same journal, an average of 11% of comments were repeated (range 0% [0/12] to 23% [3/13]). On average, 20% of comments from the first journal were repeated by a reviewer at the second journal (range 10% [1/10] to 33% [6/18]). If a comment was made by two or more reviewers from the first journal, it had a higher likelihood (43% [6/14]) of being repeated by a reviewer from the second journal. When an identical manuscript is submitted to a second journal after being rejected, 80% of peer review comments from the first journal are not repeated by reviewers from the second journal. One may question if addressing every peer review comment in a rejected manuscript prior to resubmission is an efficient use of resources. Comments that appear twice or more in the first journal review are more likely to reappear and may warrant special attention from the researcher. Level IV. Copyright © 2016 Scoliosis Research Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

The privilege and burden of peer review.

PubMed

Blume, Arthur W; Schmaling, Karen B

2016-01-01

Peer review is a core value and method of quality control in psychological research, academic psychology, and other disciplines, but little is known about the peer-reviewing behavior of ethnic minority reviewers in particular. The purpose of this study was to examine the self-identified ethnicity of those invited to peer review articles for 76 journals that utilized the American Psychological Association's Journals Back Office (JBO) system from 2003 to 2012. It was hypothesized that a modest increase in the ratio of requests for reviews from self-identified ethnic minority reviewers would be observed over time, that self-identified ethnic minority reviewers would be less likely to refuse a review request than those who do not self-identify as an ethnic minority, and finally that increases in reviewer burden would be evident in significant increases in declines to requests by all reviewers. Reviewer requests and responses were examined among the 76 journals that used the JBO system over a 10-year period. Using hierarchical linear models, the percentage of review invitations extended to ethnic minorities was found to significantly increase over time: Initially, an estimated 8.34% of review requests were made to ethnic minority reviewers, and that percentage increased an average of 0.41% per year. Ethnic minority reviewers were significantly less likely to refuse a review request than ethnic majority reviewers. Results are discussed in terms of perceived pressure to demonstrate scholastic impact and the disproportionate service burden often borne by ethnic minority psychologists. (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

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

A suggested outline for writing curriculum development journal articles: the IDCRD format.

PubMed

Reznich, C B; Anderson, W A

2001-01-01

During the past decade, medical school and residency faculty have been active in developing and revising curricula for medical education programs. Many of these curriculum development efforts ultimately are published in peer-reviewed professional journals as articles or abstracts. Unlike research publications, no uniform format currently exists for reporting curriculum development efforts in the peer-reviewed literature. A suggested format for organizing curriculum development manuscripts consists of the introduction, development, curriculum, results, and discussion (IDCRD). Detailed descriptions of each section are discussed herein. The IDCRD manuscript outline is intended to provide useful guidance to medical educators in publishing their curriculum development efforts. Journal editors are encouraged to recognize the importance of providing uniform descriptions of curricula so that readers can benefit from the experience of others and replicate successful curriculum efforts.

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…

Scientific Journal Articles

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

These are abstracts of peer-reviewed articles, authored by Office of Children's Health Protection staff. They cover topics including risk assessment for early life stages, inhalation dosimetry, and manganese in drinking water.

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…

Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PubMed

Bruce, Rachel; Chauvin, Anthony; Trinquart, Ludovic; Ravaud, Philippe; Boutron, Isabelle

2016-06-10

trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals.

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…

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

A Content and Methodological Review of Articles Concerning Multiracial Issues in Six Major Counseling Journals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Edwards, Lisa M.; Pedrotti, Jennifer Teramoto

2008-01-01

This study describes a comprehensive content and methodological review of articles about multiracial issues in 6 journals related to counseling up to the year 2006. The authors summarize findings about the 18 articles that emerged from this review of the "Journal of Counseling Psychology," "Journal of Counseling & Development," "The Counseling…

Social Media and Peer-Reviewed Medical Journal Readership: A Randomized Prospective Controlled Trial.

PubMed

Hawkins, C Matthew; Hunter, Makeba; Kolenic, Giselle E; Carlos, Ruth C

2017-05-01

To prospectively evaluate the impact of increasing levels of social media engagement on page visits and web-link clicks for content published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology. A three-arm prospective trial was designed using a control group, a basic Twitter intervention group (using only the Journal's @JACRJournal Twitter account), and an enhanced Twitter intervention group (using the personal Twitter accounts of editorial board members and trainees). Overall, 428 articles published between June 2013 and July 2015 were randomly assigned to the three groups. Article-specific tweets for both intervention arms were sent between September 14, 2015, and October 28, 2015. Primary end points included article-specific weekly and monthly page visits on the journal's Elsevier website (Amsterdam, Netherlands). For the two intervention groups, additional end points included 7-day and 30-day Twitter link clicks. Weekly page visits for the enhanced Twitter arm (mean 18.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 15.6-20.7) were significantly higher when compared with the weekly page visits for the control arm (mean 7.6; 95% CI 1.7-13.6). However, there was no demonstrable increase in weekly page visits (mean 9.4; 95% CI 7.4-11.5) for the basic Twitter arm compared with the control arm. No intervention effects over control, regardless of Twitter arm assignment, were demonstrated for monthly page visits. The enhanced Twitter intervention resulted in a statistically significant increase in both 7-day and 30-day Twitter link clicks compared with the basic Twitter intervention group. An organized social media strategy, with focused social media activity from editorial board members, increased engagement with content published in a peer-reviewed radiology journal. Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Peer review and the publication process.

PubMed

Ali, Parveen Azam; Watson, Roger

2016-10-01

To provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, selection of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals. Discussion paper. This paper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and experience of contributing as peer reviewers and editors in the field of health care, including nursing. There are various types of peer review: single blind; double blind; open; and post-publication review. The role of the reviewers in reviewing manuscripts and their contribution to the scientific and academic community remains important.

The peer review process: a primer for JNIS readers.

PubMed

Hirsch, Joshua A; Manchikanti, Laxmaiah; Albuquerque, Felipe C; Leslie-Mazwi, Thabele M; Lev, Michael H; Linfante, Italo; Mocco, J; Rai, Ansaar T; Schaefer, Pamela W; Tarr, Robert W

2017-07-01

Peer review of scientific articles submitted for publication has been such an integral component of innovation in science and medicine that participants (be they readers, reviewers, or editors) seldom consider its complexity. Not surprisingly, much has been written about scientific peer review. The aim of this report is to share some of the elements of that discourse with readers of the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery ( JNIS ). Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Improving the peer review skills of young rheumatologists and researchers in rheumatology: the EMEUNET Peer Review Mentoring Program.

PubMed

Rodríguez-Carrio, Javier; Putrik, Polina; Sepriano, Alexandre; Moltó, Anna; Nikiphorou, Elena; Gossec, Laure; Kvien, Tore K; Ramiro, Sofia

2018-01-01

Although peer review plays a central role in the maintenance of high standards in scientific research, training of reviewing skills is not included in the common education programmes. The Emerging EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) Network (EMEUNET) developed a programme to address this unmet need. The EMEUNET Peer Review Mentoring Program for Rheumatology Journals promotes a systematic training of reviewing skills by engaging mentees in a 'real world' peer review experience supervised by experienced mentors with support from rheumatology journals. This viewpoint provides an overview of this initiative and its outcomes, and discusses its potential limitations. Over 4 years, 18 mentors and 86 mentees have participated. Among the 33 participants who have completed the programme, 13 (39.3%) have become independent reviewers for Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases after the training. This programme has been recently evaluated by a survey and qualitative interviews, revealing a high interest in this initiative. The main strengths (involvement of a top journal and learning opportunities) and weaknesses of the programme (limited number of places and insufficient dissemination) were identified. Overall, this programme represents an innovative and successful approach to peer review training. Continuous evaluation and improvement are key to its functioning. The EMEUNET Peer Review Mentoring Program may be used as a reference for peer review training in areas outside rheumatology.

Lessons Learned from PISA: A Systematic Review of Peer-Reviewed Articles on the Programme for International Student Assessment

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hopfenbeck, Therese N.; Lenkeit, Jenny; El Masri, Yasmine; Cantrell, Kate; Ryan, Jeanne; Baird, Jo-Anne

2018-01-01

International large-scale assessments are on the rise, with the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) seen by many as having strategic prominence in education policy debates. The present article reviews PISA-related English-language peer-reviewed articles from the programme's first cycle in 2000 to its most current in 2015. Five…

Conflict of interest and disclosure policies in psychiatry and medicine: a comparative study of peer-reviewed journals.

PubMed

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

2012-01-01

The authors reviewed and characterized conflict of interest (COI) and disclosure policies published in peer-reviewed psychiatric and nonpsychiatric journals. The authors examined peer-reviewed publications in the psychiatric (N=20) and nonpsychiatric (N=20) literature. Using qualitative and quantitative approaches, they designed an instrument to compare COI and disclosure policies appearing in print or journal websites between January and May 2009. All journals published COI/disclosure policies that were accessible in print and online. There was substantial variability in policies, but little variability appeared to be field-specific. Psychiatric journals were more likely to request "complete" disclosure, and nonpsychiatric journals to request "relevant" disclosure, but medical journals tended to provide more detailed information about what could constitute a potential conflict and asked for broader, potentially relevant funding sources. Nonpsychiatric journals were more likely to give examples in their policies. Psychiatric journals were more likely to publish disclosures. This preliminary study suggests that there are discrepancies in the disclosure and COI information that journals request from authors. By and large, such discrepancies are not substantially different between psychiatric and nonpsychiatric journals. Challenges in codifying COI policies and creating standardized approaches across periodicals and across disciplines may reflect ongoing debates about what exactly constitutes a COI, what needs to be disclosed, and who is responsible for disclosing. Further study is warranted into how journals convey COI policies and how such policies can be optimized.

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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. 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. 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. Our study is based on ophthalmology journals and we only analyze the impact factors with different citation time window in 2013, so it has yet to be ascertained whether other disciplines (especially those with a later cited peak) or other years would follow the same or similar patterns. We designed the survey questionnaire

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.

The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

PubMed Central

Saper, Clifford B; Maunsell, John HR

2009-01-01

As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the experiment has worked. In order to encourage dissemination of the details outlined in this Editorial, it will also be published in other journals in the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium. PMID:19284614

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-03-01

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.

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-05-01

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.

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2017-11-01

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.

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2017-10-01

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.

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2017-09-01

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.

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-02-01

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.

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2017-12-01

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.

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-03-01

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.

Publishing interim results of randomised clinical trials in peer-reviewed journals.

PubMed

Counsell, Nicholas; Biri, Despina; Fraczek, Joanna; Hackshaw, Allan

2017-02-01

Interim analyses of randomised controlled trials are sometimes published before the final results are available. In several cases, the treatment effects were noticeably different after patient recruitment and follow-up completed. We therefore conducted a literature review of peer-reviewed journals to compare the reported treatment effects between interim and final publications and to examine the magnitude of the difference. We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE from 1990 to 2014 (keywords: 'clinical trial' OR 'clinical study' AND 'random*' AND 'interim' OR 'preliminary'), and we manually identified the corresponding final publication. Where the electronic search produced a final report in which the abstract cited interim results, we found the interim publication. We also manually searched every randomised controlled trial in eight journals, covering a range of impact factors and general medical and specialist publications (1996-2014). All paired articles were checked to ensure that the same comparison between interventions was available in both. In all, 63 studies are included in our review, and the same quantitative comparison was available in 58 of these. The final treatment effects were smaller than the interim ones in 39 (67%) trials and the same size or larger in 19 (33%). There was a marked reduction, defined as a ≥20% decrease in the size of the treatment effect from interim to final analysis, in 11 (19%) trials compared to a marked increase in 3 (5%), p = 0.057. The magnitude of percentage change was larger in trials where commercial support was reported, and increased as the proportion of final events at the interim report decreased in trials where commercial support was reported (interaction p = 0.023). There was no evidence of a difference between trials that stopped recruitment at the interim analysis where this was reported as being pre-specified versus those that were not pre-specified (interaction p = 0.87). Published interim

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…

Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals.

PubMed

Albert, Arianne Y K; Gow, Jennifer L; Cobra, Alison; Vines, Timothy H

2016-01-01

There is concern in the academic publishing community that it is becoming more difficult to secure reviews for peer-reviewed manuscripts, but much of this concern stems from anecdotal and rhetorical evidence. We examined the proportion of review requests that led to a completed review over a 6-year period (2009-2015) in a mid-tier biology journal ( Molecular Ecology ). We also re-analyzed previously published data from four other mid-tier ecology journals ( Functional Ecology , Journal of Ecology , Journal of Animal Ecology , and Journal of Applied Ecology ), looking at the same proportion over the period 2003 to 2010. The data from Molecular Ecology showed no significant decrease through time in the proportion of requests that led to a review (proportion in 2009 = 0.47 (95 % CI = 0.43 to 0.52), proportion in 2015 = 0.44 (95 % CI = 0.40 to 0.48)). This proportion did decrease for three of the other ecology journals (changes in proportions from 2003 to 2010 = -0.10, -0.18, and -0.09), while the proportion for the fourth ( Functional Ecology ) stayed roughly constant (change in proportion = -0.04). Overall, our data suggest that reviewer agreement rates have probably declined slightly but not to the extent suggested by the anecdotal and rhetorical evidence.

The impact of social media on readership of a peer-reviewed medical journal.

PubMed

Hawkins, C Matthew; Hillman, Bruce J; Carlos, Ruth C; Rawson, James V; Haines, Rebecca; Duszak, Richard

2014-11-01

Social media microblogging has made major inroads in physician education and information exchange. The authors evaluated their early experience with Twitter "tweet chat" sessions as a medium to expand the reach and audience of a peer-reviewed radiology journal. The authors analyzed Twitter activity metadata tagged with the #JACR hashtag from the first 6 tweet chat sessions sponsored and promoted by JACR. The assessment included multiple metrics: radiologist versus nonradiologist session participants, individual tweets, tweets with embedded web links, common words, retweets, and impressions. We correlated Twitter metrics with temporally related journal website activity. Each session generated a mean of 444 ± 172 tweets contributed by a mean of 33 ± 14 participants (45.4% nonradiologists) and resulted in a mean of 1,163,712 ± 441,971 impressions. Per session, a mean of 19 ± 7.6 tweets contained web links, and 138 ± 35.6 tweets were retweets. Monthly journal website article views increased from 31,220 to 41,017 (+31.4%), journal website visits increased from 9,192 to 11,539 (+25.5%), and unique visitors increased from 7,368 to 8,841 (+20%). Since JACR tweet chats were initiated, mean monthly journal website visits and page views per month directly from twitter.com increased from 24 to 101 (+321%) and from 38 to 159 (+318%), respectively. Early experience with JACR tweet chats demonstrates that organizing Twitter microblogging activities around topics of general interest to their target readership bears the potential for medical journals to increase their audiences and reach. Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Articles by Latin American Authors in Prestigious Journals Have Fewer Citations

PubMed Central

Meneghini, Rogerio; Packer, Abel L.; Nassi-Calò, Lilian

2008-01-01

Background The journal Impact factor (IF) is generally accepted to be a good measurement of the relevance/quality of articles that a journal publishes. In spite of an, apparently, homogenous peer-review process for a given journal, we hypothesize that the country affiliation of authors from developing Latin American (LA) countries affects the IF of a journal detrimentally. Methodology/Principal Findings Seven prestigious international journals, one multidisciplinary journal and six serving specific branches of science, were examined in terms of their IF in the Web of Science. Two subsets of each journal were then selected to evaluate the influence of author's affiliation on the IF. They comprised contributions (i) with authorship from four Latin American (LA) countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico) and (ii) with authorship from five developed countries (England, France, Germany, Japan and USA). Both subsets were further subdivided into two groups: articles with authorship from one country only and collaborative articles with authorship from other countries. Articles from the five developed countries had IF close to the overall IF of the journals and the influence of collaboration on this value was minor. In the case of LA articles the effect of collaboration (virtually all with developed countries) was significant. The IFs for non-collaborative articles averaged 66% of the overall IF of the journals whereas the articles in collaboration raised the IFs to values close to the overall IF. Conclusion/Significance The study shows a significantly lower IF in the group of the subsets of non-collaborative LA articles and thus that country affiliation of authors from non-developed LA countries does affect the IF of a journal detrimentally. There are no data to indicate whether the lower IFs of LA articles were due to their inherent inferior quality/relevance or psycho-social trend towards under-citation of articles from these countries. However, further study is

Articles by latin american authors in prestigious journals have fewer citations.

PubMed

Meneghini, Rogerio; Packer, Abel L; Nassi-Calò, Lilian

2008-01-01

The journal Impact factor (IF) is generally accepted to be a good measurement of the relevance/quality of articles that a journal publishes. In spite of an, apparently, homogenous peer-review process for a given journal, we hypothesize that the country affiliation of authors from developing Latin American (LA) countries affects the IF of a journal detrimentally. Seven prestigious international journals, one multidisciplinary journal and six serving specific branches of science, were examined in terms of their IF in the Web of Science. Two subsets of each journal were then selected to evaluate the influence of author's affiliation on the IF. They comprised contributions (i) with authorship from four Latin American (LA) countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico) and (ii) with authorship from five developed countries (England, France, Germany, Japan and USA). Both subsets were further subdivided into two groups: articles with authorship from one country only and collaborative articles with authorship from other countries. Articles from the five developed countries had IF close to the overall IF of the journals and the influence of collaboration on this value was minor. In the case of LA articles the effect of collaboration (virtually all with developed countries) was significant. The IFs for non-collaborative articles averaged 66% of the overall IF of the journals whereas the articles in collaboration raised the IFs to values close to the overall IF. The study shows a significantly lower IF in the group of the subsets of non-collaborative LA articles and thus that country affiliation of authors from non-developed LA countries does affect the IF of a journal detrimentally. There are no data to indicate whether the lower IFs of LA articles were due to their inherent inferior quality/relevance or psycho-social trend towards under-citation of articles from these countries. However, further study is required since there are foreseeable consequences of this trend as it

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

Do continuing medical education articles foster shared decision making?

PubMed

Labrecque, Michel; Lafortune, Valérie; Lajeunesse, Judith; Lambert-Perrault, Anne-Marie; Manrique, Hermes; Blais, Johanne; Légaré, France

2010-01-01

Defined as reviews of clinical aspects of a specific health problem published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical journals, offered without charge, continuing medical education (CME) articles form a key strategy for translating knowledge into practice. This study assessed CME articles for mention of evidence-based information on benefits and harms of available treatment and/or preventive options that are deemed essential for shared decision making (SDM) to occur in clinical practice. Articles were selected from 5 medical journals that publish CME articles and are provided free of charge to primary-care physicians of the Province of Quebec, Canada. Two individuals independently scored each article with the use of a 10-item checklist based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. In case of discrepancy, the item score was established by team consensus. Scores were added to produce a total article score ranging from 0 (no item present) to 10 (all items present). Thirty articles (6 articles per journal) were selected. Total article scores ranged from 1 to 9, with a mean (+/- SD) of 3.1 +/- 2.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-4.3). Health conditions and treatment options were the items most frequently discussed in the articles; next came treatment benefits. Possible harms, the use of the same denominators for benefits and harms, and methods to facilitate the communication of benefits and harms to patients were almost never described. No significant differences between journals were observed. The CME articles evaluated did not include the evidence-based information necessary to foster SDM in clinical practice. Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical journals should require CME articles to include this type of information.

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

Gender bias in scholarly peer review.

PubMed

Helmer, Markus; Schottdorf, Manuel; Neef, Andreas; Battaglia, Demian

2017-03-21

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing.

Journal article citation classics in school psychology: analysis of the most cited articles in five school psychology journals.

PubMed

Price, Katherine W; Floyd, Randy G; Fagan, Thomas K; Smithson, Kelly

2011-12-01

The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the top 100 most highly cited articles of all time as well as the 25 most highly cited articles of the last decade from within 5 school psychology journals: Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology International, School Psychology Quarterly, and School Psychology Review. The Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science database was utilized to identify citation counts for each article appearing in these journals. Coding schemes were used to identify article type and content area. The top 10 most highly cited articles of all time as well as the top 10 most highly cited articles of the past decade are detailed, and general patterns found across these articles are discussed. Implications for reviewing manuscripts that are likely to become highly cited articles and for authoring a highly cited article are offered. Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Do Continuing Medical Education Articles Foster Shared Decision Making?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Labrecque, Michel; Lafortune, Valerie; Lajeunesse, Judith; Lambert-Perrault, Anne-Marie; Manrique, Hermes; Blais, Johanne; Legare, France

2010-01-01

Introduction: Defined as reviews of clinical aspects of a specific health problem published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical journals, offered without charge, continuing medical education (CME) articles form a key strategy for translating knowledge into practice. This study assessed CME articles for mention of evidence-based…

Peer review in forensic science.

PubMed

Ballantyne, Kaye N; Edmond, Gary; Found, Bryan

2017-08-01

Peer review features prominently in the forensic sciences. Drawing on recent research and studies, this article examines different types of peer review, specifically: editorial peer review; peer review by the scientific community; technical and administrative review; and verification (and replication). The article reviews the different meanings of these quite disparate activities and their utility in relation to enhancing performance and reducing error. It explains how forensic practitioners should approach and use peer review, as well as how it should be described in expert reports and oral testimony. While peer review has considerable potential, and is a key component of modern quality management systems, its actual value in most forensic science settings has yet to be determined. In consequence, forensic practitioners should reflect on why they use specific review procedures and endeavour to make their actual practices and their potential value transparent to consumers; whether investigators, lawyers, jurors or judges. Claims that review increases the validity of a scientific technique or accuracy of opinions within a particular case should be avoided until empirical evidence is available to support such assertions. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

[The impact of the annual scientific meetings of the Israel Society of Rheumatology as measured by publication rates of the abstracts in peer-reviewed journals].

PubMed

Perez, Shira; Hashkes, Philip J; Uziel, Yosef

2004-04-01

We aimed to examine the impact and quality of the research presented in the Israel Society of Rheumatology (ISR) annual scientific meetings by measuring publication rates of the abstracts in peer-reviewed journals and investigating the factors that influenced publication. We examined the outcome of all 79 abstracts submitted to the ISR for the 1998-2000 annual meetings. A MEDLINE search of all abstracts, by authors, topics and keywords was performed. Senior authors of abstracts not found to be published in this search were interviewed regarding publication and factors influencing submission. We described the effect of variable factors on the rate of publication. As of September 2002, 63 (80%) abstracts were published in peer-reviewed journals or are currently in-press. Most abstracts were published in prominent journals (with a high impact factor). The majority of the abstracts (61%) were published in rheumatologic journals, 65% of the studies originated from tertiary centers and 19% of the studies were multicenter. The most common diseases studied were antiphospholipid syndrome (20%), systemic lupus erythematosus (19%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%). Most of the studies were of disease pathogenesis (35%) and clinical manifestations (33%). The most common study designs were basic science (34%). An overall 57% of the studies reported "positive" results and 9% reported "negative" results. None of the factors studied were associated with publication or non-publication. The main cause cited by authors for not publishing their abstract was lack of time to prepare a full paper or a desire to further expand the study. Within this group of 16 authors of abstracts, 11 authors still plan to submit a paper. The ISR annual meetings have an important clinical scientific impact as measured by the high rate of abstracts published as full length articles in leading peer-reviewed journals.

Gender bias in scholarly peer review

PubMed Central

Helmer, Markus; Schottdorf, Manuel; Neef, Andreas; Battaglia, Demian

2017-01-01

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718.001 PMID:28322725

Peer Review of Best Practices

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Pearlman, J.; Buttigieg, P. L.; Simpson, P.; Munoz, C.; Dufois, F.; Heslop, E. E.

2017-12-01

To ensure the quality of oceanographic data, there is a clear need to employ best practices (BPs) for ocean observation and information management. However, effectively discovering these BPs is a challenge, hindering harmonized quality assurance across projects and programmes. To remedy this, we are prototyping a resource for the stable archiving and efficient discovery of BPs through a granular, semantically indexed, and consistently formatted web resource. While these technical advances have value, they cannot ensure improved oceanographic data quality without effective and inclusive peer review processes. Peer review of digitized best practices can take a number of forms from traditional (blind) peer review as practiced by journal publishers through to the evolving "open" approach where community reviews have both the authors and reviewers identified. This presentation will discuss the options for peer review mechanisms for best practices, including a hybrid approach where both expert panels and open community review are used to improve methodologies and thus downstream data quality. It is not yet clear if the ocean community prefers open versus blind reviews for best practices. It is also unclear the extent to which innovation versus solid technical base should have a higher priority in the reviews. Further, it is not clear whether the reviews should use an internal expert panel of the IODE OceanBestPractices Repository (http://www.oceanbestpractices.net/) or should be done as part of a journal publications process or both, as mentioned above. Thus, we will also describe our future approach to `field test' these review models on a multi-stakeholder compendium of digitized best practice documents.

Peer-review: An IOP Publishing Perspective

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Smith, Timothy

2015-03-01

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

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…

Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview.

PubMed

Qi, Xingshun; Deng, Han; Guo, Xiaozhong

2017-08-01

A faked peer review is a novel cause for retraction. We reviewed the characteristics of papers retracted due to a faked peer review. All papers retracted due to faked peer reviews were identified by searching the Retraction Watch website and by conducting a manual search. All identified papers were confirmed in published journals. The information of retracted papers was collected, which primarily included publisher, journal, journal impact factor, country, as well as publication and retraction year. Overall, 250 retracted papers were identified. They were published in 48 journals by six publishers. The top 5 journals included the Journal of Vibration and Control (24.8%), Molecular Biology Reports (11.6%), Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology (8.0%), Tumour Biology (6.8%) and European Journal of Medical Research (6.4%). The publishers included SAGE (31%), Springer (26%), BioMed Central (18%), Elsevier (13%), Informa (11%) and LWW (1%). A minority (4%) of retracted papers were published in Science Citation Index (SCI) journals with an impact factor of >5. A majority (74.8%) of retracted papers were written by Chinese researchers. In terms of the publication year, the retracted papers were published since 2010, and the number of retracted papers peaked in 2014 (40.8%). In terms of the retraction year, the retractions started in 2012, and the number of retractions peaked in 2015 (59.6%). The number of papers retracted due to faked peer reviews differs largely among journals and countries. With the improvement of the peer review mechanism and increased education about publishing ethics, such academic misconduct may gradually disappear in future. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Virtual slides in peer reviewed, open access medical publication.

PubMed

Kayser, Klaus; Borkenfeld, Stephan; Goldmann, Torsten; Kayser, Gian

2011-12-19

Application of virtual slides (VS), the digitalization of complete glass slides, is in its infancy to be implemented in routine diagnostic surgical pathology and to issues that are related to tissue-based diagnosis, such as education and scientific publication. Electronic publication in Pathology offers new features of scientific communication in pathology that cannot be obtained by conventional paper based journals. Most of these features are based upon completely open or partly directed interaction between the reader and the system that distributes the article. One of these interactions can be applied to microscopic images allowing the reader to navigate and magnify the presented images. VS and interactive Virtual Microscopy (VM) are a tool to increase the scientific value of microscopic images. The open access journal Diagnostic Pathology http://www.diagnosticpathology.org has existed for about five years. It is a peer reviewed journal that publishes all types of scientific contributions, including original scientific work, case reports and review articles. In addition to digitized still images the authors of appropriate articles are requested to submit the underlying glass slides to an institution (DiagnomX.eu, and Leica.com) for digitalization and documentation. The images are stored in a separate image data bank which is adequately linked to the article. The normal review process is not involved. Both processes (peer review and VS acquisition) are performed contemporaneously in order to minimize a potential publication delay. VS are not provided with a DOI index (digital object identifier). The first articles that include VS were published in March 2011. Several logistic constraints had to be overcome until the first articles including VS could be published. Step by step an automated acquisition and distribution system had to be implemented to the corresponding article. The acceptance of VS by the reader is high as well as by the authors. Of specific value

"Are you gonna publish that?" Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology.

PubMed

Evans, Spencer C; Amaro, Christina M; Herbert, Robyn; Blossom, Jennifer B; Roberts, Michael C

2018-01-01

If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one's field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0-7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2-3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in psychology

Supplemental Journal Article Materials: A progress report on an information industry initiative

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Schwarzman, A. B.

2011-12-01

Who could possibly quibble with the idea of publishing supplemental materials to a journal article? Making them available makes it possible for the Earth and space scientists to demonstrate supporting evidence, such as multimedia, computer programs, and datasets; gives the authors the opportunity to present in-depth studies that would not otherwise be available; and enables the readers to replicate experiments and verify their results. However, the scholarly publishing ecosystem is now being threatened by a veritable tsunami of supplemental materials that have to be peer reviewed, identified, described, and made discoverable and citeable; such materials also have to be archived, preserved, and perpetually converted to the contemporary formats to be available to a future researcher. Moreover, the readers often have no clear indication of how critical a particular supplemental material is to the scientific conclusions of the article and thus are not sure whether they should spend their time reading/viewing/running it. In some cases it is not even clear what the material actually supplements. While one segment of the research community argues that even more supplemental materials should be made available, another segment increasingly voices its concern stating categorically that a research article is not a data dump or an FTP site. From the publisher's perspective, dealing with supplemental materials in a responsible fashion is becoming an increasingly costly proposition. Faced with formidable challenges of managing supplemental materials, the information profession community in 2010 formed a joint NISO/NFAIS Working Group to develop Recommended Practices for curating supplemental materials during their life cycle, including but not limited to their selection, peer review, editing, production, presentation, providing context, identification, linking, citing, hosting, discovery, metadata and markup, packaging, accessibility, and preservation. The Recommended Practices

Testing the Rebound Peer Review Concept

PubMed Central

Choi, Augustine M.K.

2013-01-01

Abstract This invited editorial addresses the rescue of the article by Skrzypek et al. “Interplay between heme oxygenase-1 and miR-378 affects non-small cell lung carcinoma growth, vascularization, and metastasis.” The work was rejected by the standard peer review system and subsequently rescued by the Rebound Peer Review (RPR) mechanism offered by Antioxidants and Redox Signaling (Antioxid Redox Signal 16: 293–296, 2012). The reviewers who openly rescued the article were James F. George, Justin C. Mason, Mahin D. Maines, and Yasufumi Sato. The initial article was a de novo resubmission of a previously rejected article, which was then reviewed by six reviewers. The reviewers raised substantial scientific concerns, including questions pertaining to the specificity of the findings, quality of the presentation, and other technical concerns; the editor returned a decision of reject. The authors voluntarily chose to exercise the option to rescue the article utilizing the RPR system, where the authors found qualified reviewers who were willing to advocate for acceptance with scientific reasoning. The open reviewers felt that the scientific and technical concerns raised by the reviewers were outweighed by the strengths and novelty of the findings to justify acceptance. The RPR, in this case, was a “success” in that it rescued a rejected article. Despite this assessment, we question the necessity of open peer review as a means to overturn a peer review decision, with concerns for the larger-than-usual peer review process, and the voluntary relinquishing of editorial privilege and disclosure of reviewer identity. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 19, 639–643. PMID:23725371

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…

Ladies First? Not So Fast: Linguistic Sexism in Peer-Reviewed Research.

PubMed

Willis, Malachi; Jozkowski, Kristen N

2018-02-01

The words we use reflect and influence our interpretation of the world. The role of gender within a language varies; biases based on social gender are referred to as linguistic sexism. Male firstness is the practice of persistently ordering masculine terms before feminine terms. Because academic writing is mandated to be free of bias, peer-reviewed research should not contain any form of linguistic sexism. To assess the presence of male firstness in academic writing, we examined 862 contemporary articles from 10 social science journals across three disciplines: sexuality, health, and psychology. To assess male firstness, we tallied common gendered pairs (e.g., "women and men"; "male and female") and calculated percentages indicating how often men were presented before women. We found that male firstness bias was present in each of the 10 journals. For individual journals, the percentage of gendered phrases that presented masculine terms first ranged from 57.7% to 88.8%. Sexuality and health journals demonstrated less linguistic sexism than psychology; however, there were no consistent trends between journals within each discipline. We discuss the current presence of male firstness in academic journals and the issues this bias triggers. Recommendations for reducing linguistic sexism in peer-reviewed research are also discussed.

How to create a journal article from a thesis.

PubMed

Ahern, Kathy

2012-01-01

To identify strategies to assist in the publication of research arising from a postgraduate thesis or dissertation. There are many benefits to publishing a journal article from a completed thesis, including contributing knowledge to the writer's chosen field, career enhancement and personal satisfaction. However, there are also numerous obstacles for the newly graduated student in crafting an article fit for a specialist publication from a thesis. The author conducted a search of the title, abstract and keywords of the Cinahl, Scopus and Proquest databases, from 1990 to 2010: The author searched for the words: 'journal article' or 'manuscript; 'thesis' or 'dissertation'. The author excluded papers if: they pertained to allocation of authorship to someone other than the academic adviser; related to undergraduate issues rather than graduate dissertations; were discussions of the merits of a PhD by 'publication' instead of 'by thesis'; were not published in a peer-reviewed journal; or were not in English. The relationship between adviser and student changes as the student becomes a graduate, and new roles for the student and adviser need to be negotiated. Students need to realise that writing a paper from a thesis is usually going to be more difficult than they anticipate, but the application of strategies discussed in this paper should make the task manageable. Furthermore, universities might wish to consider alternatives in which published papers emerge before the examination of a thesis, such as requiring students to write a paper as part of their coursework.

Methodological Orientation of Research Articles Appearing in Higher Education Journals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Ritter, Sherri E.

2012-01-01

The purpose of this study was to understand the methodologies authors in higher education journals used to obtain knowledge in their fields. This study looked at five peer reviewed journals of higher education and analyzed the methods of research employed by the authors to help them answer their respective research questions. The methods of…

What is open peer review? A systematic review.

PubMed

Ross-Hellauer, Tony

2017-01-01

Background : "Open peer review" (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with numerous overlapping and contradictory definitions. While for some the term refers to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only "invited experts" are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. Methods : Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of "open peer review" or "open review", to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the various innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. Results : This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how ambiguously the phrase "open peer review" has been used thus far, for the literature offers 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature reviewed. Conclusions : I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process.

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise.

PubMed

Kovanis, Michail; Porcher, Raphaël; Ravaud, Philippe; Trinquart, Ludovic

2016-01-01

The growth in scientific production may threaten the capacity for the scientific community to handle the ever-increasing demand for peer review of scientific publications. There is little evidence regarding the sustainability of the peer-review system and how the scientific community copes with the burden it poses. We used mathematical modeling to estimate the overall quantitative annual demand for peer review and the supply in biomedical research. The modeling was informed by empirical data from various sources in the biomedical domain, including all articles indexed at MEDLINE. We found that for 2015, across a range of scenarios, the supply exceeded by 15% to 249% the demand for reviewers and reviews. However, 20% of the researchers performed 69% to 94% of the reviews. Among researchers actually contributing to peer review, 70% dedicated 1% or less of their research work-time to peer review while 5% dedicated 13% or more of it. An estimated 63.4 million hours were devoted to peer review in 2015, among which 18.9 million hours were provided by the top 5% contributing reviewers. Our results support that the system is sustainable in terms of volume but emphasizes a considerable imbalance in the distribution of the peer-review effort across the scientific community. Finally, various individual interactions between authors, editors and reviewers may reduce to some extent the number of reviewers who are available to editors at any point.

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise

PubMed Central

Porcher, Raphaël; Ravaud, Philippe; Trinquart, Ludovic

2016-01-01

The growth in scientific production may threaten the capacity for the scientific community to handle the ever-increasing demand for peer review of scientific publications. There is little evidence regarding the sustainability of the peer-review system and how the scientific community copes with the burden it poses. We used mathematical modeling to estimate the overall quantitative annual demand for peer review and the supply in biomedical research. The modeling was informed by empirical data from various sources in the biomedical domain, including all articles indexed at MEDLINE. We found that for 2015, across a range of scenarios, the supply exceeded by 15% to 249% the demand for reviewers and reviews. However, 20% of the researchers performed 69% to 94% of the reviews. Among researchers actually contributing to peer review, 70% dedicated 1% or less of their research work-time to peer review while 5% dedicated 13% or more of it. An estimated 63.4 million hours were devoted to peer review in 2015, among which 18.9 million hours were provided by the top 5% contributing reviewers. Our results support that the system is sustainable in terms of volume but emphasizes a considerable imbalance in the distribution of the peer-review effort across the scientific community. Finally, various individual interactions between authors, editors and reviewers may reduce to some extent the number of reviewers who are available to editors at any point. PMID:27832157

What is open peer review? A systematic review

PubMed Central

Ross-Hellauer, Tony

2017-01-01

Background: “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with numerous overlapping and contradictory definitions. While for some the term refers to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. Methods: Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the various innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. Results: This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how ambiguously the phrase “open peer review” has been used thus far, for the literature offers 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature reviewed. Conclusions: I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process. PMID:28580134

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

PubMed

Galipeau, James; Moher, David; Skidmore, Becky; Campbell, Craig; Hendry, Paul; Cameron, D William; Hébert, Paul C; Palepu, Anita

2013-06-17

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

Virtual slides in peer reviewed, open access medical publication

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

Background Application of virtual slides (VS), the digitalization of complete glass slides, is in its infancy to be implemented in routine diagnostic surgical pathology and to issues that are related to tissue-based diagnosis, such as education and scientific publication. Approach Electronic publication in Pathology offers new features of scientific communication in pathology that cannot be obtained by conventional paper based journals. Most of these features are based upon completely open or partly directed interaction between the reader and the system that distributes the article. One of these interactions can be applied to microscopic images allowing the reader to navigate and magnify the presented images. VS and interactive Virtual Microscopy (VM) are a tool to increase the scientific value of microscopic images. Technology and Performance The open access journal Diagnostic Pathology http://www.diagnosticpathology.org has existed for about five years. It is a peer reviewed journal that publishes all types of scientific contributions, including original scientific work, case reports and review articles. In addition to digitized still images the authors of appropriate articles are requested to submit the underlying glass slides to an institution (DiagnomX.eu, and Leica.com) for digitalization and documentation. The images are stored in a separate image data bank which is adequately linked to the article. The normal review process is not involved. Both processes (peer review and VS acquisition) are performed contemporaneously in order to minimize a potential publication delay. VS are not provided with a DOI index (digital object identifier). The first articles that include VS were published in March 2011. Results and Perspectives Several logistic constraints had to be overcome until the first articles including VS could be published. Step by step an automated acquisition and distribution system had to be implemented to the corresponding article. The acceptance of

Peer-reviewed publication output from South African dental schools 1990-2005.

PubMed

Cleaton-Jones, P

2008-03-01

A study published in 1996 suggested that a limit had been reached for peer-reviewed publication output from South African dental schools. This study was to examine recent trends in publication output from five South African dental schools to compare with the earlier study. A PubMed on-line search coupled with a manual search was done for peer-reviewed publications appearing in 1995-2005 from the five dental schools. The literature search identified 610 listings--595 actual publications six of which were listed for two dental schools. Overall there was a slight reduction in number of articles as well as an increase in articles published in South African journals. Within the schools there was also a decline in output. Disciplines producing the publications varied within the schools with dental materials being the most common, There was little difference in the quality of articles indicated by mean CJM scores between the schools. This study shows that research output has declined beyond the limit speculated in 1996.

Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015)

PubMed Central

Grimaldo, Francisco; Marušić, Ana

2018-01-01

This paper examines research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 by looking at records indexed from the Scopus database. Although it is often argued that peer review has been poorly investigated, we found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005. A half of this work was indexed as research articles, a third as editorial notes and literature reviews and the rest were book chapters or letters. We identified the most prolific and influential scholars, the most cited publications and the most important journals in the field. Co-authorship network analysis showed that research on peer review is fragmented, with the largest group of co-authors including only 2.1% of the whole community. Co-citation network analysis indicated a fragmented structure also in terms of knowledge. This shows that despite its central role in research, peer review has been examined only through small-scale research projects. Our findings would suggest that there is need to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing across different research communities. PMID:29466467

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2011-01-01

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

Professional Communication through Journal Articles.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Rochester, Maxine K.

1996-01-01

Reviews studies of journal articles as a means of professional communication in the field of library and information science. The focus has been on content analysis and bibliometrics, which includes author, topic, and citation analysis. (LAM)

On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics.

PubMed

Andersen, Line Edslev

2017-01-01

For the past three decades, peer review practices have received much attention in the literature. But although this literature covers many research fields, only one previous systematic study has been devoted to the practice of peer review in mathematics, namely a study by Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove from 2010. This lack of attention may be due to a view that peer review in mathematics is more reliable, and therefore less interesting as an object of study, than peer review in other fields. In fact, Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove argue that peer review in mathematics is relatively reliable. At the same time, peer review in mathematics differs from peer review in most, if not all, other fields in that papers submitted to mathematical journals are usually only reviewed by a single referee. Furthermore, recent empirical studies indicate that the referees do not check the papers line by line. I argue that, in spite of this, mathematical practice in general and refereeing practices in particular are such that the common practice of mathematical journals of using just one referee is justified from the point of view of proof validity assessment. The argument is based on interviews I conducted with seven mathematicians.

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.

Thank you to our 2016 peer reviewers

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2017-02-01

Peer review is one of most fundamental aspects of the modern practice of science. As scientists we hold our own work up to scrutiny by experts among our peers in order to encourage the best practices in scientific conduct and communication. Thorough consideration and review by professional colleagues of scientific papers are critical aspects of ensuring that the manuscripts published by JGR-Planets are accurate, valuable, and clearly communicated. Peer review is an essential element of the process of refining understanding and sharing science, and the effort and expertise shared by each reviewer are crucial to the advancement of planetary science. In 2016, JGR Planets benefited from more than 451 reviews provided by 337 of our peers for papers submitted to the journal. Thank you all for your dedication to advancing planetary science.

Research on Mathematics Education in China in the Last Decade: A Review of Journal Articles

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Xu, Binyan

2010-01-01

This article reviews literature on mathematics education in China in the last decade. It focuses on papers that were published after 2000, and Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI). Some influential journals in the field of mathematics education, such as the "Journal of Mathematics Education" and "Mathematics…

"Are you gonna publish that?" Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology

PubMed Central

Amaro, Christina M.; Herbert, Robyn; Blossom, Jennifer B.; Roberts, Michael C.

2018-01-01

If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one’s field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0–7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2–3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in

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

PubMed

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

2009-05-01

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

Content analysis of oncology-related pharmaceutical advertising in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

PubMed

Yonemori, Kan; Hirakawa, Akihiro; Ando, Masashi; Hirata, Taizo; Yunokawa, Mayu; Shimizu, Chikako; Tamura, Kenji; Fujiwara, Yasuhiro

2012-01-01

The oncology market represents one of the largest pharmaceutical markets in any medical field, and printed advertising in medical journals is an important channel by which pharmaceutical companies communicate with healthcare professionals. The aim of the present study was to analyze the volume and content of and trends and changes in oncology-related advertising intended for healthcare professionals in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Information that could be included in advertisements to promote drug development and improve treatment strategies for cancer patients is discussed on the basis of the results of the analysis. Overall, 6,720 advertisements covering 13,039 pages in a leading oncology medical journal published (by the American Society of Clinical Oncology) between January 2005 and December 2009 were analyzed. The advertisements targeting pharmaceuticals and clinical trials, in particular, were reviewed. A total of 6,720 advertisements covering 13,039 pages were included in the analysis. For the years 2005-2009, the percentages of total journal pages dedicated to advertising were 24.0%, 45.7%, 49.8%, 46.8%, and 49.8%, respectively. Package insert information and efficacy and safety explanations appeared in more than 80% of advertisements intended for pharmaceutical promotion. From 2005 to 2009, the overall quantity of drug advertisements decreased by approximately 13%, whereas advertisements calling for the enrollment of patients into registration trials increased by approximately 11%. Throughout the study period, oncology-related pharmaceutical advertisements occupied a considerable number of pages relative to other journal content. The proportion of advertisements on ongoing clinical trials increased progressively throughout the study period.

Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors.

PubMed

Sidalak, Daniel; Purdy, Eve; Luckett-Gatopoulos, S; Murray, Heather; Thoma, Brent; Chan, Teresa M

2017-02-01

Publishing in academic journals is challenging for learners. Those who pass the initial stages of internal review by an editor often find the anonymous peer review process harsh. Academic blogs offer alternate avenues for publishing medical education material. Many blogs, however, lack a peer review process, which some consumers argue compromises the quality of materials published. CanadiEM (formerly BoringEM) is an academic educational emergency medicine blog dedicated to publishing high-quality materials produced by learners (i.e., residents and medical students). The editorial team has designed and implemented a collaborative "coached peer review" process that comprises an open exchange among the learner-author, editors, and reviewers. The goal of this process is to facilitate the publication of high-quality academic materials by learner-authors while providing focused feedback to help them develop academic writing skills. The authors of this Innovation Report surveyed (February-June 2015) their blog's learner-authors and external expert "staff" reviewers who had participated in coached peer review for their reactions to the process. The survey results revealed that participants viewed the process positively compared with both traditional journal peer review and academic blog publication processes. Participants found the process friendly, easy, efficient, and transparent. Learner-authors also reported increased confidence in their published material. These outcomes met the goals of coached peer review. CanadiEM aims to inspire continued participation in, exposure to, and high-quality production of academic writing by promoting the adoption of coached peer review for online educational resources produced by learners.

Influence of Article Type on the Impact Factor of Dermatology Journals.

PubMed

Rodríguez-Lago, L; Molina-Leyva, A; Pereiro-Ferreirós, M; García-Doval, I

2018-06-01

For scientific journals, achieving a high impact factor (IF) has become a goal in its own right. Our aim was to describe the influence of article type on the IF of dermatology journals. We used the Scopus database to calculate an IF for Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas and the major dermatology journals, excluding articles without abstracts, letters to the editor, and conference proceedings. Included articles were classified into 4 categories: case reports, original articles, narrative reviews, and other. We also calculated the mean IF for each article type. We then compared our results with IFs published by the Institute for Scientific Information. The proportion of each type of article differed between journals. Original articles carried the greatest weight in the major journals (BJD, 76.8%; Contact, 81.1%; JAAD, 63.4%; JAMA Dermatol, 63.7%.) but not in Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas, where only 31.7% were original research articles. A higher IF was associated with the publication of reviews and original articles; a lower IF was associated with the publication of case reports and other article types. Publishing case reports, which have lower citation rates, leads to a lower IF. Publishing reviews and original articles will lead to a higher IF. Journals that seek a higher IF should probably publish more reviews and original articles and fewer case reports. Editorial boards should seek a balance between the interests of their clinician readers and the journal's need for a higher IF. Copyright © 2018 AEDV. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

[Scientific articles in the Icelandic Medical Journal 2004-2008: an overview].

PubMed

Gudbjartsson, Tómas; Sigurdsson, Engilbert

2009-10-01

In the past 5 years the Icelandic Medical Journal has undergone many changes during a period of flourishing research in Iceland. The process of reviewing and editing scientific articles has been revised since the Journal joined the Medline database in 2005 and the proportion of rejected articles has risen. New columns have been launched covering medical history, professionalism, ethics and hobbies of the medical profession. We categorized all scientific articles from the period 2004-2008, that is research articles, review articles, case reports and clinical guidelines, according to types of articles and to which medical speciality or subspeciality the publication should belong. The number of scientific articles rose during the period but the number of research articles remained around 20 most years during the period. The relative proportion of research articles therefore fell whereas the number and proportion of review articles and case reports increased. Clinical guidelines ceased to appear in the Journal. The contribution of individual specialities to the Journal varied widely. Researchers amongst doctors and related professions need be encouraged to submit scientific articles to the Journal. The publication of scientific articles in English in the web-based form of the Journal may prove to be stimulating in this regard for Icelandic doctors abroad as well as for some researchers in Iceland.

Article processing charges, funding, and open access publishing at Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction.

PubMed

Sills, Eric Scott; Vincent, Tina Thibault; Palermo, Gianpiero D

2005-01-13

Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction is an Open Access, online, electronic journal published by BioMed Central with full contents available to the scientific and medical community free of charge to all readers. Authors maintain the copyright to their own work, a policy facilitating dissemination of data to the widest possible audience without requiring permission from the publisher. This Open Access publishing model is subsidized by authors (or their institutions/funding agencies) in the form of a single pound330 article processing charge (APC), due at the time of manuscript acceptance for publication. Payment of the APC is not a condition for formal peer review and does not apply to articles rejected after review. Additionally, this fee is waived for authors whose institutions are BioMed Central members or where genuine financial hardship exists. Considering ordinary publication fees related to page charges and reprints, the APC at Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction is comparable to costs associated with publishing in some traditional print journals, and is less expensive than many. Implementation of the APC within this Open Access framework is envisioned as a modern research-friendly policy that supports networking among investigators, brings new research into reach rapidly, and empowers authors with greater control over their own scholarly publications.

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

PubMed

Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A; Dobránszki, Judit

2015-01-01

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

Qualitative Research and Community-Based Participatory Research: Considerations for Effective Dissemination in the Peer-Reviewed Literature.

PubMed

Grieb, Suzanne Dolwick; Eder, Milton Mickey; Smith, Katherine C; Calhoun, Karen; Tandon, Darius

2015-01-01

Qualitative research is appearing with increasing frequency in the public health and medical literature. Qualitative research in combination with a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach can be powerful. However little guidance is available on how to present qualitative research within a CBPR framework for peer-review publications. This article provides a brief overview of how qualitative research can advance CBPR partnerships and outlines practical guidelines for writing for publication about qualitative research within a CBPR framework to (1) guide partners with little experience publishing in peer-reviewed journals and/or (2) facilitate effective preparation of manuscripts grounded in qualitative research for peer-reviewed journals. We provide information regarding the specific benefits of qualitative inquiry in CBPR, tips for organizing the manuscript, questions to consider in preparing the manuscript, common mistakes in the presentation of qualitative research, and examples of peer-reviewed manuscripts presenting qualitative research conducted within a CBPR framework. Qualitative research approaches have tremendous potential to integrate community and researcher perspectives to inform community health research findings. Effective dissemination of CBPR informed qualitative research findings is crucial to advancing health disparities research.

Peer-based health interventions for people with serious mental illness: A systematic literature review.

PubMed

Cabassa, Leopoldo J; Camacho, David; Vélez-Grau, Carolina M; Stefancic, Ana

2017-01-01

Health interventions delivered by peer specialists or co-facilitated by peer specialists and health professionals can help improve the physical health of people with serious mental illness (SMI). Yet, the quality of the studies examining these health interventions and their impact on health outcomes remains unclear. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic literature review of peer-based health interventions for people with SMI. We rated the methodological quality of studies, summarized intervention strategies and health outcomes, and evaluated the inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in these studies. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to conduct our systematic literature review. Electronic bibliographic databases and manual searches were used to locate articles that were published in English in peer-reviewed journals between 1990 and 2015, described peer-based health interventions for people with SMI, and evaluated the impact of the interventions on physical health outcomes. Two independent reviewers used a standardized instrument to rate studies' methodological quality, abstracted study characteristics, and evaluated the effects of the interventions on different health outcomes. Eighteen articles were reviewed. Findings indicated that the strength of the evidence generated from these studies is limited due to several methodological limitations. Mixed and limited intervention effects were reported for most health outcomes. The most promising interventions were self-management and peer-navigator interventions. Efforts to strengthen the evidence of peer-based interventions require a research agenda that focuses on establishing the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions across different populations and settings. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The peer-reviewed literature on undergraduate education for public health in the United States, 2004-2014.

PubMed

Evashwick, Connie J; Tao, Donghua; Arnold, Lauren D

2014-01-01

The education of undergraduate college students in the field of public health has burgeoned over the past decade. Professional literature in peer-reviewed journals is one indicator of the status of a field of study and its related body of knowledge. It is also a mechanism for sharing information among professionals about challenges, issues, experiences, and best practices. The purpose of the literature review conducted here was to describe the status of the peer-reviewed literature over the past decade pertaining to the education of undergraduates about the field of public health in the United States (U.S.). A literature search was conducted of three databases: PubMed, Scopus, and ERIC. Inclusion criteria were publication date from January 1, 2004 through July 31, 2014; written in the English language; pertaining to undergraduate education in the U.S.; and a focus on public health as the primary discipline. Public health was searched as an overarching discipline; articles focused on sub-disciplines or other health professions disciplines were excluded. The search resulted in 158 articles. Each of the authors reviewed the abstracts for all articles and read full articles when necessary. The result was 23 articles that were then considered in depth. The articles were categorized according to their primary theme: curriculum, courses, learning objectives (N = 14); evaluation of teaching method (N = 3); case study (N = 3); career path and advising (N = 2); accreditation (N = 1). Year of publication and journal were also examined. The results of the literature search lead to several observations about how the peer-reviewed literature has been used to date and how it could be used to advance the emerging field of undergraduate education for public health.

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

PubMed

Weng, Naidong

2012-11-01

In the pharmaceutical industry, bioanalysis is very dynamic and is probably one of the few fields of research covering the entire drug discovery, development and post-marketing process. Important decisions on drug safety can partially rely on bioanalytical data, which therefore can be subject to regulatory scrutiny. Bioanalytical scientists have historically contributed significant numbers of scientific manuscripts in many peer-reviewed analytical journals. All of these journals provide some high-level instructions, but they also leave sufficient flexibility for reviewers to perform independent critique and offer recommendations for each submitted manuscript. Reviewers play a pivotal role in the process of bioanalytical publication to ensure the publication of high-quality manuscripts in a timely fashion. Their efforts usually lead to improved manuscripts. However, it has to be a joint effort among authors, reviewers and editors to promote scientifically sound and ethically fair bioanalytical publications. Most of the submitted manuscripts were well written with only minor or moderate revisions required for further improvement. Nevertheless, there were small numbers of submitted manuscripts that did not meet the requirements for publications because of scientific or ethical deficiencies, which are discussed in this Letter to the Editor. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Editors’ Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development

PubMed Central

Janke, Kristin K.; Traynor, Andrew P.

2017-01-01

Objectives. To identify peer reviewer and peer review characteristics that enhance manuscript quality and editorial decisions, and to identify valuable elements of peer reviewer training programs. Methods. A three-school, 15-year review of pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration faculty’s publications was conducted to identify high-publication volume journals for inclusion. Editors-in-chief identified all editors managing manuscripts for participation. A three-round modified Delphi process was used. Rounds advanced from open-ended questions regarding actions and attributes of good reviewers to consensus-seeking and clarifying questions related to quality, importance, value, and priority. Results. Nineteen editors representing eight pharmacy journals participated. Three characteristics of reviews were rated required or helpful in enhancing manuscript quality by all respondents: includes a critical analysis of the manuscript (88% required, 12% helpful), includes feedback that contains both strengths and areas of improvement (53% required, 47% helpful), and speaks to the manuscript’s utility in the literature (41% required, 59% helpful). Hands-on experience with review activities (88%) and exposure to good and bad reviews (88%) were identified as very valuable to peer reviewer development. Conclusion. Reviewers, individuals involved in faculty development, and journals should work to assist new reviewers in defining focused areas of expertise, building knowledge in these areas, and developing critical analysis skills. PMID:28630514

Problems and challenges of predatory journals.

PubMed

Richtig, Georg; Berger, Marina; Lange-Asschenfeldt, Bernhard; Aberer, Werner; Richtig, Erika

2018-05-05

The companies publishing predatory journals are an emerging problem in the area of scientific literature since they only seek to drain money from authors without providing any customer service for the authors or their readership. These predatory journals try to attract new submissions by aggressive email advertising and high acceptance rates. But in turn, they do not provide proper peer-review and therefore the scientific quality of submitted articles is questionable. This is important because more and more people, including patients, are reading such journals and rely on the information they provide. Consequently, predatory journals are a serious threat to the integrity of medical science, and it is crucial for scientists, physicians and even patients to be aware of this problem. In this review, we briefly summarize the history of the open access movement, as well as the rise of and roles played by predatory journals. In conclusion, young and unexperienced authors publishing in a predatory journal must be aware of the damage of their reputation, of inadequate peer-review processes and that unprofitable journals might get closed and all published articles in that journal might be lost. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Fairness in peer review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Adams, Bob

2014-06-01

In reply to Penny Gowland's article “Turning a double-blind eye” (Forum, May p17), which argued that a paper's authors, as well as its reviewers, should be anonymous during the peer-review process.

A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.

PubMed

Galipeau, James; Barbour, Virginia; Baskin, Patricia; Bell-Syer, Sally; Cobey, Kelly; Cumpston, Miranda; Deeks, Jon; Garner, Paul; MacLehose, Harriet; Shamseer, Larissa; Straus, Sharon; Tugwell, Peter; Wager, Elizabeth; Winker, Margaret; Moher, David

2016-02-02

Biomedical journals are the main route for disseminating the results of health-related research. Despite this, their editors operate largely without formal training or certification. To our knowledge, no body of literature systematically identifying core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals exists. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a scoping review to determine what is known on the competency requirements for scientific editors of biomedical journals. We searched the MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases (from inception to November 2014) and conducted a grey literature search for research and non-research articles with competency-related statements (i.e. competencies, knowledge, skills, behaviors, and tasks) pertaining to the role of scientific editors of peer-reviewed health-related journals. We also conducted an environmental scan, searched the results of a previous environmental scan, and searched the websites of existing networks, major biomedical journal publishers, and organizations that offer resources for editors. A total of 225 full-text publications were included, 25 of which were research articles. We extracted a total of 1,566 statements possibly related to core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals from these publications. We then collated overlapping or duplicate statements which produced a list of 203 unique statements. Finally, we grouped these statements into seven emergent themes: (1) dealing with authors, (2) dealing with peer reviewers, (3) journal publishing, (4) journal promotion, (5) editing, (6) ethics and integrity, and (7) qualities and characteristics of editors. To our knowledge, this scoping review is the first attempt to systematically identify possible competencies of editors. Limitations are that (1) we may not have captured all aspects of a biomedical editor's work in our searches, (2) removing redundant and overlapping items may have led to the

Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication.

PubMed

Callaham, Michael L

2003-01-01

Medical journals aspire to select, through peer review, the highest quality science, and their reputations depend on the trust of readers, authors, researchers, reviewers, and patients. Almost every aspect of this process involves important ethical principles and decisions, which are seldom explicitly stated and even less often shared with the readership. A comprehensive policy on publication ethics is summarized in this article. A few of the topics addressed are study design; research subject consent; definitions and responsibilities of authorship; declaration of paid writers; types of potential conflicts of interest; management of conflicts of interest on the part of authors, journal reviewers, and members of the editorial board; blinding and confidentiality of peer review; assessment of peer review quality; public identification of degree of peer review of various portions of the journal; criteria for manuscript decisions; management of author appeals; definitions of prior publication; plagiarism; criteria for advertising and relationship between advertising and editorial matter; allegations of misconduct and journal policies for responding to them; and the relationship of the journal to the sponsoring society. Our goal in publishing these policies is to make the guiding ethical principles of this journal accessible to all of our readers and contributors.

Content Analysis of Oncology-Related Pharmaceutical Advertising in a Peer-Reviewed Medical Journal

PubMed Central

Yonemori, Kan; Hirakawa, Akihiro; Ando, Masashi; Hirata, Taizo; Yunokawa, Mayu; Shimizu, Chikako; Tamura, Kenji; Fujiwara, Yasuhiro

2012-01-01

Background The oncology market represents one of the largest pharmaceutical markets in any medical field, and printed advertising in medical journals is an important channel by which pharmaceutical companies communicate with healthcare professionals. The aim of the present study was to analyze the volume and content of and trends and changes in oncology-related advertising intended for healthcare professionals in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Information that could be included in advertisements to promote drug development and improve treatment strategies for cancer patients is discussed on the basis of the results of the analysis. Methods/Principal Findings Overall, 6,720 advertisements covering 13,039 pages in a leading oncology medical journal published (by the American Society of Clinical Oncology) between January 2005 and December 2009 were analyzed. The advertisements targeting pharmaceuticals and clinical trials, in particular, were reviewed. A total of 6,720 advertisements covering 13,039 pages were included in the analysis. For the years 2005–2009, the percentages of total journal pages dedicated to advertising were 24.0%, 45.7%, 49.8%, 46.8%, and 49.8%, respectively. Package insert information and efficacy and safety explanations appeared in more than 80% of advertisements intended for pharmaceutical promotion. From 2005 to 2009, the overall quantity of drug advertisements decreased by approximately 13%, whereas advertisements calling for the enrollment of patients into registration trials increased by approximately 11%. Conclusion/Significance Throughout the study period, oncology-related pharmaceutical advertisements occupied a considerable number of pages relative to other journal content. The proportion of advertisements on ongoing clinical trials increased progressively throughout the study period. PMID:22952970

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…

A journal club for peer mentorship: helping to navigate the transition to independent practice.

PubMed

MacMillan, Thomas E; Rawal, Shail; Cram, Peter; Liu, Jessica

2016-10-01

The transition from residency to independent practice presents unique challenges for physicians. New attending physicians often have unmet learning needs in non-clinical domains. An attending physician is an independent medical practitioner, sometimes referred to as a staff physician or consultant. Peer mentorship has been explored as an alternative to traditional mentorship to meet the learning needs of new attendings. In this article, the authors describe how a journal club for general internal medicine fellowship graduates helped ease the transition by facilitating peer mentorship. Journal club members were asked to bring two things to each meeting: a practice-changing journal article, and a 'transition to practice' discussion topic such as a diagnostic dilemma, billing question, or a teaching challenge. Discussions fell into three broad categories that the authors have termed: trading war stories, measuring up, and navigating uncharted waters. It is likely that physicians have a strong need for peer mentorship in the first few years after the transition from residency, and a journal club or similar discussion group may be one way to fulfil this.

The ethics of peer review in bioethics

PubMed Central

Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

2014-01-01

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

Top reviewers for the Journal of Nuclear Materials 2016

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Was, Gary

2017-01-01

The Journal of Nuclear Materials achieves its scientific excellence through several familiar editorial activities. Manuscripts are submitted by authors describing their research methods and results, a constructive refereeing process is generously provided by peer reviewers, and the many steps and decisions of the editorial process are carried out by the Editors with assistance from the Advisory Editorial Board. With the exception of peer reviewers, the names of the people within these groups are published in the pages of the Journal. Thereby they receive recognition in the community for their work. However, all of us Journal constituents owe a large debt of gratitude to reviewers. They dedicate time, energy and remarkable depth of expertise to evaluate submitted manuscripts. As a result of their work most manuscripts are substantively improved. We also recognize the fact that many times the underlying research itself is advanced by the recommendations of our reviewers. Because the Journal maintains a strict policy of anonymous peer review, we do not make known the names of reviewers in association with particular manuscripts. Within this constraint the Editors and Publisher wish to find ways to recognize our reviewers. We recently instituted a top reviewer honor for a single individual, awarded at the NuMat conference (http://www.nuclearmaterialsconference.com)

The ethics of peer and editorial requests for self-citation of their work and journal.

PubMed

Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A

2017-04-01

Peer reviewers are expected to be experts in a field of study and should be versed with the pertinent literature related with the manuscript they are reviewing. Editors might not necessarily be experts in a particular field, but they have the responsibility of overseeing the requests made by peers, and assessing whether these are ethically appropriate, or not. Thus, requests by peers to cite unrelated literature, which may or may not be their own literature, could be unethical, especially if the objective is to improve their own citations or to boost the citations of the journal for which they are reviewing. In contrast, requests to cite pertinent work that is in fact missing from the paper's literature, even if it may be the reviewer or editor's work, or from the same journal, is acceptable. Editors ultimately approve the requests and suggestions made by reviewers, so inappropriate suggestions made by peer reviewers are the responsibility of the editor and journal. There needs to be a bias-free mechanism in place that offers protection to authors who wish to complain, and consequences for editors who do not conduct an impartial decision. Authors have the right to challenge such suggestions, but may face unfair retaliation in the form of a rejection if they resist making changes that they perceive as being inappropriate.

Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy.

PubMed

Leek, Jeffrey T; Taub, Margaret A; Pineda, Fernando J

2011-01-01

Peer review is fundamentally a cooperative process between scientists in a community who agree to review each other's work in an unbiased fashion. Peer review is the foundation for decisions concerning publication in journals, awarding of grants, and academic promotion. Here we perform a laboratory study of open and closed peer review based on an online game. We show that when reviewer behavior was made public under open review, reviewers were rewarded for refereeing and formed significantly more cooperative interactions (13% increase in cooperation, P = 0.018). We also show that referees and authors who participated in cooperative interactions had an 11% higher reviewing accuracy rate (P = 0.016). Our results suggest that increasing cooperation in the peer review process can lead to a decreased risk of reviewing errors.

A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.

PubMed

Dadkhah, Mehdi; Kahani, Mohsen; Borchardt, Glenn

2017-08-15

Peer review is the most important aspect of reputable journals. Without it, we would be unsure about whether the material published was as valid and reliable as is possible. However, with the advent of the Internet, scientific literature has now become subject to a relatively new phenomenon: fake peer reviews. Some dishonest researchers have been manipulating the peer review process to publish what are often inferior papers. There are even papers that explain how to do it. This paper discusses one of those methods and how editors can defeat it by using a special review ID. This method is easy to understand and can be added to current peer review systems easily.

An Examination of Articles in Gifted Education and Multicultural Education Journals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Chamberlin, Scott A.

2008-01-01

An analysis of gifted education and multicultural education journals was performed to identify the number of multicultural education articles in gifted education journals and the number of gifted education articles in multicultural education journals. Journals reviewed were "Multicultural Education", "Multicultural Perspectives," "Urban…

Peer Collaboration: Improving Teaching through Comprehensive Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Smith, Shelley L.

2014-01-01

This article includes a brief rationale and review of the literature on peer review of teaching (PRT). Based on that literature review, it offers a proposal for an optimal formative review process that results in a teaching portfolio that would reflect a faculty member's efforts and successes in a critically reflective PRT process, and contributes…

[The management of errors and scientific fraud by biomedical journals: They cannot replace Institutions].

PubMed

Maisonneuve, Hervé

2012-09-01

Research integrity is not negotiable, but we regularly observe research misconduct, and journals are victims or guilty. Journals do not have the objective to assess research integrity: that's the Institutions' roles. Journals discover research misconduct when articles are reviewed (an editor or a reviewer detect signals), or after the article's publication when a reader or a whistleblower call the journal. The editors and reviewers' research misconduct are less described and not publicized in the medias. The peer-review system is criticised. If authors were fair-play, and reviews well done, the journals should not publish articles containing false data. The opponents to the peer-review system propose no alternatives to replace it. The anonymous peer reviews are questioned: it has never been proved that quality of anonymous reading was better than quality of open reading. The Open Access facilitated the creation of many journals. Some journals are excellent and got an impact factor; most journals have a poor quality and don't follow the publications ethics standards. When errors and fraud are identified, journals can publish 3 statements: erratum for errors, expression of concern for errors or fraud when evidence is not established, and retraction when evidence is obvious. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation. We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression. There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, P<.05). Reviewers with gynecology-only subspecialty recommended rejection more often compared with reviewers with a nonobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty (57.7% compared with 38.7%, P<.05). Editorial Board members recommended rejection more often than new reviewers (68.0% compared with 41.5%, P<.05). Increased adjusted odds of manuscript rejection recommendation were associated with reproductive endocrinology, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and gynecology-only reviewer subspecialty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.07-1.41], 1.21 [1.05-1.39], and 1.11 [1.02-1.20]). Manuscript rejection recommendation rate was also increased for reviewers who had completed the highest quintile of peer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2

The continued movement for open access to peer-reviewed literature.

PubMed

Liesegang, Thomas J

2013-09-01

To provide a current overview of the movement for open access to the peer review literature. Perspective. Literature review of recent advances in the open access movement with a personal viewpoint of the nuances of the movement. The open access movement is complex, with many different constituents. The idealists for the open access movement are seeking open access to the literature but also to the data that constitute the research within the manuscript. The business model of the traditional subscription journal is being scrutinized in relation to the surge in the number of open access journals. Within this environment authors should beware predatory practices. More government and funding agencies are mandating open access to their funded research. This open access movement will continue to be disruptive until a business model ensures continuity of the scientific record. A flood of open access articles that might enrich, but also might pollute or confuse, the medical literature has altered the filtering mechanism provided by the traditional peer review system. At some point there may be a shake-out, with some literature being lost in cyberspace. The open access movement is maturing and must be embraced in some format. The challenge is to establish a sustainable financial business model that will permit the use of digital technology but yet not endanger the decades-old traditional publication model and peer review system. Authors seem to be slower in adopting open access than the idealists in the movement. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Peering into peer review: Galileo, ESP, Dr Scott Reuben, and advancing our professional evolution.

PubMed

Biddle, Chuck

2011-10-01

The fundamental purpose of peer review is quality control that facilitates the introduction of information into our discipline; information that is essential to the care of patients who require anesthesia services. While the AANA Journal relies heavily on this process to maintain the overall quality of our scholarly literature, it may fail that objective under certain conditions. This editorial serves to inform readers of the nature and goals of the peer review process.

Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

PubMed Central

Cobo, Erik; Selva-O'Callagham, Albert; Ribera, Josep-Maria; Cardellach, Francesc; Dominguez, Ruth; Vilardell, Miquel

2007-01-01

Background Although peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both. Methodology and Principal Findings Interventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with “no statistical expert” and “no checklist” as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2×2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6–24

The ethics of peer review in bioethics.

PubMed

Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

2014-10-01

A good deal has been written on the ethics of peer review, especially in the scientific and medical literatures. In contrast, we are unaware of any articles on the ethics of peer review in bioethics. Recognising this gap, we evaluate the extant proposals regarding ethical standards for peer review in general and consider how they apply to bioethics. We argue that scholars have an obligation to perform peer review based on the extent to which they personally benefit from the peer review process. We also argue, contrary to existing proposals and guidelines, that it can be appropriate for peer reviewers to benefit in their own scholarship from the manuscripts they review. With respect to bioethics in particular, we endorse double-blind review and suggest several ways in which the peer review process might be improved. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Peer-Reviewed Publication of Clinical Trials Completed for Pediatric Exclusivity

PubMed Central

Benjamin, Daniel Kelly; Smith, Philip Brian; Murphy, M. Dianne; Roberts, Rosemary; Mathis, Lisa; Avant, Debbie; Califf, Robert M; Li, Jennifer S.

2009-01-01

Context Much of pediatric drug use is “off-label” because appropriate pediatric studies have not been conducted and the drugs have not been labeled by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in children. In 1997, Congress authorized FDA to grant extensions of marketing rights known as “pediatric exclusivity” if FDA-requested pediatric trials were conducted. As a result, there have been over 100 product labeling changes. The publication status of studies completed for pediatric exclusivity has not been evaluated. Objective To quantify the dissemination of results of studies conducted for pediatric exclusivity into the peer-review literature. Design Cohort study of all trials conducted for Pediatric Exclusivity, the subsequent labeling changes, and the publication of those studies in peer-reviewed journals. We categorized each study in the exclusivity application as ”successful” or “unsuccessful” based on FDA approval of the indication sought by the sponsor. We categorized any labeling changes resulting from the studies as ”positive” or “negative” for the drug under study. We then evaluated aspects of the studies and product label changes that were associated with subsequent publication in peer-reviewed medical journals. Main Outcome Measures Publication of the trial data in peer-reviewed journals. Results Between 1998 and 2004, 253 studies were submitted to FDA for pediatric exclusivity: 50% evaluated efficacy, 20% were multi-dose pharmacokinetic, 13% were single-dose pharmacokinetic, and 17% were safety studies. Labeling changes were positive for 127/253 (50%) of studies; only 112/253 (44%) were published. Efficacy studies and those with a favorable labeling change were more likely to be published. Of 100 studies resulting in important labeling changes, only 33 were published. Conclusions The pediatric exclusivity program has been successful in encouraging drug studies in children. However, the dissemination of these results in the

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications. Methods Here we examine an element of the editorial process at eLife , in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions to eLife since June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail.   Results The Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates. Conclusions An important aspect of eLife 's peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

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

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

PubMed

Moher, David

2015-11-02

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.

An overview and analysis of journal operations, journal publication patterns, and journal impact in school psychology and related fields.

PubMed

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

2011-12-01

This article describes the results of three studies designed to understand better the journal operations, publishing practices, and impact of school psychology journals in recent years. The first study presents the results of a survey focusing on journal operations and peer-review practices that was completed by 61 journal editors of school psychology and aligned journals. The second study presents the results of review and classification of all articles appearing in one volume year for nine school psychology journals (i.e., The California School Psychologist, Canadian Journal of School Psychology, Journal of Applied School Psychology, Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology Forum, School Psychology International, School Psychology Quarterly, and School Psychology Review). The third study employed multilevel modeling to investigate differences in the longitudinal trends of impact factor data for five school psychology journals listed in the Web of Science (i.e., Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology International, School Psychology Quarterly, and School Psychology Review). The article addresses implications for authors, editors, and journal editorial teams as well as the status and impact of school psychology journals. Copyright © 2011 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Reviewing Manuscripts for Biomedical Journals

PubMed Central

Garmel, Gus M

2010-01-01

Writing for publication is a complex task. For many professionals, producing a well-executed manuscript conveying one's research, ideas, or educational wisdom is challenging. Authors have varying emotions related to the process of writing for scientific publication. Although not studied, a relationship between an author's enjoyment of the writing process and the product's outcome is highly likely. As with any skill, practice generally results in improvements. Literature focused on preparing manuscripts for publication and the art of reviewing submissions exists. Most journals guard their reviewers' anonymity with respect to the manuscript review process. This is meant to protect them from direct or indirect author demands, which may occur during the review process or in the future. It is generally accepted that author identities are masked in the peer-review process. However, the concept of anonymity for reviewers has been debated recently; many editors consider it problematic that reviewers are not held accountable to the public for their decisions. The review process is often arduous and underappreciated, one reason why biomedical journals acknowledge editors and frequently recognize reviewers who donate their time and expertise in the name of science. This article describes essential elements of a submitted manuscript, with the hopes of improving scientific writing. It also discusses the review process within the biomedical literature, the importance of reviewers to the scientific process, responsibilities of reviewers, and qualities of a good review and reviewer. In addition, it includes useful insights to individuals who read and interpret the medical literature. PMID:20740129

A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals.

PubMed

Björk, Bo-Christer

2011-12-16

The emergence of the Internet has triggered tremendous changes in the publication of scientific peer-reviewed journals. Today, journals are usually available in parallel electronic versions, but the way the peer-review process works, the look of articles and journals, and the rigid and slow publication schedules have remained largely unchanged, at least for the vast majority of subscription-based journals. Those publishing firms and scholarly publishers who have chosen the more radical option of open access (OA), in which the content of journals is freely accessible to anybody with Internet connectivity, have had a much bigger degree of freedom to experiment with innovations. The objective was to study how open access journals have experimented with innovations concerning ways of organizing the peer review, the format of journals and articles, new interactive and media formats, and novel publishing revenue models. The features of 24 open access journals were studied. The journals were chosen in a nonrandom manner from the approximately 7000 existing OA journals based on available information about interesting journals and include both representative cases and highly innovative outlier cases. Most early OA journals in the 1990s were founded by individual scholars and used a business model based on voluntary work close in spirit to open-source development of software. In the next wave, many long-established journals, in particular society journals and journals from regions such as Latin America, made their articles OA when they started publishing parallel electronic versions. From about 2002 on, newly founded professional OA publishing firms using article-processing charges to fund their operations have emerged. Over the years, there have been several experiments with new forms of peer review, media enhancements, and the inclusion of structured data sets with articles. In recent years, the growth of OA publishing has also been facilitated by the availability of open

A Study of Innovative Features in Scholarly Open Access Journals

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

Background The emergence of the Internet has triggered tremendous changes in the publication of scientific peer-reviewed journals. Today, journals are usually available in parallel electronic versions, but the way the peer-review process works, the look of articles and journals, and the rigid and slow publication schedules have remained largely unchanged, at least for the vast majority of subscription-based journals. Those publishing firms and scholarly publishers who have chosen the more radical option of open access (OA), in which the content of journals is freely accessible to anybody with Internet connectivity, have had a much bigger degree of freedom to experiment with innovations. Objective The objective was to study how open access journals have experimented with innovations concerning ways of organizing the peer review, the format of journals and articles, new interactive and media formats, and novel publishing revenue models. Methods The features of 24 open access journals were studied. The journals were chosen in a nonrandom manner from the approximately 7000 existing OA journals based on available information about interesting journals and include both representative cases and highly innovative outlier cases. Results Most early OA journals in the 1990s were founded by individual scholars and used a business model based on voluntary work close in spirit to open-source development of software. In the next wave, many long-established journals, in particular society journals and journals from regions such as Latin America, made their articles OA when they started publishing parallel electronic versions. From about 2002 on, newly founded professional OA publishing firms using article-processing charges to fund their operations have emerged. Over the years, there have been several experiments with new forms of peer review, media enhancements, and the inclusion of structured data sets with articles. In recent years, the growth of OA publishing has also been

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

Publications and the peer review system

USDA-ARS?s Scientific Manuscript database

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...

Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences.

PubMed

Söderlund, Therese; Madison, Guy

2017-01-01

Gender studies (GS) has been challenged on epistemological grounds. Here, we compare samples of peer-reviewed academic journal publications written by GS authors and authors from closely related disciplines in the social sciences. The material consisted of 2805 statements from 36 peer-reviewed journal articles, sampled from the Swedish Gender Studies List, which covers >12,000 publications. Each statement was coded as expressing a lack of any of three aspects of objectivity: Bias, Normativity, or Political activism, or as considering any of four realms of explanation for the behaviours or phenomena under study: Biology/genetics, Individual/group differences, Environment/culture, or Societal institutions. Statements in GS publications did to a greater extent express bias and normativity, but not political activism. They did also to a greater extent consider cultural, environmental, social, and societal realms of explanation, and to a lesser extent biological and individual differences explanations.

The Potential of Dual-Language Cross-Cultural Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Ruecker, Todd

2011-01-01

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

Rate and factors influencing the conversion of abstracts presented at the argentinian congress of hypertension meetings to indexed full peer-reviewed publications.

PubMed

Barochiner, J; Martínez, R; Choi, M; Espeche, W; Micali, R G; Tomat, A

2018-03-01

Publication rates vary significantly among different scientific meetings, with many abstracts never being published as peer-reviewed articles. This issue has never been investigated in the Hypertension field in Argentina. Our purpose was to determine the proportion of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings that were published as full articles in peer-reviewed indexed journals, the time lag to publication and the factors associated with successful publication. we conducted a PubMed search to identify peer-reviewed publications of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings between 2006 and 2015, assessing publication rate along with the time lag to publication. We also extracted information about several abstract characteristics and, for those that got published, we recorded the date of publication and journal name with its impact factor and H index. Predictors of publication were analyzed using a multivariable model. a total of 619 abstracts were presented between 2006 and 2015. The rate of conversion to full-text peer-reviewed articles by June 2017 was 28.1% (95%CI 24.7-31.8%), with a median time to publication of 15.7 months (IQR 8-30.9). On multivariable analysis, the independent predictors of publication were basic science category (OR 5 [95%CI 2.3-10.8], p<0.001), oral presentation (OR 2.8 [95%CI 1.6-4.9], p<0.001) and being an award winner for the presentation (OR 3 [95%CI 1.3-6.8], p=0.01). conversion rate to full peer-reviewed articles of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings is far from ideal, with potential areas where efforts should be concentrated to improve dissemination of knowledge. Copyright © 2018 SEH-LELHA. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and 'CoI consultancy'.

PubMed

Charlton, Bruce G

2004-01-01

In recent years, the perception has grown that conflicts of interest are having a detrimental effect on medical science as it influences health policy and clinical practice, leading medical journals to enforce self-declaration of potential biases in the attempt to counteract or compensate for the problem. Conflict of interest (CoI) declarations have traditionally been considered inappropriate in pure science since its evaluation systems themselves constitute a mechanism for eliminating the effect of individual biases. Pure science is primarily evaluated by 'peer usage', in which scientific information is 'replicated' by being incorporated in the work of other scientists, and tested by further observation of the natural world. Over the long-term, the process works because significant biases impair the quality of science, and bad science tends to be neglected or refuted. However, scientific evaluation operates slowly over years and decades, and only a small proportion of published work is ever actually evaluated. But most of modern medical science no longer conforms to the model of pure science, and may instead be conceptualized as a system of 'applied' science having different aims and evaluation processes. The aim of applied medical science is to solve pre-specified problems, and to provide scientific information ready for implementation immediately following publication. The primary evaluation process of applied science is peer review, not peer usage. Peer review is much more rapid (with a timescale of weeks or months) and cheaper than peer usage and (consequently) has a much wider application: peer review is a prospective validation while peer usage is retrospective. Since applied science consists of incremental advances on existing knowledge achieved using established techniques, its results can usually be reliably evaluated by peer review. However, despite its considerable convenience, peer review has significant limitations related to its reliance on opinion

Citability of Original Research and Reviews in Journals and Their Sponsored Supplements

PubMed Central

Citrome, Leslie

2010-01-01

Background The contents of pharmaceutical industry sponsored supplements to medical journals are perceived to be less credible than the contents of their parent journals. It is unknown if their contents are cited as often. The objective of this study was to quantify the citability of original research and reviews contained in supplements and compare it with that for the parent journal. Methodology/Principal Findings This was a cohort study of 446 articles published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (JCP) and its supplements for calendar years 2000 and 2005. The total citation counts for each article up to October 5, 2009 were retrieved from the ISI Web of Science database. The main outcome measure was the number of citations received by an article since publication. Regular journal articles included 114 from calendar year 2000 and 190 from 2005. Articles from supplements included 90 from 2000 and 52 from 2005. The median citation counts for the 3 years post-publication were 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4–20), 14 (IQR, 8–20), 13.5 (IQR, 8–23), and 13.5 (IQR, 8–20), for the 2000 parent journal, 2000 supplements, 2005 parent journal, and 2005 supplements, respectively. Citation counts were higher for the articles in the supplements than the parent journal for the cohorts from 2000 (p = .02), and no different for the year 2005 cohorts (p = .88). The 2005 parent journal cohort had higher citation counts than the 2000 cohort (p = .007), in contrast to the supplements where citation counts remained the same (p = .94). Conclusions/Significance Articles published in JCP supplements are robustly cited and thus can be influential in guiding clinical and research practice, as well as shaping critical thinking. Because they are printed under the sponsorship of commercial interests, they may be perceived as less than objective. A reasonable step to help improve this perception would be to ensure that supplements are peer-reviewed in the same way as

Science and Technology Peer Review: GPRA

DTIC Science & Technology

2003-11-30

attention they deserve. 12) Cost of S&T Evaluations The next critical factor for quality S&T evaluations is cost ( ASTEC , 1991; Buechner, 1974; Hensley...117-118. Armstrong, J.S. 1997. Why Conduct Journal Peer Review: Quality Control, Fairness, Or Innovation. Sci Engineer Ethics, 3:1. ASTEC . 1991

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.

[Reviewing an article for Radiología: who and how].

PubMed

García Santos, J M

2011-01-01

The reviewer's job is fundamental to the editorial process in a scientific journal. The quality of the review will determine the quality of the journal. Therefore, it is very important for the reviewers to make this mission their own and to contribute to the development of science and of the journal. On the other hand, the focus of a review will depend largely on the type of journal for which one is reviewing. In this article, we explain what the journal Radiología, the scientific journal of the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology, expects of its reviewers and their reviews of original articles. We aim to establish some basic rules to lay the groundwork for the development of more detailed guidelines for reviewing articles for the journal Radiología. Copyright © 2011 SERAM. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.

The peer review gap: A longitudinal case study of gendered publishing and occupational patterns in a female-rich discipline, Western North America (1974-2016).

PubMed

Tushingham, Shannon; Fulkerson, Tiffany; Hill, Katheryn

2017-01-01

Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that women continue to be underrepresented in publication output in the sciences. This is true even in female-rich fields such as archaeology. Since most gender-related publication studies rely on data from peer-reviewed journals, it would be instructive, though challenging, to also track publication output in non-refereed and professional or industry venues, which tend to be more accessible to those working in extra-academic settings. This comparison is important in fields such as archaeology in which the vast majority (approximately 90%) of practitioners in the USA work for private sector cultural resource management firms and federal and state agencies. To understand the dynamics of who publishes where, we compiled a new dataset tracking over 40 years of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed publications that publish articles on the archaeology of California (an American Indian cultural area including southwest Oregon, most of the state of California, and Baja Mexico) and the Great Basin culture area (spanning eight western USA states). Historic gender differences in the publishing output of authors identified as men versus those identified as women were revealed by articles published between 1974 and 2016 in two refereed journals, the Journal of California Anthropology/ Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology and California Archaeology, and in one un-refereed venue, the Society for California Archaeology Proceedings. Although multiple independent measures indicate that women are contributing and active members of the discipline, publishing records yield more variable results. Specifically, while women have historic and increasingly robust levels of participation in the non-peer-reviewed Proceedings, they remain vastly underrepresented in the two peer-reviewed journals, which are widely regarded as more prestigious and influential. We argue that this "peer review gap" is influenced by variation in the costs

Top reviewers for the Journal of Nuclear Materials - 2017

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-01-01

The Journal of Nuclear Materials achieves its scientific excellence through several familiar editorial activities. Manuscripts are submitted by authors describing their research methods and results, a constructive refereeing process is generously provided by peer reviewers, and the many steps and decisions of the editorial process are carried out by the Editors with assistance from the Advisory Editorial Board. With the exception of peer reviewers, the names of the people within these groups are published in the pages of the Journal, thereby providing recognition in the community for their work. However, all of our Journal constituents owe a large debt of gratitude to reviewers. They dedicate time, energy and remarkable depth of expertise to evaluate submitted manuscripts. As a result of their work most manuscripts are substantively improved. We also recognize the fact that many times the underlying research itself is advanced by the recommendations of our reviewers.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2012-01-01

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

[Publication rates of audiology master and doctoral theses in peer-reviewed journals].

PubMed

Çelikgün, Bahtiyar; Derinsu, Ufuk; Çiprut, A Ayça; Torun, Merve; Kalcıoğlu, M Tayyar

2016-01-01

Theses are the prime indicators of the scientific productivity of a country and one of the main and strongest resources for the emergence of scientific articles. This study aims to examine, by using the survey method, how many of the audiology master and/or doctoral theses in Turkey were turned into a scientific work. Individuals who received a master's degree in audiology were surveyed whether their theses had been reviewed as a paper or publication. Forty-five of the 230 audiology specialists and 22 audiologists with a doctorate degree working in Turkey participated in the study by answering the survey questions. In general, while 45.4% of master theses were presented orally or as a poster presentation in a national convention, 20.4% were presented orally or as a poster presentation in an international convention. While 18.1% of theses were published as an article in a national journal, 15.9% were published as an article in an international SCI or SCI-E journal. The distribution of the doctoral theses is 26.6%, 33.3%, 13.3% and 26.6%, respectively. We found the rate of theses in audiology turning into a scientific article to be below the desired level, as in other fields. The reasons for this should be emphasized and efforts should be made to raise these rates to the desired level.

The "Dos and Don'ts" of Writing a Journal Article

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kekale, Tauno; de Weerd-Nederhof, Petra; Cervai, Sara; Borelli, Massimo

2009-01-01

Purpose: During work as reviewers and editors of journals authors are often faced the same types of problems in many articles. The purpose of this piece is to give some guidelines on typical problems that lead to rejection, and how to avoid these. Design/methodology/approach: The paper discusses journal article design and offers some methodology…

Predictors of the accuracy of quotation of references in peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature in relation to publications on the scaphoid.

PubMed

Buijze, G A; Weening, A A; Poolman, R W; Bhandari, M; Ring, D

2012-02-01

Using inaccurate quotations can propagate misleading information, which might affect the management of patients. The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of quotation inaccuracy in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid. We randomly selected 100 papers from ten orthopaedic journals. All references were retrieved in full text when available or otherwise excluded. Two observers independently rated all quotations from the selected papers by comparing the claims made by the authors with the data and expressed opinions of the reference source. A statistical analysis determined which article-related factors were predictors of quotation inaccuracy. The mean total inaccuracy rate of the 3840 verified quotes was 7.6%. There was no correlation between the rate of inaccuracy and the impact factor of the journal. Multivariable analysis identified the journal and the type of study (clinical, biomechanical, methodological, case report or review) as important predictors of the total quotation inaccuracy rate. We concluded that inaccurate quotations in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid were common and slightly more so for certain journals and certain study types. Authors, reviewers and editorial staff play an important role in reducing this inaccuracy.

The peer review gap: A longitudinal case study of gendered publishing and occupational patterns in a female-rich discipline, Western North America (1974–2016)

PubMed Central

Fulkerson, Tiffany; Hill, Katheryn

2017-01-01

Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that women continue to be underrepresented in publication output in the sciences. This is true even in female-rich fields such as archaeology. Since most gender-related publication studies rely on data from peer-reviewed journals, it would be instructive, though challenging, to also track publication output in non-refereed and professional or industry venues, which tend to be more accessible to those working in extra-academic settings. This comparison is important in fields such as archaeology in which the vast majority (approximately 90%) of practitioners in the USA work for private sector cultural resource management firms and federal and state agencies. To understand the dynamics of who publishes where, we compiled a new dataset tracking over 40 years of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed publications that publish articles on the archaeology of California (an American Indian cultural area including southwest Oregon, most of the state of California, and Baja Mexico) and the Great Basin culture area (spanning eight western USA states). Historic gender differences in the publishing output of authors identified as men versus those identified as women were revealed by articles published between 1974 and 2016 in two refereed journals, the Journal of California Anthropology/ Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology and California Archaeology, and in one un-refereed venue, the Society for California Archaeology Proceedings. Although multiple independent measures indicate that women are contributing and active members of the discipline, publishing records yield more variable results. Specifically, while women have historic and increasingly robust levels of participation in the non-peer-reviewed Proceedings, they remain vastly underrepresented in the two peer-reviewed journals, which are widely regarded as more prestigious and influential. We argue that this “peer review gap” is influenced by variation in the

Open access to journal articles in oncology: current situation and citation impact.

PubMed

Hua, F; Sun, H; Walsh, T; Glenny, A-M; Worthington, H

2017-10-01

Recent years have seen numerous efforts and resources devoted to the development of open access (OA), but the current OA situation of the oncology literature remains unknown. We conducted this cross-sectional study to determine the current share and provision methods of OA in the field of oncology, identify predictors of OA status (OA versus non-OA), and study the association between OA and citation counts. PubMed was searched for oncology-related, peer-reviewed journal articles published in December 2014. Google, Google Scholar, PubMed, ResearchGate, OpenDOAR and OAIster were manually checked to assess the OA status of each included article. Citation data were extracted from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the OA proportion (primary outcome) and OA provision methods. Multivariable logistic regression and multilevel generalized linear model analyses were performed to study predictors of OA status and the association between OA and citation counts, respectively. In a random sample of 1000 articles, 912 were deemed eligible and therefore included. Of these, the full-texts of 530 articles (58.1%; 95% CI: 54.9-61.3) were freely available online: 314 (34.4%) were available from publishers ('Gold road' to OA), 424 (46.5%) were available via self-archiving ('Green road' to OA). According to multivariable regression analyses, impact factor, publisher type, language, research type, number of authors, continent of origin, and country income were significant predictors of articles' OA status; OA articles received a citation rate 1.24 times the incidence rate for non-OA articles (95% CI: 1.05-1.47; P = 0.012). Based on our sample, in the field of oncology, 42% of recent journal articles are behind the pay-wall (non-OA) 1 year after publication; the 'Green road' of providing OA is more common than the 'Gold road'; OA is associated with higher citation counts. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press

Acknowledging Students' Collaborations through Peer Review: A Footnoting Practice

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Poe, Shelli M.; Gravett, Emily O.

2016-01-01

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

What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals?

PubMed Central

McKibbon, Kathleen Ann; Wilczynski, Nancy L; Haynes, Robert Brian

2004-01-01

Background We conducted this analysis to determine i) which journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant studies in internal medicine, general/family practice, general practice nursing, and mental health; and ii) the proportion of clinically relevant articles in each journal. Methods We performed an analytic survey of a hand search of 170 general medicine, general healthcare, and specialty journals for 2000. Research staff assessed individual articles by using explicit criteria for scientific merit for healthcare application. Practitioners assessed the clinical importance of these articles. Outcome measures were the number of high-quality, clinically relevant studies published in the 170 journal titles and how many of these were published in each of four discipline-specific, secondary "evidence-based" journals (ACP Journal Club for internal medicine and its subspecialties; Evidence-Based Medicine for general/family practice; Evidence-Based Nursing for general practice nursing; and Evidence-Based Mental Health for all aspects of mental health). Original studies and review articles were classified for purpose: therapy and prevention, screening and diagnosis, prognosis, etiology and harm, economics and cost, clinical prediction guides, and qualitative studies. Results We evaluated 60,352 articles from 170 journal titles. The pass criteria of high-quality methods and clinically relevant material were met by 3059 original articles and 1073 review articles. For ACP Journal Club (internal medicine), four titles supplied 56.5% of the articles and 27 titles supplied the other 43.5%. For Evidence-Based Medicine (general/family practice), five titles supplied 50.7% of the articles and 40 titles supplied the remaining 49.3%. For Evidence-Based Nursing (general practice nursing), seven titles supplied 51.0% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 49.0%. For Evidence-Based Mental Health (mental health), nine titles supplied 53.2% of the articles and 34 additional

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

PubMed

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

2017-09-15

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

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

DTIC Science & Technology

2004-06-01

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

Data regarding articles retracted from PubMed indexed dental journals from India.

PubMed

Shamim, Thorakkal

2018-06-01

This data aimed to audit the articles retracted from PubMed indexed dental journals from India. The PubMed indexed journals considered are Indian Journal of Dental research, Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology, Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society for type of article, name of dental specialty, topic of individual dental specialties, causes for retraction of article and authorship trend of retracted articles using web-based search. Among PubMed indexed Indian dental journals,the number of retracted articles were as follows: Indian Journal of Dental research (4) followed by Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology (3), Contemporary Clinical Dentistry (3), Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry (2), Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (2) and Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society (1). Out of 15 retracted articles from PubMed indexed Indian dental journals, case reports (7) form a major share followed by original articles(6) and review articles (2). Among the dental specialties of retracted articles, oral pathology and microbiology (5) constitute the major share followed by periodontics (4), pedodontics (4), oral medicine and radiology (1) and prosthodontics (1). Duplicate publication (7), plagiarism (5) and authorship dispute (3) are the causes for the retraction of article.

A word processor optimized for preparing journal articles and student papers.

PubMed

Wolach, A H; McHale, M A

2001-11-01

A new Windows-based word processor for preparing journal articles and student papers is described. In addition to standard features found in word processors, the present word processor provides specific help in preparing manuscripts. Clicking on "Reference Help (APA Form)" in the "File" menu provides a detailed help system for entering the references in a journal article. Clicking on "Examples and Explanations of APA Form" provides a help system with examples of the various sections of a review article, journal article that has one experiment, or journal article that has two or more experiments. The word processor can automatically place the manuscript page header and page number at the top of each page using the form required by APA and Psychonomic Society journals. The "APA Form" submenu of the "Help" menu provides detailed information about how the word processor is optimized for preparing articles and papers.

The Great Fossil Fiasco: Teaching about Peer Review.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gift, Nancy; Krasny, Marianne

2003-01-01

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

What Does It Take to Change an Editor's Mind? Identifying Minimally Important Difference Thresholds for Peer Reviewer Rating Scores of Scientific Articles.

PubMed

Callaham, Michael; John, Leslie K

2018-01-05

We define a minimally important difference for the Likert-type scores frequently used in scientific peer review (similar to existing minimally important differences for scores in clinical medicine). The magnitude of score change required to change editorial decisions has not been studied, to our knowledge. Experienced editors at a journal in the top 6% by impact factor were asked how large a change of rating in "overall desirability for publication" was required to trigger a change in their initial decision on an article. Minimally important differences were assessed twice for each editor: once assessing the rating change required to shift the editor away from an initial decision to accept, and the other assessing the magnitude required to shift away from an initial rejection decision. Forty-one editors completed the survey (89% response rate). In the acceptance frame, the median minimally important difference was 0.4 points on a scale of 1 to 5. Editors required a greater rating change to shift from an initial rejection decision; in the rejection frame, the median minimally important difference was 1.2 points. Within each frame, there was considerable heterogeneity: in the acceptance frame, 38% of editors did not change their decision within the maximum available range; in the rejection frame, 51% did not. To our knowledge, this is the first study to determine the minimally important difference for Likert-type ratings of research article quality, or in fact any nonclinical scientific assessment variable. Our findings may be useful for future research assessing whether changes to the peer review process produce clinically meaningful differences in editorial decisionmaking. Copyright © 2017 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials in high-impact ophthalmology journals and general medical journals: a systematic review.

PubMed

Joksimovic, Lazar; Koucheki, Robert; Popovic, Marko; Ahmed, Yusuf; Schlenker, Matthew B; Ahmed, Iqbal Ike K

2017-10-01

Evidence-based treatments in ophthalmology are often based on the results of randomised controlled trials. Biased conclusions from randomised controlled trials may lead to inappropriate management recommendations. This systematic review investigates the prevalence of bias risk in randomised controlled trials published in high-impact ophthalmology journals and ophthalmology trials from general medical journals. Using Ovid MEDLINE, randomised controlled trials in the top 10 high-impact ophthalmology journals in 2015 were systematically identified and critically appraised for the prevalence of bias risk. Included randomised controlled trials were assessed in all domains of bias as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration. In addition, the prevalence of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was investigated. A comparison with ophthalmology articles from high-impact general medical journals was performed. Of the 259 records that were screened from ophthalmology-specific journals, 119 trials met all inclusion criteria and were critically appraised. In total, 29.4% of domains had an unclear risk, 13.8% had a high risk and 56.8% had a low risk of bias. In comparison, ophthalmology articles from general medical journals had a lower prevalence of unclear risk (17.1%), higher prevalence of high risk (21.9%) and a higher prevalence of low risk domains (61.9%). Furthermore, 64.7% of critically appraised trials from ophthalmology-specific journals did not report any conflicts of interest, while 70.6% did not report an industry sponsor of their trial. In closing, it is essential that authors, peer reviewers and readers closely follow published risk of bias guidelines. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

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

PubMed Central

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

2009-01-01

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

Publication rates of public health theses in international and national peer-review journals in Turkey.

PubMed

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

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2012-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Covill, Amy E.

2010-01-01

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

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…

Timely deposition of macromolecular structures is necessary for peer review

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

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

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 thatmore » 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.« less

Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

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

2016-01-01

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

Decoupling the scholarly journal

PubMed Central

Priem, Jason; Hemminger, Bradley M.

2011-01-01

Although many observers have advocated the reform of the scholarly publishing system, improvements to functions like peer review have been adopted sluggishly. We argue that this is due to the tight coupling of the journal system: the system's essential functions of archiving, registration, dissemination, and certification are bundled together and siloed into tens of thousands of individual journals. This tight coupling makes it difficult to change any one aspect of the system, choking out innovation. We suggest that the solution is the “decoupled journal (DcJ).” In this system, the functions are unbundled and performed as services, able to compete for patronage and evolve in response to the market. For instance, a scholar might deposit an article in her institutional repository, have it copyedited and typeset by one company, indexed for search by several others, self-marketed over her own social networks, and peer reviewed by one or more stamping agencies that connect her paper to external reviewers. The DcJ brings publishing out of its current seventeenth-century paradigm, and creates a Web-like environment of loosely joined pieces—a marketplace of tools that, like the Web, evolves quickly in response to new technologies and users' needs. Importantly, this system is able to evolve from the current one, requiring only the continued development of bolt-on services external to the journal, particularly for peer review. PMID:22493574

Analysis of scientific articles published in two general orthopaedic journals.

PubMed

Holzer, Lukas A; Holzer, Gerold

2013-01-01

To give an overview of the behaviour and scientific contributions of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American (JBJS-A) and British Volume (JBJS-B). 480 original articles published in 2009 were identified through a combined comprehensive computer and manual library search. Articles were assigned to 11 orthopaedic categories and by country, type and specialty of the institution. Possible grants and citations were analysed. USA led all countries in published articles (36,87%), followed by UK (20,62%) and South Korea (5,83%). Most studies published were performed at academic institutions (65,83 %), only 4,16% at private practices. Almost half of the articles (46,24%) were published in three categories: hip (19.16%), knee (13.75%) and trauma (13.33%). In both journals 47.15% articles had at least one funding source. A review of articles published in major journals allows to show how research in orthopaedics is distributed worldwide. This study shows that a variety of different journals is neccessary to reflect the broad spectrum of orthopaedics in depth. Level of Evidence III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Thank You to Our 2017 Peer Reviewers

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2018-02-01

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

Do peers matter? A review of peer and/or friends' influence on physical activity among American adolescents.

PubMed

Fitzgerald, Amanda; Fitzgerald, Noelle; Aherne, Cian

2012-08-01

This systematic review investigated the relationship between peer and/or friend variables and physical activity among adolescents by synthesising cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental research conducted in the US. Seven electronic databases were searched to identify related articles published within the last 10 years and the articles reviewed included adolescents between 10 and 18 years. Studies reporting a measure of physical activity for adolescents and at least one potential peer and/or friend variable were included. Research demonstrated that peers and friends have an important role to play in the physical activity behavior of adolescents. Six processes were identified through which peers and/or friends may have an influence on physical activity including: peer and/or friend support, presence of peers and friends, peer norms, friendship quality and acceptance, peer crowds, and peer victimization. The theoretical significance of these results is assessed and the development of peer-related physical activity programs for adolescents is discussed. Copyright © 2012 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Altmetric: Top 50 dental articles in 2014.

PubMed

Kolahi, J; Khazaei, S

2016-06-10

Introduction Altmetrics is a new and emerging scholarly tool that measures online attention surrounding journal articles. Altmetric data resources include: policy documents, news outlets, blogs, online reference managers (eg Mendeley and CiteULike), post-publication peer-review forums (eg PubPeer and Publons), social media (eg Twitter, Facebook, Weibo, Google(+), Pinterest, Reddit), Wikipedia, sites running Stack Exchange (Q&A), and reviews on F1000 and YouTube.Methods To identify the top 50 dental articles in 2014, PubMed was searched using the following query "("2014/1/1"[PDAT]:"2014/12/31"[PDAT]) and jsubsetd[text]" in December, 2015. Consequently, all PubMed records were extracted and sent to Altmetric LLP (London, UK) as a CSV file for examination. Data were analysed by Microsoft Office Excel 2010 using descriptive statistics and charts.Results Using PubMed searches,15,132 dental articles were found in 2014. The mean Altmetric score of 50 top dental articles in 2014 was 69.5 ± 73.3 (95% CI: -74.14 to 213.14). The British Dental Journal (48%) and Journal of Dental Research (16%) had the maximum number of top articles. Twitter (67.13%), Mendeley (15.89%) and news outlets (10.92%) were the most popular altmetric data resources.Discussion Altmetrics are intended to supplement bibliometrics, not replace them. Altmetrics is a fresh and emerging arena for the dental research community. We believe that dental clinical practitioners, research scientists, research directors and journal editors must pay more attention to altmetrics as a new and rapid tool to measure the social impact of scholarly articles.

Comparison of Data on Serious Adverse Events and Mortality in ClinicalTrials.gov, Corresponding Journal Articles, and FDA Medical Reviews: Cross-Sectional Analysis.

PubMed

Pradhan, Richeek; Singh, Sonal

2018-04-11

Inconsistencies in data on serious adverse events (SAEs) and mortality in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding journal articles pose a challenge to research transparency. The objective of this study was to compare data on SAEs and mortality from clinical trials reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding journal articles with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) medical reviews. We conducted a cross-sectional study of a randomly selected sample of new molecular entities approved during the study period 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015. We extracted data on SAEs and mortality from 15 pivotal trials from ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding journal articles (the two index resources), and FDA medical reviews (reference standard). We estimated the magnitude of deviations in rates of SAEs and mortality between the index resources and the reference standard. We found deviations in rates of SAEs (30% in ClinicalTrials.gov and 30% in corresponding journal articles) and mortality (72% in ClinicalTrials.gov and 53% in corresponding journal articles) when compared with the reference standard. The intra-class correlation coefficient between the three resources was 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-0.99) for SAE rates and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) for mortality rates. There are differences in data on rates of SAEs and mortality in randomized clinical trials in both ClinicalTrials.gov and journal articles compared with FDA reviews. Further efforts should focus on decreasing existing discrepancies to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of data reporting in clinical trials.

Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship.

PubMed

Dumenco, Luba; Engle, Deborah L; Goodell, Kristen; Nagler, Alisa; Ovitsh, Robin K; Whicker, Shari A

2017-02-01

After participating in a group peer-review exercise at a workshop presented by Academic Medicine and MedEdPORTAL editors at the 2015 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical Education Meeting, the authors realized that the way their work group reviewed a manuscript was very different from the way by which they each would have reviewed the paper as an individual. Further, the group peer-review process yielded more robust feedback for the manuscript's authors than did the traditional individual peer-review process. This realization motivated the authors to reconvene and collaborate to write this Commentary to share their experience and propose the expanded use of group peer review in medical education scholarship.The authors consider the benefits of a peer-review process for reviewers, including learning how to improve their own manuscripts. They suggest that the benefits of a team review model may be similar to those of teamwork and team-based learning in medicine and medical education. They call for research to investigate this, to provide evidence to support group review, and to determine whether specific paper types would benefit most from team review (e.g., particularly complex manuscripts, those receiving widely disparate initial individual reviews). In addition, the authors propose ways in which a team-based approach to peer review could be expanded by journals and institutions. They believe that exploring the use of group peer review potentially could create a new methodology for skill development in research and scholarly writing and could enhance the quality of medical education scholarship.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Trautmann, Nancy M.

2009-01-01

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

On Reviewing and Writing a Scholarly Article

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bettis, Jerry L., Sr.

2012-01-01

This article provides guidelines for reviewing and writing scholarly articles for the professional who reads and writes them for his/her own work and/or for publication in scientific journals. It outlines the purpose and contents of each section of a research article and provides a checklist for reviewing and writing a research article. This…

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.

A Fine Balance: How Authors Strategize Around Journal Submission.

PubMed

Ginsburg, Shiphra; Lynch, Meghan; Walsh, Catharine M

2018-04-24

Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is essential for medical education researchers. Competition remains fierce for top journals and authors are advised to consider impact factor (IF), audience, and alignment of focus. However, little is known about how authors balance these factors when making submission decisions. The authors aimed to explore decision-making around journal choice. Using constructivist grounded theory, the authors conducted and analyzed 27 semi-structured phone interviews (August-November 2016) with medical education researchers. Participants were recruited from a larger study and all had presented abstracts at medical education meetings in 2005 or 2006. When deciding where to submit an article, participants weighed a journal's IF and prestige against other factors, such as a journal's vision and mission, finding the right audience, study-specific factors including perceived quality of the work, and the peer-review process. The opportunity cost of aiming high and risking rejection was influenced by career stage and external pressures. Despite much higher IFs, clinical journals were viewed as less desirable for establishing legitimacy in the medical education field and were often the target for less novel or rigorous work. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with peer review in general, citing overly critical and poorly informed reviewers. Authors strategize around a particular article's submission by attempting to balance many inter-related factors. Their perceptions that high IF clinical journals are viewed as less prestigious in this field can lead to publication strategies that run counter to advice given to junior faculty. This has implications for mentorship and institutional leadership.

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

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.

Conference presentation to publication: a retrospective study evaluating quality of abstracts and journal articles in medical education research.

PubMed

Stephenson, Christopher R; Vaa, Brianna E; Wang, Amy T; Schroeder, Darrell R; Beckman, Thomas J; Reed, Darcy A; Sawatsky, Adam P

2017-11-09

There is little evidence regarding the comparative quality of abstracts and articles in medical education research. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI), which was developed to evaluate the quality of reporting in medical education, has strong validity evidence for content, internal structure, and relationships to other variables. We used the MERSQI to compare the quality of reporting for conference abstracts, journal abstracts, and published articles. This is a retrospective study of all 46 medical education research abstracts submitted to the Society of General Internal Medicine 2009 Annual Meeting that were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. We compared MERSQI scores of the abstracts with scores for their corresponding published journal abstracts and articles. Comparisons were performed using the signed rank test. Overall MERSQI scores increased significantly for published articles compared with conference abstracts (11.33 vs 9.67; P < .001) and journal abstracts (11.33 vs 9.96; P < .001). Regarding MERSQI subscales, published articles had higher MERSQI scores than conference abstracts in the domains of sampling (1.59 vs 1.34; P = .006), data analysis (3.00 vs 2.43; P < .001), and validity of evaluation instrument (1.04 vs 0.28; P < .001). Published articles also had higher MERSQI scores than journal abstracts in the domains of data analysis (3.00 vs 2.70; P = .004) and validity of evaluation instrument (1.04 vs 0.26; P < .001). To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the quality of medical education abstracts and journal articles using the MERSQI. Overall, the quality of articles was greater than that of abstracts. However, there were no significant differences between abstracts and articles for the domains of study design and outcomes, which indicates that these MERSQI elements may be applicable to abstracts. Findings also suggest that abstract quality is generally preserved

CES4Health.info: an online tool for peer reviewed publication and dissemination of diverse products of community-engaged scholarship.

PubMed

Jordan, Catherine; Seifer, Sarena D; Gelmon, Sherril B; Ryan, Katharine; McGinley, Piper

2011-01-01

Community-engaged scholarship (CES)-research, teaching, programmatic and other scholarly activities conducted through partnerships between academic and community partners-may result in innovative applied products such as manuals, policy briefs, curricula, videos, toolkits, and websites. Without accepted mechanisms for peer-reviewed publication and dissemination, these products often do not "count" toward faculty promotion and tenure (P&T) and have limited opportunities for broad impact. This paper reports on CES4Health.info, a unique online tool for peer-reviewed publication and dissemination of products of CES in forms other than journal articles. In its first year, CES4Health.info has published 24 products and documented the satisfaction of users, authors, and reviewers.

Randomised controlled trials of veterinary homeopathy: characterising the peer-reviewed research literature for systematic review.

PubMed

Mathie, Robert T; Hacke, Daniela; Clausen, Jürgen

2012-10-01

Systematic review of the research evidence in veterinary homeopathy has never previously been carried out. This paper presents the search methods, together with categorised lists of retrieved records, that enable us to identify the literature that is acceptable for future systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in veterinary homeopathy. All randomised and controlled trials of homeopathic intervention (prophylaxis and/or treatment of disease, in any species except man) were appraised according to pre-specified criteria. The following databases were systematically searched from their inception up to and including March 2011: AMED; Carstens-Stiftung Homeopathic Veterinary Clinical Research (HomVetCR) database; CINAHL; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Embase; Hom-Inform; LILACS; PubMed; Science Citation Index; Scopus. One hundred and fifty records were retrieved; 38 satisfied the acceptance criteria (substantive report of a clinical treatment or prophylaxis trial in veterinary homeopathic medicine randomised and controlled and published in a peer-reviewed journal), and were thus eligible for future planned systematic review. Approximately half of the rejected records were theses. Seven species and 27 different species-specific medical conditions were represented in the 38 papers. Similar numbers of papers reported trials of treatment and prophylaxis (n=21 and n=17 respectively) and were controlled against placebo or other than placebo (n=18, n=20 respectively). Most research focused on non-individualised homeopathy (n=35 papers) compared with individualised homeopathy (n=3). The results provide a complete and clarified view of the RCT literature in veterinary homeopathy. We will systematically review the 38 substantive peer-reviewed journal articles under the main headings: treatment trials; prophylaxis trials. Copyright © 2012 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review.

PubMed

Yarris, Lalena M; Gottlieb, Michael; Scott, Kevin; Sampson, Christopher; Rose, Emily; Chan, Teresa M; Ilgen, Jonathan

2017-06-01

Peer review, a cornerstone of academia, promotes rigor and relevance in scientific publishing. As educators are encouraged to adopt a more scholarly approach to medical education, peer review is becoming increasingly important. Junior educators both receive the reviews of their peers, and are also asked to participate as reviewers themselves. As such, it is imperative for junior clinician educators to be well-versed in the art of peer reviewing their colleagues' work. In this article, our goal was to identify and summarize key papers that may be helpful for faculty members interested in learning more about the peer-review process and how to improve their reviewing skills. The online discussions of the 2016-17 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator program included a robust discussion about peer review, which highlighted a number of papers on that topic. We sought to augment this list with further suggestions by guest experts and by an open call on Twitter for other important papers. Via this process, we created a list of 24 total papers on the topic of peer review. After gathering these papers, our authorship group engaged in a consensus-building process incorporating Delphi methods to identify the papers that best described peer review, and also highlighted important tips for new reviewers. We found and reviewed 24 papers. In our results section, we present our authorship group's top five most highly rated papers on the topic of peer review. We also summarize these papers with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers. We present five key papers on peer review that can be used for faculty development for novice writers and reviewers. These papers represent a mix of foundational and explanatory papers that may provide some basis from which junior faculty members might build upon as they both undergo the peer-review process and act as reviewers in turn.

Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review

PubMed Central

Yarris, Lalena M.; Gottlieb, Michael; Scott, Kevin; Sampson, Christopher; Rose, Emily; Chan, Teresa M.; Ilgen, Jonathan

2017-01-01

Introduction Peer review, a cornerstone of academia, promotes rigor and relevance in scientific publishing. As educators are encouraged to adopt a more scholarly approach to medical education, peer review is becoming increasingly important. Junior educators both receive the reviews of their peers, and are also asked to participate as reviewers themselves. As such, it is imperative for junior clinician educators to be well-versed in the art of peer reviewing their colleagues’ work. In this article, our goal was to identify and summarize key papers that may be helpful for faculty members interested in learning more about the peer-review process and how to improve their reviewing skills. Methods The online discussions of the 2016–17 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator program included a robust discussion about peer review, which highlighted a number of papers on that topic. We sought to augment this list with further suggestions by guest experts and by an open call on Twitter for other important papers. Via this process, we created a list of 24 total papers on the topic of peer review. After gathering these papers, our authorship group engaged in a consensus-building process incorporating Delphi methods to identify the papers that best described peer review, and also highlighted important tips for new reviewers. Results We found and reviewed 24 papers. In our results section, we present our authorship group’s top five most highly rated papers on the topic of peer review. We also summarize these papers with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers. Conclusion We present five key papers on peer review that can be used for faculty development for novice writers and reviewers. These papers represent a mix of foundational and explanatory papers that may provide some basis from which junior faculty members might build upon as they both undergo the peer-review process and act as reviewers in turn. PMID

Random Versus Nonrandom Peer Review: A Case for More Meaningful Peer Review.

PubMed

Itri, Jason N; Donithan, Adam; Patel, Sohil H

2018-05-10

Random peer review programs are not optimized to discover cases with diagnostic error and thus have inherent limitations with respect to educational and quality improvement value. Nonrandom peer review offers an alternative approach in which diagnostic error cases are targeted for collection during routine clinical practice. The objective of this study was to compare error cases identified through random and nonrandom peer review approaches at an academic center. During the 1-year study period, the number of discrepancy cases and score of discrepancy were determined from each approach. The nonrandom peer review process collected 190 cases, of which 60 were scored as 2 (minor discrepancy), 94 as 3 (significant discrepancy), and 36 as 4 (major discrepancy). In the random peer review process, 1,690 cases were reviewed, of which 1,646 were scored as 1 (no discrepancy), 44 were scored as 2 (minor discrepancy), and none were scored as 3 or 4. Several teaching lessons and quality improvement measures were developed as a result of analysis of error cases collected through the nonrandom peer review process. Our experience supports the implementation of nonrandom peer review as a replacement to random peer review, with nonrandom peer review serving as a more effective method for collecting diagnostic error cases with educational and quality improvement value. Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

Publishing in Discipline-Specific Open Access Journals: Opportunities and Outreach for Librarians

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Tomaszewski, Robert; Poulin, Sonia; MacDonald, Karen I.

2013-01-01

Open access (OA) journals promote the opportunity for peer-reviewed journal articles to be freely accessible. In recent years, the number of OA journals has exploded in all disciplines. Previous studies have identified print-based pedagogical discipline-specific journals outside the field of Library and Information Science (LIS) for librarians to…

Giving Feedback: Preparing Students for Peer Review and Self-Evaluation

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Philippakos, Zoi A.

2017-01-01

Revision is an important aspect of the writing process but is often challenging for students. Peer review can be helpful, but training is needed for it to work effectively. This article suggests an approach to preparing students for peer review by teaching specific evaluation criteria and leading collaborative practice in reviewing papers written…

Reprint of "Citation analysis as a measure of article quality, journal influence and individual researcher performance".

PubMed

Nightingale, Julie M; Marshall, Gill

2013-09-01

The research-related performance of universities, as well as that of individual researchers, is increasingly evaluated through the use of objective measures, or metrics, which seek to support or in some cases even replace more traditional methods of peer review. In particular there is a growing awareness in research communities, government organisations and funding bodies around the concept of using evaluation metrics to analyse research citations. The tools available for 'citation analysis' are many and varied, enabling a quantification of scientific quality, academic impact and prestige. However there is increasing concern regarding the potential misuse of such tools, which have limitations in certain research disciplines.This article uses 'real world' examples from radiography research and scholarship to illustrate the range of currently available citation analysis tools. It explores the academic debate surrounding their strengths and limitations, and identifies the potential impact of citation analysis on the radiography research community.The article concludes that citation analysis is a valuable tool for researchers to use for personal reflection and research planning, yet there are inherent dangers if it is used inappropriately. Whilst citation analysis can give objective information regarding an individual, research group, journal or higher education institution, it should not be used as a total substitute for traditional qualitative review and peer assessment. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Family Literacy Research: A Review of Five Journal Articles.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Rights, Mollie

This paper reviews 5 articles published in 1995 on family literacy research. The articles reviewed are: (1) a study on literacy in Iceland by Ronald Taylor which examined how Icelandic families share language and reading related activities; (2) an article by Barbara Moss and Gay Fawcett which describes and comments on different home literacy…

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…

Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS): design and first-year review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Smith, Arfon M.

2018-01-01

JOSS is a free and open-access journal that publishes articles describing research software across all disciplines. It has the dual goals of improving the quality of the software submitted and providing a mechanism for research software developers to receive credit. While designed to work within the current merit system of science, JOSS addresses the dearth of rewards for key contributions to science made in the form of software. JOSS publishes articles that encapsulate scholarship contained in the software itself, and its rigorous peer review targets the software components: functionality, documentation, tests, continuous integration, and the license. A JOSS article contains an abstract describing the purpose and functionality of the software, references, and a link to the software archive. JOSS published more than 100 articles in its first year, many from the scientific python ecosystem (including a number of articles related to astronomy and astrophysics). JOSS is a sponsored project of the nonprofit organization NumFOCUS and is an affiliate of the Open Source Initiative.In this presentation, I'll describes the motivation, design, and progress of the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS) and how it compares to other avenues for publishing research software in astronomy.

Postsecondary Peer Cooperative Learning Programs: Annotated Bibliography 2016

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Arendale, David R., Comp.

2016-01-01

Purpose: This 2016 annotated bibliography reviews seven postsecondary peer cooperative learning programs that have been implemented nationally to increase student achievement. Methodology: An extensive literature search was conducted of published journal articles, newspaper accounts, book chapters, books, ERIC documents, thesis and dissertations,…

Postsecondary Peer Cooperative Learning Programs: Annotated Bibliography 2017

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Arendale, David R., Comp.

2017-01-01

This 2017 annotated bibliography reviews seven postsecondary peer cooperative learning programs that have been implemented nationally to increase student achievement. An extensive literature search was conducted of published journal articles, newspaper accounts, book chapters, books, ERIC documents, thesis and dissertations, online documents, and…

Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals.

PubMed

Oermann, Marilyn H; Conklin, Jamie L; Nicoll, Leslie H; Chinn, Peggy L; Ashton, Kathleen S; Edie, Alison H; Amarasekara, Sathya; Budinger, Susan C

2016-11-01

The purpose of this study was to identify predatory journals in nursing, describe their characteristics and editorial standards, and document experiences of authors, peer reviewers, and editors affiliated with these journals. Using two sources that list predatory journals, the research team created a list of nursing journals. In Phase One, the team collected data on characteristics of predatory nursing journals such as types of articles published, article processing charge, and peer review process. In Phase Two, the team surveyed a sample of authors, reviewers, and editors to learn more about their experiences with their affiliated journals. Data from the review of predatory nursing journals were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Written comments were summarized and categorized. There were 140 predatory nursing journals from 75 publishers. Most journals were new, having been inaugurated in the past 1 to 2 years. One important finding was that many journals only published one or two volumes and then either ceased publishing or published fewer issues and articles after the first volume. Journal content varied widely, and some journals published content from dentistry and medicine, as well as nursing. Qualitative findings from the surveys confirmed previously published anecdotal evidence, including authors selecting journals based on spam emails and inability to halt publication of a manuscript, despite authors' requests to do so. Predatory journals exist in nursing and bring with them many of the "red flags" that have been noted in the literature, including lack of transparency about editorial processes and misleading information promoted on websites. The number of journals is high enough to warrant concern in the discipline about erosion of our scholarly literature. Nurses rely on the published literature to provide evidence for high-quality, safe care that promotes optimal patient outcomes. Research published in journals that do not adhere to the highest

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2012-12-01

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

Description of research design of articles published in four Brazilian physical therapy journals

PubMed Central

Saragiotto, Bruno T.; Costa, Lucíola C. M.; Oliveira, Ronaldo F.; Lopes, Alexandre D.; Moseley, Anne M.; Costa, Leonardo O. P.

2014-01-01

Background While the research design of articles published in medical journals and in some physical therapy journals has already been evaluated, this has not been investigated in Brazilian physical therapy journals. Objective To describe the research design used in all articles published in Brazilian scientific journals that are freely available, have high Qualis rankings, and are relevant to physical therapy over a 7-year period. Method We extracted the bibliometric data, research design, research type (human or animal), and clinical area for all articles published. The articles were grouped into their level of evidence, and descriptive analyses were performed. We calculated the frequency, proportions of articles, and 95% confidence interval of these proportions with each research design in each journal. We cross-tabulated the clinical areas with research designs (expressed as number and percentages). Results A total of 1,458 articles from four Brazilian journals were found: Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, Revista Fisioterapia em Movimento, Revista Fisioterapia e Pesquisa, and Revista Acta Fisiátrica. The majority of articles were classified as level II of evidence (60%), followed by level III (29%) and level I (10%). The most prevalent research designs were cross-sectional studies (38%), single-case or case-series studies, and narrative reviews. Most articles reported human research and were in the musculoskeletal, neurologic, and cardiothoracic areas. Conclusions Most of the research published in Brazilian physical therapy journals used levels II and III of evidence. Increasing the publication rate of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials would provide more high-quality evidence to guide evidence-based physical therapy practice. PMID:24675913

Description of research design of articles published in four Brazilian physical therapy journals.

PubMed

Saragiotto, Bruno T; Costa, Lucíola C M; Oliveira, Ronaldo F; Lopes, Alexandre D; Moseley, Anne M; Costa, Leonardo O P

2014-01-01

While the research design of articles published in medical journals and in some physical therapy journals has already been evaluated, this has not been investigated in Brazilian physical therapy journals. Objective : To describe the research design used in all articles published in Brazilian scientific journals that are freely available, have high Qualis rankings, and are relevant to physical therapy over a 7-year period. We extracted the bibliometric data, research design, research type (human or animal), and clinical area for all articles published. The articles were grouped into their level of evidence, and descriptive analyses were performed. We calculated the frequency, proportions of articles, and 95% confidence interval of these proportions with each research design in each journal. We cross-tabulated the clinical areas with research designs (expressed as number and percentages). A total of 1,458 articles from four Brazilian journals were found: Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, Revista Fisioterapia em Movimento, Revista Fisioterapia e Pesquisa, and Revista Acta Fisiátrica. The majority of articles were classified as level II of evidence (60%), followed by level III (29%) and level I (10%). The most prevalent research designs were cross-sectional studies (38%), single-case or case-series studies, and narrative reviews. Most articles reported human research and were in the musculoskeletal, neurologic, and cardiothoracic areas. Most of the research published in Brazilian physical therapy journals used levels II and III of evidence. Increasing the publication rate of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials would provide more high-quality evidence to guide evidence-based physical therapy practice.

Mind the Gap: Representation of Medical Education in Cardiology-Related Articles and Journals

PubMed Central

Allred, Clint; Berlacher, Kathryn; Aggarwal, Saurabh; Auseon, Alex J.

2016-01-01

Background Cardiology fellowship programs are at the interface of medical education and the care of patients suffering from the leading cause of mortality in the United States, yet there is an apparent lack of research guiding the effective education of fellows. Objective We sought to quantify the number of publications in cardiology journals that pertained to the education of cardiology trainees and the number of cardiologists participating in education research. Methods For the period between January and December 2012, we cataloged cardiology-specific and general medical/medical education journals and sorted them by impact factor. Tables of content were reviewed for articles with an educational focus, a cardiology focus, or both. We recorded the authors' areas of medical training, and keywords from each cardiology journal's mission statement were reviewed for emphasis on education. Results Twenty-six cardiology journals, containing 6645 articles, were reviewed. Only 4 articles had education themes. Ten general medical and 15 medical education journals contained 6810 articles. Of these, only 7 focused on medical education in cardiology, and none focused on cardiology fellowship training. Among the 4887 authors of publications in medical education journals, 25 were cardiologists (less than 1%), and among the 1036 total words in the mission statements of all cardiology journals, the term “education” appeared once. Conclusions Published educational research is lacking in cardiology training, and few cardiologists appear to be active members of the education scholarship community. Cardiology organizations and academic journals should support efforts to identify target areas of study and publish scholarship in educational innovation. PMID:27413435

Mind the Gap: Representation of Medical Education in Cardiology-Related Articles and Journals.

PubMed

Allred, Clint; Berlacher, Kathryn; Aggarwal, Saurabh; Auseon, Alex J

2016-07-01

Cardiology fellowship programs are at the interface of medical education and the care of patients suffering from the leading cause of mortality in the United States, yet there is an apparent lack of research guiding the effective education of fellows. We sought to quantify the number of publications in cardiology journals that pertained to the education of cardiology trainees and the number of cardiologists participating in education research. For the period between January and December 2012, we cataloged cardiology-specific and general medical/medical education journals and sorted them by impact factor. Tables of content were reviewed for articles with an educational focus, a cardiology focus, or both. We recorded the authors' areas of medical training, and keywords from each cardiology journal's mission statement were reviewed for emphasis on education. Twenty-six cardiology journals, containing 6645 articles, were reviewed. Only 4 articles had education themes. Ten general medical and 15 medical education journals contained 6810 articles. Of these, only 7 focused on medical education in cardiology, and none focused on cardiology fellowship training. Among the 4887 authors of publications in medical education journals, 25 were cardiologists (less than 1%), and among the 1036 total words in the mission statements of all cardiology journals, the term "education" appeared once. Published educational research is lacking in cardiology training, and few cardiologists appear to be active members of the education scholarship community. Cardiology organizations and academic journals should support efforts to identify target areas of study and publish scholarship in educational innovation.

Meaningful Peer Review in Radiology: A Review of Current Practices and Potential Future Directions.

PubMed

Moriarity, Andrew K; Hawkins, C Matthew; Geis, J Raymond; Dreyer, Keith J; Kamer, Aaron P; Khandheria, Paras; Morey, Jose; Whitfill, James; Wiggins, Richard H; Itri, Jason N

2016-12-01

The current practice of peer review within radiology is well developed and widely implemented compared with other medical specialties. However, there are many factors that limit current peer review practices from reducing diagnostic errors and improving patient care. The development of "meaningful peer review" requires a transition away from compliance toward quality improvement, whereby the information and insights gained facilitate education and drive systematic improvements that reduce the frequency and impact of diagnostic error. The next generation of peer review requires significant improvements in IT functionality and integration, enabling features such as anonymization, adjudication by multiple specialists, categorization and analysis of errors, tracking, feedback, and easy export into teaching files and other media that require strong partnerships with vendors. In this article, the authors assess various peer review practices, with focused discussion on current limitations and future needs for meaningful peer review in radiology. Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics.

PubMed

Shen, Cenyu; Björk, Bo-Christer

2015-10-01

A negative consequence of the rapid growth of scholarly open access publishing funded by article processing charges is the emergence of publishers and journals with highly questionable marketing and peer review practices. These so-called predatory publishers are causing unfounded negative publicity for open access publishing in general. Reports about this branch of e-business have so far mainly concentrated on exposing lacking peer review and scandals involving publishers and journals. There is a lack of comprehensive studies about several aspects of this phenomenon, including extent and regional distribution. After an initial scan of all predatory publishers and journals included in the so-called Beall's list, a sample of 613 journals was constructed using a stratified sampling method from the total of over 11,000 journals identified. Information about the subject field, country of publisher, article processing charge and article volumes published between 2010 and 2014 were manually collected from the journal websites. For a subset of journals, individual articles were sampled in order to study the country affiliation of authors and the publication delays. Over the studied period, predatory journals have rapidly increased their publication volumes from 53,000 in 2010 to an estimated 420,000 articles in 2014, published by around 8,000 active journals. Early on, publishers with more than 100 journals dominated the market, but since 2012 publishers in the 10-99 journal size category have captured the largest market share. The regional distribution of both the publisher's country and authorship is highly skewed, in particular Asia and Africa contributed three quarters of authors. Authors paid an average article processing charge of 178 USD per article for articles typically published within 2 to 3 months of submission. Despite a total number of journals and publishing volumes comparable to respectable (indexed by the Directory of Open Access Journals) open access

Using Peer Review to Improve Student Writing in Business Courses

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Rieber, Lloyd J.

2006-01-01

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

Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

PubMed

D'Andrea, Rafael; O'Dwyer, James P

2017-01-01

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?

PubMed Central

Fronczak, Piotr; Fronczak, Agata; Ausloos, Marcel; Nedic, Olgica

2017-01-01

With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors’ workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. We show that Cartesian Genetic Programming, a nature-inspired evolutionary algorithm, can dramatically improve editorial strategies. The artificially evolved strategy reduced the duration of the peer review process by 30%, without increasing the pool of reviewers (in comparison to a typical human-developed strategy). Evolutionary computation has typically been used in technological processes or biological ecosystems. Our results demonstrate that genetic programs can improve real-world social systems that are usually much harder to understand and control than physical systems. PMID:28931033

Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?

PubMed

Mrowinski, Maciej J; Fronczak, Piotr; Fronczak, Agata; Ausloos, Marcel; Nedic, Olgica

2017-01-01

With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors' workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. We show that Cartesian Genetic Programming, a nature-inspired evolutionary algorithm, can dramatically improve editorial strategies. The artificially evolved strategy reduced the duration of the peer review process by 30%, without increasing the pool of reviewers (in comparison to a typical human-developed strategy). Evolutionary computation has typically been used in technological processes or biological ecosystems. Our results demonstrate that genetic programs can improve real-world social systems that are usually much harder to understand and control than physical systems.

Academic Effects of Peer-Mediated Interventions with English Language Learners: A Research Synthesis

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Pyle, Daniel; Pyle, Nicole; Lignugaris/Kraft, Benjamin; Duran, Lillian; Akers, Jessica

2017-01-01

The purpose of this article is to synthesize the extant research on peer-mediated interventions (PMIs) with English language learners (ELLs) in kindergarten through Grade 12. Fourteen studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals from 1983 to 2013 were examined in terms of study characteristics, the effects on academic outcomes, study…

[E-learning with journal articles].

PubMed

Adriaanse, Marcel T; van Eijsden, Pieter; de Leeuw, Peter W

2014-01-01

E-learning is a popular method of continuous medical education (CME) which is becoming increasingly available to doctors. A specific form of E-learning is an online knowledge test accompanying a journal article. CME accreditation points can be obtained by reading an article and then answering test questions on it. This is a user-friendly form of CME which an increasing number of journals are offering as a service to their readers. The Dutch Journal of Medicine (NTvG) has been offering accredited tests to its readers since 2011. On comparison with international journals, a high standard has been set by the development of a test concept in which interpretation and reflection play integral roles. In the Dutch setting, the concept of the test was developed by professional bodies working closely together and it is a concept that is used as an example to other journals.

From Manuscript to Article: Publishing Educational Technology Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Niederhauser, Dale S.; Wetzel, Keith; Lindstrom, Denise L.

2004-01-01

The publishing process is often challenging for new educational technology scholars. This article provides insights into the publication process to help them understand and to increase the chances that their work will be accepted for publication in high-quality peer-reviewed journals. Suggestions for developing a program of research, a description…

Qualitative Research in Distance Education: An Analysis of Journal Literature 2005-2012

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hauser, Laura

2013-01-01

This review study examines the current research literature in distance education for the years 2005 to 2012. The author found 382 research articles published during that time in four prominent peer-reviewed research journals. The articles were classified and coded as quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Further analysis found another…

The ups and downs of peer review.

PubMed

Benos, Dale J; Bashari, Edlira; Chaves, Jose M; Gaggar, Amit; Kapoor, Niren; LaFrance, Martin; Mans, Robert; Mayhew, David; McGowan, Sara; Polter, Abigail; Qadri, Yawar; Sarfare, Shanta; Schultz, Kevin; Splittgerber, Ryan; Stephenson, Jason; Tower, Cristy; Walton, R Grace; Zotov, Alexander

2007-06-01

This article traces the history of peer review of scientific publications, plotting the development of the process from its inception to its present-day application. We discuss the merits of peer review and its weaknesses, both perceived and real, as well as the practicalities of several major proposed changes to the system. It is our hope that readers will gain a better appreciation of the complexities of the process and, when serving as reviewers themselves, will do so in a manner that will enhance the utility of the exercise. We also propose the development of an international on-line training program for accreditation of potential referees.

Seventy Years of the Journal “Medical Archives”

PubMed Central

Masic, Izet

2016-01-01

This year journal “Medical Archives” celebrates 70th anniversary of its continuing publication. Medical Archives is oldest biomedical journal in Bosnia and Herzegovina and one of the oldest medical journals in Europe, established in the year 1947, as official scientific and professional journal of Association of Physicians of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Until present Medical Archives has published over 5000 articles. Today Medical Archives is internationally recognized medical peer-reviewed indexed journal, visible in more than 30 international on-line databases. PMID:26980925

Leading articles in medical journals in 1966.

PubMed

Stimpson, Philippa J; Marks, Daniel Jb

2016-10-01

The British Journal of Hospital Medicine is 50 years old. This article takes a look back at articles published during the year of its inception from the British Medical Journal, the Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Disclosures of conflicts of interest in psychiatric review articles.

PubMed

Kopelman, Andrew M; Gorelick, David A; Appelbaum, Paul S

2013-02-01

To characterize disclosures of conflicts of interest in review articles in psychiatry, we identified 285 reviews from 10 high-impact journals in psychiatry and 2 in general medicine. Disclosures were reliably coded as biotechnology/pharmaceutical/other material interests, nonprofit/government, communication companies, or other. The authors in both types of journals frequently reported industry ties. However, the reviews in the psychiatric journals were significantly less likely to include industry-related disclosures (32% of the reviews; 18% of the authors) compared with the general medical journals (64% of the articles; 40% of the authors). The most common types of industry-related disclosures were for consulting, research support, and speaking fees. Disclosures seemed to be of limited utility in helping readers assess possible biases because the nature and the extent of the relationships being disclosed were often unclear. Efforts to screen out authors with significant financial relationships pertaining to the topic under review may be more effective than are disclosures in protecting the integrity of the medical literature.

Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest in Psychiatric Review Articles

PubMed Central

Kopelman, Andrew M.; Gorelick, David A.; Appelbaum, Paul S.

2013-01-01

To characterize disclosures of conflicts of interest in review articles in psychiatry, we identified 285 reviews from ten high-impact journals in psychiatry and two in general medicine. Disclosures were reliably coded as biotech/pharmaceutical/other material interests, nonprofit/government, communication companies, or other. Authors in both types of journals frequently reported industry ties. However, reviews in psychiatric journals were significantly less likely to include industry-related disclosures (32% of reviews; 18% of authors) compared with general medical journals (64% of articles; 40% of authors). The most common types of industry-related disclosures were for consulting, research support, and speaking fees. Disclosures appeared to be of limited utility in helping readers assess possible biases, because the nature and extent of the relationship being disclosed was often unclear. Efforts to screen out authors with significant financial relationships pertaining to the topic under review may be more effective than disclosure in protecting the integrity of the medical literature. PMID:23364114

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Volume 13, Number 1, Fall 2006

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Howard, Jeffrey, Ed.

2006-01-01

The "Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning" ("MJCSL") is a national, peer-reviewed journal consisting of articles written by faculty and service-learning educators on research, theory, pedagogy, and issues pertinent to the service-learning community. The "MJCSL" aims to: (1) widen the community of…

The Use of Journal Clubs in Science Teacher Education

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Tallman, Karen A.; Feldman, Allan

2016-01-01

This qualitative study explored how in a 7-month-long journal club pre- and inservice science teachers engaged with education research literature relevant to their practice to reduce the theory-practice gap. In the journal club they had the opportunity to critique and analyze peer-reviewed science education articles in the context of their…

[Review of research design and statistical methods in Chinese Journal of Cardiology].

PubMed

Zhang, Li-jun; Yu, Jin-ming

2009-07-01

To evaluate the research design and the use of statistical methods in Chinese Journal of Cardiology. Peer through the research design and statistical methods in all of the original papers in Chinese Journal of Cardiology from December 2007 to November 2008. The most frequently used research designs are cross-sectional design (34%), prospective design (21%) and experimental design (25%). In all of the articles, 49 (25%) use wrong statistical methods, 29 (15%) lack some sort of statistic analysis, 23 (12%) have inconsistencies in description of methods. There are significant differences between different statistical methods (P < 0.001). The correction rates of multifactor analysis were low and repeated measurement datas were not used repeated measurement analysis. Many problems exist in Chinese Journal of Cardiology. Better research design and correct use of statistical methods are still needed. More strict review by statistician and epidemiologist is also required to improve the literature qualities.

Peer workers' perceptions and experiences of barriers to implementation of peer worker roles in mental health services: A literature review.

PubMed

Vandewalle, Joeri; Debyser, Bart; Beeckman, Dimitri; Vandecasteele, Tina; Van Hecke, Ann; Verhaeghe, Sofie

2016-08-01

To identify peer workers' perceptions and experiences of barriers to implementation of peer worker roles in mental health services. Review of qualitative and quantitative studies. A comprehensive electronic database search was conducted between October 2014 and December 2015 in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and PsycARTICLES. Additional articles were identified through handsearch. All articles were assessed on quality. A thematic analysis informed by a multi-level approach was adopted to identify and discuss the main themes in the individual studies. Reporting was in line with the 'Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research' statement. Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria. All studies adopted qualitative research methods, of which three studies used additional quantitative methods. Peer workers' perceptions and experiences cover a range of themes including the lack of credibility of peer worker roles, professionals' negative attitudes, tensions with service users, struggles with identity construction, cultural impediments, poor organizational arrangements, and inadequate overarching social and mental health policies. This review can inform policy, practice and research from the unique perspective of peer workers. Mental health professionals and peer workers should enter into an alliance to address barriers in the integration of peer workers and to enhance quality of service delivery. Longitudinal research is needed to determine how to address barriers in the implementation of peer worker roles. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009.

PubMed

Laakso, Mikael; Welling, Patrik; Bukvova, Helena; Nyman, Linus; Björk, Bo-Christer; Hedlund, Turid

2011-01-01

Open Access (OA) is a model for publishing scholarly peer reviewed journals, made possible by the Internet. The full text of OA journals and articles can be freely read, as the publishing is funded through means other than subscriptions. Empirical research concerning the quantitative development of OA publishing has so far consisted of scattered individual studies providing brief snapshots, using varying methods and data sources. This study adopts a systematic method for studying the development of OA journals from their beginnings in the early 1990s until 2009. Because no comprehensive index of OA articles exists, systematic manual data collection from journal web sites was conducted based on journal-level data extracted from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Due to the high number of journals registered in the DOAJ, almost 5000 at the time of the study, stratified random sampling was used. A separate sample of verified early pioneer OA journals was also studied. The results show a very rapid growth of OA publishing during the period 1993-2009. During the last year an estimated 191 000 articles were published in 4769 journals. Since the year 2000, the average annual growth rate has been 18% for the number of journals and 30% for the number of articles. This can be contrasted to the reported 3,5% yearly volume increase in journal publishing in general. In 2009 the share of articles in OA journals, of all peer reviewed journal articles, reached 7,7%. Overall, the results document a rapid growth in OA journal publishing over the last fifteen years. Based on the sampling results and qualitative data a division into three distinct periods is suggested: The Pioneering years (1993-1999), the Innovation years (2000-2004), and the Consolidation years (2005-2009).

The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009

PubMed Central

Laakso, Mikael; Welling, Patrik; Bukvova, Helena; Nyman, Linus; Björk, Bo-Christer; Hedlund, Turid

2011-01-01

Open Access (OA) is a model for publishing scholarly peer reviewed journals, made possible by the Internet. The full text of OA journals and articles can be freely read, as the publishing is funded through means other than subscriptions. Empirical research concerning the quantitative development of OA publishing has so far consisted of scattered individual studies providing brief snapshots, using varying methods and data sources. This study adopts a systematic method for studying the development of OA journals from their beginnings in the early 1990s until 2009. Because no comprehensive index of OA articles exists, systematic manual data collection from journal web sites was conducted based on journal-level data extracted from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Due to the high number of journals registered in the DOAJ, almost 5000 at the time of the study, stratified random sampling was used. A separate sample of verified early pioneer OA journals was also studied. The results show a very rapid growth of OA publishing during the period 1993–2009. During the last year an estimated 191 000 articles were published in 4769 journals. Since the year 2000, the average annual growth rate has been 18% for the number of journals and 30% for the number of articles. This can be contrasted to the reported 3,5% yearly volume increase in journal publishing in general. In 2009 the share of articles in OA journals, of all peer reviewed journal articles, reached 7,7%. Overall, the results document a rapid growth in OA journal publishing over the last fifteen years. Based on the sampling results and qualitative data a division into three distinct periods is suggested: The Pioneering years (1993–1999), the Innovation years (2000–2004), and the Consolidation years (2005–2009). PMID:21695139

Trends in the Authorship of Peer Reviewed Publications in the Urology Literature.

PubMed

An, Julie Y; Baiocco, Joseph A; Rais-Bahrami, Soroush

2018-05-01

We evaluated the authorship count of all original research and review articles published in prominent Urology journals to trend patterns in authorship over the last decade. Secondarily, we evaluated bibliometric assessments and sought to understand whether authorship count was associated with citation rate and each article's field-normalized measure of impact. Information on authorship count, date of publication, study type, journal of publication, citation rate, and relative citation ratio (RCR) was collected for all original research and review articles published in European Urology, Journal of Urology, Urology , and British Journal of Urology International between 2006 and 2016. We examined trends in authorship count over the past decade, as well as between journals and article types. 21,336 articles were analyzed, of which 19,527 (91.5%) were original research and 1,809 (8.5%) were review articles. Overall, number of authors increased 46.1% from 2006 to 2016. Authorship counts in original research articles increased by an average of 2.45 per manuscript (43.3% increase) over the decade analyzed. More dramatically, authorship counts in review articles increased by an average of 3.14 per manuscript (92.6% increase). Articles with higher authorship counts were associated with more citations and greater RCR (r=0.13, p<0.001). There is a global trend towards more authors per article in urology publications-in both original research publications and review articles, and across each of the individual journals evaluated. An increase in author count has also been associated with increased citations and measures of article impact.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kim, Soo Hyon

2015-01-01

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

Statistical Techniques Used in Published Articles: A Historical Review of Reviews

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Skidmore, Susan Troncoso; Thompson, Bruce

2010-01-01

The purpose of the present study is to provide a historical account and metasynthesis of which statistical techniques are most frequently used in the fields of education and psychology. Six articles reviewing the "American Educational Research Journal" from 1969 to 1997 and five articles reviewing the psychological literature from 1948 to 2001…

Teaching the Anatomy of a Scientific Journal Article

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Schinske, Jeffrey N.; Clayman, Karen; Busch, Allison K.; Tanner, Kimberly D.

2008-01-01

To promote inquiry-based learning, the authors integrate the anatomy of a scientific journal article into their secondary science curriculum. In this article, they present three classroom activities used to teach students about the function and format of scientific journal articles. The first focuses on journal article figures, the second on…

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Somerville, R. C.

2003-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Credibility, peer review, and Nature, 1945–1990

PubMed Central

Baldwin, Melinda

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

Background Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), after surveying authors’ and reviewers’ opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process. Methods In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale. Results The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9%) responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%). Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40%) received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75) versus 2.84 (± 0.71), P<0.001). Conclusion Open online peer review is feasible in this setting, but it attracts few reviews, of lower quality than conventional peer reviews. PMID:28662046

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

PubMed

Schmalbach, Cecelia E

2016-07-01

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

Nursing Student Peer Mentorship: A Review of the Literature

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Rohatinsky, Noelle; Harding, Katie; Carriere, Terra

2017-01-01

The benefits of peer student mentorship programs are making them increasingly popular in nursing education. This manuscript reviews and synthesizes 20 articles outlining key elements, outcomes, and barriers of nursing student peer mentorship programs to allow educators to create mentorship programs that meet the needs of their students, faculty,…

Oklahoma Association of Teacher Educators Journal 2009

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Green, Malinda Hendricks, Ed.

2009-01-01

The Oklahoma Association of Teacher Educators 2009 Journal includes the following four peer reviewed articles: (1) The Changing Role of Grandparents (Fred D. Hammond, III, Terry E. Spigner, Charolette Myles-Nixon, and Pauline Holloway); (2) Pedagogical Agent Instructional Design Challenges (Jon Martens); (3) Differences in Relatedness across…

Peer Mentoring for Health Behavior Change: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

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

Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.

PubMed

Cejas, Claudia

2017-06-01

The objective of this study was to evaluate metrics related to manuscripts rejected by AJR with and without review during 2014 and to determine their final disposition: no record of eventual publication, eventually published, published with modified authors and title, published with the same title but modified authors, and published with modified title but the same authors. A total of 1245 unsolicited manuscripts submitted from January to December 2014 were included in this retrospective analysis. Data were extracted from the AJR's manuscript submission system. Standard statistical analysis was used to assess the fate of a sample of 200 rejected manuscripts. Of the 200 manuscripts studied, 117 (59%) were published in other scientific journals (61 with revision, 56 without revision; Χ 2 = 0.329, p = 0.566). Thirty-two of the 61 manuscripts (52%) rejected after peer review were later published in other journals without changes in their titles or authors, 16 (26%) with changes only in authors, 10 (16%) with changes only in their titles, and three (5%) with changes in authors and titles. Twenty-six of the 56 manuscripts (46%) rejected without peer review were published without changes in their titles or authors, 17 (30%) with changes in authors, 11 (20%) with changes only in their titles, and two (4%) with changes in both authors and titles (p = 0.686). Ten articles were published in open access journals. Of the remaining articles, those that had been reviewed were published in journals with a mean impact factor ± SD of 2.37 ± 1.30, and those that had not been reviewed were published in journals with a mean impact factor of 2.04 ± 1.06. Analysis of the 25th and 75th percentiles revealed that values were also higher for the group rejected with review (Wilcoxon rank sum test: W = 1679, p = 0.1127). Out of 61 articles rejected for publication with review, 52.5% were published with changes to their abstracts, whereas the remaining 47.5% were unchanged. This analysis

What makes a phenomenological study phenomenological? An analysis of peer-reviewed empirical nursing studies.

PubMed

Norlyk, Annelise; Harder, Ingegerd

2010-03-01

This article contributes to the debate about phenomenology as a research approach in nursing by providing a systematic review of what nurse researchers hold as phenomenology in published empirical studies. Based on the assumption that presentations of phenomenological approaches in peer-reviewed journals have consequences for the quality of future research, the aim was to analyze articles presenting phenomenological studies and, in light of the findings, raise a discussion about addressing scientific criteria. The analysis revealed considerable variations, ranging from brief to detailed descriptions of the stated phenomenological approach, and from inconsistencies to methodological clarity and rigor. Variations, apparent inconsistencies, and omissions made it unclear what makes a phenomenological study phenomenological. There is a need for clarifying how the principles of the phenomenological philosophy are implemented in a particular study before publishing. This should include an articulation of methodological keywords of the investigated phenomenon, and how an open attitude was adopted.

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

USGS Publications Warehouse

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

2015-01-01

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

Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bjork, Bo-Christer; Roos, Annikki; Lauri, Mari

2009-01-01

Introduction: We estimate the total yearly volume of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles published world-wide as well as the share of these articles available openly on the Web either directly or as copies in e-print repositories. Method: We rely on data from two commercial databases (ISI and Ulrich's Periodicals Directory) supplemented by…

Delay in indexing articles published in major pharmacy practice journals.

PubMed

Rodriguez, Ryan W

2014-02-15

The delay in time from entry in the PubMed database to indexing with medical subject heading (MeSH) terms for articles published in three major pharmacy practice journals was evaluated. In April 2013, MEDLINE data were retrieved for articles published in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy (AJHP), the Annals of Pharmacotherapy, and Pharmacotherapy between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011. Data collected for each article included the PubMed entry date, MeSH indexing date, and publication type. The PubMed entry date was defined as the Entrez date, the date the citation was added to the PubMed database. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were calculated for the time to indexing of articles and for the age of unindexed articles. The proportion of unindexed articles was also calculated. A total of 1626 publications were reviewed. Overall, the median time to indexing with MeSH terms was 114 days (IQR, 98-141 days): 107 days (IQR, 94-129 days) for AJHP, 131 days (IQR, 104-157 days) for Annals of Pharmacotherapy, and 114 days (IQR, 99-128 days) for Pharmacotherapy. The median age of unindexed articles was 807 days (IQR, 671-807 days). An analysis of three major pharmacy practice journals showed that the median time to indexing articles published in 2010 and 2011 was 114 days. While all articles from AJHP and Pharmacotherapy were indexed, 40 articles from Annals of Pharmacotherapy remained unindexed.

Conflict of interest - serious issue on publication ethics for Indian medical journals.

PubMed

Das, Kusal K; Vallabha, Tejaswini; Ray, Jaydeb; Murthy, P S N

2013-01-01

There are several vested interest lies on research publication hence the editorial policy is the sole important factor to control and regulate ethical publications in medical sciences especially on 'conflict of interest' issue. The study was aimed to assess on awareness of 'conflict of interest' issue in medical research and publication among the editorial staff, peer reviewers and authors of Indian medical journals. Total 61 authors who have published research articles recently in Indian medical journals from 2008-2012, 56 peer reviewers who reviewed the manuscripts during same period and 35 editorial board members of various Indian medical journals were assessed by questionnaire and telephone interview regarding their understanding and knowledge on 'conflict of interest' issue for ethical publication. Only seven (12%) of the authors knew about the 'conflict of interest' issue and 11 (19%) of the medical authors have just heard about it. Out of 12% of authors who knew 'conflict of interest' issue only 15% provided that statement to the journals. Among the peer reviewers only 17 (30%) knew about 'conflict of interest' of which 51 (91.5%) stated that they do not bother about this issue while reviewing the manuscripts. But interestingly 42 (75%) of the peer reviewers confessed that they had a bias on the topics written by their friends or students. Among the editorial board members of Indian medical journals only 14 (25%) have any idea on 'conflict of interest issue'. Results clearly shows poor understanding of 'conflict of interest' like important ethical issue among Indian medical scientists or journals.

Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review.

PubMed

Tricco, Andrea C; Thomas, Sonia M; Antony, Jesmin; Rios, Patricia; Robson, Reid; Pattani, Reena; Ghassemi, Marco; Sullivan, Shannon; Selvaratnam, Inthuja; Tannenbaum, Cara; Straus, Sharon E

2017-01-01

To review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants. Studies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs, the Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews, and the Campbell Library were searched from 2005 to April 2016. A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles. Two individuals screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data with discrepancies resolved by a third person consistently. After screening 5524 citations and 170 full-text articles, one article evaluating gender-blinding of grant applications using an uncontrolled before-after study design was included. In this study, 891 applications for long-term fellowships in 2006 were included and 47% of the applicants were women. These were scored by 13 peer reviewers (38% were women). The intervention included eliminating references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendations, and interview reports that were sent to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly. There is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias should be adapted and tested in the context of grant peer review to determine if they

Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review

PubMed Central

Tricco, Andrea C.; Thomas, Sonia M.; Antony, Jesmin; Rios, Patricia; Robson, Reid; Pattani, Reena; Ghassemi, Marco; Sullivan, Shannon; Selvaratnam, Inthuja; Tannenbaum, Cara; Straus, Sharon E.

2017-01-01

Objective To review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants. Methods Studies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs, the Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews, and the Campbell Library were searched from 2005 to April 2016. A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles. Two individuals screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data with discrepancies resolved by a third person consistently. Results After screening 5524 citations and 170 full-text articles, one article evaluating gender-blinding of grant applications using an uncontrolled before-after study design was included. In this study, 891 applications for long-term fellowships in 2006 were included and 47% of the applicants were women. These were scored by 13 peer reviewers (38% were women). The intervention included eliminating references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendations, and interview reports that were sent to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly. Conclusions There is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias should be adapted and tested in the context of

Improving Scientific Writing in Undergraduate Geosciences Degrees Through Peer Review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2016-12-01

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

Medical students as peer tutors: a systematic review

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

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

Editorial: Journal article reporting standards.

PubMed

Kazak, Anne E

2018-01-01

In this editorial, the author notes that this issue of American Psychologist features a pair of important articles related to newly updated standards for reporting research in psychology in scientific journals, covering both quantitative (Appelbaum et al., 2018) and qualitative (Levitt et al., 2018) research. The increasing breadth and complexity of research, and the importance of communicating it effectively, requires user-friendly resources that can be applied widely to scientific studies. These two articles are intended to serve that purpose, and to encourage thoroughness and accuracy in research reporting, for psychologists and other scientists in broader academic communities. The articles, known as the Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) reports, are based on the work of a task force appointed by the American Psychological Association (APA) Publications and Communications Board in 2015. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

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

PubMed

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

2017-10-01

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