28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

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 by medical journals to ensure peer review is done well but also the need to raise awareness amongst the medical community of the limitations of the current peer review process.

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

PubMed

Vyas, Dinesh; Hozain, Ahmed E

2014-06-07

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

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

PubMed Central

Vyas, Dinesh; Hozain, Ahmed E

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Ford, Emily

2015-01-01

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

Grid Computing: Topology-Aware, Peer-to-Peer, Power-Aware, and Embedded Web Services

DTIC Science & Technology

2003-09-22

Dist Simulation • Time Management enables temporal causality to be enforced in Distributed Simulations • Typically enforced via a Lower Bound Time...algorithm • Distinguished Root Node Algorithm developed as a topology-aware time management service – Relies on a tree from end-hosts to a

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.

Breaking Waves and Microwave Polarimetric Emissivities: Final Report

DTIC Science & Technology

2005-04-11

in designing and evaluating the errors in retrieval algorithms for CMIS. REFERENCES Asher, W.E., T.M. Litchendorf, and K. Phadnis , The effect of...IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sensing, 33, 85-92, 1995. PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS Asher, W.E., T.M. Litchendorf and K. Phadnis . "The Effect of Shutter...Alaska, September, 2004. Asher, W.E., T.M. Litchendorf and K. Phadnis , 2004. "The Effect of Shutter Speed on Measuring Size-Segregated Bubble

Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 2: Data-Driven Peer Review Selection and Assignment.

PubMed

Reiner, Bruce I

2017-12-01

In conventional radiology peer review practice, a small number of exams (routinely 5% of the total volume) is randomly selected, which may significantly underestimate the true error rate within a given radiology practice. An alternative and preferable approach would be to create a data-driven model which mathematically quantifies a peer review risk score for each individual exam and uses this data to identify high risk exams and readers, and selectively target these exams for peer review. An analogous model can also be created to assist in the assignment of these peer review cases in keeping with specific priorities of the service provider. An additional option to enhance the peer review process would be to assign the peer review cases in a truly blinded fashion. In addition to eliminating traditional peer review bias, this approach has the potential to better define exam-specific standard of care, particularly when multiple readers participate in the peer review process.

Group consensus peer review in radiation oncology: commitment to quality.

PubMed

Duggar, W Neil; Bhandari, Rahul; Yang, Chunli Claus; Vijayakumar, Srinivasan

2018-03-27

Peer review, especially prospective peer review, has been supported by professional organizations as an important element in optimal Radiation Oncology practice based on its demonstration of efficacy at detecting and preventing errors prior to patient treatment. Implementation of peer review is not without barriers, but solutions do exist to mitigate or eliminate some of those barriers. Peer review practice at our institution involves three key elements: new patient conference, treatment planning conference, and chart rounds. The treatment planning conference is an adaptation of the group consensus peer review model from radiology which utilizes a group of peers reviewing each treatment plan prior to implementation. The peer group in radiation oncology includes Radiation Oncologists, Physician Residents, Medical Physicists, Dosimetrists, and Therapists. Thus, technical and clinical aspects of each plan are evaluated simultaneously. Though peer review is held in high regard in Radiation Oncology, many barriers commonly exist preventing optimal implementation such as time intensiveness, repetition, and distraction from clinic time with patients. Through the use of automated review tools and commitment by individuals and administration in regards to staffing, scheduling, and responsibilities, these barriers have been mitigated to implement this Group Consensus Peer Review model into a Radiation Oncology Clinic. A Group Consensus Peer Review model has been implemented with strategies to address common barriers to effective and efficient peer review.

Spatial-Spectral Approaches to Edge Detection in Hyperspectral Remote Sensing

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Cox, Cary M.

This dissertation advances geoinformation science at the intersection of hyperspectral remote sensing and edge detection methods. A relatively new phenomenology among its remote sensing peers, hyperspectral imagery (HSI) comprises only about 7% of all remote sensing research - there are five times as many radar-focused peer reviewed journal articles than hyperspectral-focused peer reviewed journal articles. Similarly, edge detection studies comprise only about 8% of image processing research, most of which is dedicated to image processing techniques most closely associated with end results, such as image classification and feature extraction. Given the centrality of edge detection to mapping, that most important of geographic functions, improving the collective understanding of hyperspectral imagery edge detection methods constitutes a research objective aligned to the heart of geoinformation sciences. Consequently, this dissertation endeavors to narrow the HSI edge detection research gap by advancing three HSI edge detection methods designed to leverage HSI's unique chemical identification capabilities in pursuit of generating accurate, high-quality edge planes. The Di Zenzo-based gradient edge detection algorithm, an innovative version of the Resmini HySPADE edge detection algorithm and a level set-based edge detection algorithm are tested against 15 traditional and non-traditional HSI datasets spanning a range of HSI data configurations, spectral resolutions, spatial resolutions, bandpasses and applications. This study empirically measures algorithm performance against Dr. John Canny's six criteria for a good edge operator: false positives, false negatives, localization, single-point response, robustness to noise and unbroken edges. The end state is a suite of spatial-spectral edge detection algorithms that produce satisfactory edge results against a range of hyperspectral data types applicable to a diverse set of earth remote sensing applications. This work also explores the concept of an edge within hyperspectral space, the relative importance of spatial and spectral resolutions as they pertain to HSI edge detection and how effectively compressed HSI data improves edge detection results. The HSI edge detection experiments yielded valuable insights into the algorithms' strengths, weaknesses and optimal alignment to remote sensing applications. The gradient-based edge operator produced strong edge planes across a range of evaluation measures and applications, particularly with respect to false negatives, unbroken edges, urban mapping, vegetation mapping and oil spill mapping applications. False positives and uncompressed HSI data presented occasional challenges to the algorithm. The HySPADE edge operator produced satisfactory results with respect to localization, single-point response, oil spill mapping and trace chemical detection, and was challenged by false positives, declining spectral resolution and vegetation mapping applications. The level set edge detector produced high-quality edge planes for most tests and demonstrated strong performance with respect to false positives, single-point response, oil spill mapping and mineral mapping. False negatives were a regular challenge for the level set edge detection algorithm. Finally, HSI data optimized for spectral information compression and noise was shown to improve edge detection performance across all three algorithms, while the gradient-based algorithm and HySPADE demonstrated significant robustness to declining spectral and spatial resolutions.

28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

...” describes a process that evolves in accordance with experience and opportunities to effect improvements. The... Review § 34.102 Peer review procedures. The OJJDP peer review process is contained in an OJJDP “Peer... substantive and procedural matters related to the peer review process, the “Guideline” addresses such issues...

Clinical Nurse Specialists Guide Staff Nurses to Promote Practice Accountability Through Peer Review.

PubMed

Semper, Julie; Halvorson, Betty; Hersh, Mary; Torres, Clare; Lillington, Linda

2016-01-01

The aim of the study was to describe the clinical nurse specialist role in developing and implementing a staff nurse education program to promote practice accountability using peer review principles. Peer review is essential for professional nursing practice demanding a significant culture change. Clinical nurse specialists in a Magnet-designated community hospital were charged with developing a staff nurse peer review education program. Peer review is a recognized mechanism of professional self-regulation to ensure delivery of quality care. The American Nurses Association strongly urges incorporating peer review in professional nursing practice models. Clinical nurse specialists play a critical role in educating staff nurses about practice accountability. Clinical nurse specialists developed an education program guided by the American Nurses Association's principles of peer review. A baseline needs assessment identified potential barriers and learning needs. Content incorporated tools and strategies to build communication skills, collaboration, practice change, and peer accountability. The education program resulted in increased staff nurse knowledge about peer review and application of peer review principles in practice. Clinical nurse specialists played a critical role in helping staff nurses understand peer review and its application to practice. The clinical nurse specialist role will continue to be important in sustaining the application of peer review principles in practice.

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Mulder, Raoul A.; Pearce, Jon M.; Baik, Chi

2014-01-01

Peer review is integral to academic endeavour, but opportunities for students to benefit from peer review in higher education remain limited, and relatively little is known about how student perceptions influence their appreciation of peer review. University student perceptions were examined before and after experiencing student peer review in…

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…

40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... 40 Protection of Environment 24 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review. 194.27 Section 194.27... § 194.27 Peer review. (a) Any compliance application shall include documentation of peer review that has... barrier evaluation as required in § 194.44. (b) Peer review processes required in paragraph (a) of this...

Peer-to-peer model for the area coverage and cooperative control of mobile sensor networks

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Tan, Jindong; Xi, Ning

2004-09-01

This paper presents a novel model and distributed algorithms for the cooperation and redeployment of mobile sensor networks. A mobile sensor network composes of a collection of wireless connected mobile robots equipped with a variety of sensors. In such a sensor network, each mobile node has sensing, computation, communication, and locomotion capabilities. The locomotion ability enhances the autonomous deployment of the system. The system can be rapidly deployed to hostile environment, inaccessible terrains or disaster relief operations. The mobile sensor network is essentially a cooperative multiple robot system. This paper first presents a peer-to-peer model to define the relationship between neighboring communicating robots. Delaunay Triangulation and Voronoi diagrams are used to define the geometrical relationship between sensor nodes. This distributed model allows formal analysis for the fusion of spatio-temporal sensory information of the network. Based on the distributed model, this paper discusses a fault tolerant algorithm for autonomous self-deployment of the mobile robots. The algorithm considers the environment constraints, the presence of obstacles and the nonholonomic constraints of the robots. The distributed algorithm enables the system to reconfigure itself such that the area covered by the system can be enlarged. Simulation results have shown the effectiveness of the distributed model and deployment algorithms.

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.

The Effects of Resident Peer- and Self-Chart Review on Outpatient Laboratory Result Follow-up.

PubMed

Hale, Andrew J; Nall, Ryan W; Mukamal, Kenneth J; Libman, Howard; Smith, C Christopher; Sternberg, Scot B; Kim, Hans S; Kriegel, Gila

2016-05-01

Performing and teaching appropriate follow-up of outpatient laboratory results (LRs) is a challenge. The authors tested peer-review among residents as a potentially valuable intervention. Investigators assigned residents to perform self-review (n = 27), peer-review (n = 21), or self- + peer-review (n = 30) of outpatient charts. They also compared residence performance with that of historical controls (n = 20). In September 2012, residents examined 10 LRs from April 2012 onward. A second review in November 2012 ascertained whether performing chart review improved residents' practice behaviors. Initially, the least-square (LS) mean number of LRs without documentation of follow-up per resident in the self-, peer-, and self- + peer-review group was, respectively, 0.5 (SD 1.0), 1.0 (SD 1.7), and 0.9 (SD 1.3), and post intervention, this was 1.0 (SD 0.2), 0.3 (SD 0.2), and 0.6 (SD 0.2) (self- versus peer-review P = .03). Initially the LS mean follow-up time per resident in the self-, peer-, and self- + peer-review group was, respectively, 4.2 (SD 1.2), 6.9 (SD 1.4), and 5.9 (SD 1.2) days, and after the intervention, LS mean time was 5.0 (SD 0.5), 2.5 (SD 0.6), and 3.9 (SD 0.5) days (self- versus peer-review P < .01). Self-review was not associated with significant improvements in practice. In this comparison of self- and peer-review, only residents who performed peer-review demonstrated significant improvements in their documentation practices. These findings support the use of resident peer-review in improving LR follow-up, and potentially, in other, broader resident quality improvement initiatives.

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

Variability in Students' Evaluating Processes in Peer Assessment with Calibrated Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Russell, J.; Van Horne, S.; Ward, A. S.; Bettis, E. A., III; Gikonyo, J.

2017-01-01

This study investigated students' evaluating process and their perceptions of peer assessment when they engaged in peer assessment using Calibrated Peer Review. Calibrated Peer Review is a web-based application that facilitates peer assessment of writing. One hundred and thirty-two students in an introductory environmental science course…

Peer Review as a Strategy for Improving Students' Writing Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Baker, Kimberly M.

2016-01-01

Peer review is an established strategy for improving the quality of students' writing. This study moves beyond the focus on outcomes to assess the peer-review process. In particular, this study focuses on the timing of the peer review, a highly structured feedback form, and student writers' revisions after engaging in peer review. This study draws…

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…

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the peer review process for this Program? 350... peer review process for this Program? (a) The Secretary refers each application for a grant governed by those regulations in this part to a peer review panel established by the Secretary. (b) Peer review...

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Anderson, Neil O.; Flash, Pamela

2014-01-01

Peer review is not included in undergraduate horticultural curricula. Our research objectives in an 8- year study, which ranged from 2000 to 2007 in two sections (2000-2002 non-peer reviewed and 2003-2007 peer-reviewed) of Greenhouse Management students at the University of Minnesota were to determine whether iterative peer reviews would result in…

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Peer review procedures. 34.102 Section 34.102 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer... substantive and procedural matters related to the peer review process, the “Guideline” addresses such issues...

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Peer review procedures. 34.102 Section 34.102 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer... substantive and procedural matters related to the peer review process, the “Guideline” addresses such issues...

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Peer review procedures. 34.102 Section 34.102 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer... substantive and procedural matters related to the peer review process, the “Guideline” addresses such issues...

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Peer review procedures. 34.102 Section 34.102 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer... substantive and procedural matters related to the peer review process, the “Guideline” addresses such issues...

A survey of radiation treatment planning peer-review activities in a provincial radiation oncology programme: current practice and future directions

PubMed Central

Brundage, Michael; Foxcroft, Sophie; McGowan, Tom; Gutierrez, Eric; Sharpe, Michael; Warde, Padraig

2013-01-01

Objectives To describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer review within a provincial cancer system, identifying barriers and facilitators to its use with the ultimate aim of process improvement. Design A survey of radiation oncology programmes at provincial cancer centres. Setting All cancer centres within the province of Ontario, Canada (n=14). These are community-based outpatient facilities overseen by Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial cancer agency. Participants A delegate from each radiation oncology programme filled out a single survey based on input from their multidisciplinary team. Outcome measures Rated importance of peer review; current utilisation; format of the peer-review process; organisation and timing; case attributes; outcomes of the peer-review process and perceived barriers and facilitators to expanding peer-review processes. Results 14 (100%) centres responded. All rated the importance of peer review as at least 8/10 (10=extremely important). Detection of medical error and improvement of planning processes were the highest rated perceived benefits of peer review (each median 9/10). Six centres (43%) reviewed at least 50% of curative cases; four of these centres (29%) conducted peer review in more than 80% of cases treated with curative intent. Fewer than 20% of cases treated with palliative intent were reviewed in most centres. Five centres (36%) reported usually conducting peer review prior to the initiation of treatment. Five centres (36%) recorded the outcomes of peer review on the medical record. Thirteen centres (93%) planned to expand peer-review activities; a critical mass of radiation oncologists was the most important limiting factor (median 6/10). Conclusions Radiation oncology peer-review practices can vary even within a cancer system with provincial oversight. The application of guidelines and standards for peer-review processes, and monitoring of implementation and outcomes, will require effective knowledge translation activities. PMID:23903814

28 CFR 34.108 - Selection of reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

....108 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.108 Selection of reviewers. The Program Manager, through the Director of the OJJDP program... by the Administrator. The selection process for peer reviewers is detailed in the OJJDP “Peer Review...

7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

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

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 article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review. PMID:27683470

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.

Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

PubMed

Liaw, Lucy; Freedman, Jane E; Becker, Lance B; Mehta, Nehal N; Liscum, Laura

2017-08-04

The biomedical research enterprise depends on the fair and objective peer review of research grants, leading to the distribution of resources through efficient and robust competitive methods. In the United States, federal funding agencies and foundations collectively distribute billions of dollars annually to support biomedical research. For the American Heart Association, a Peer Review Subcommittee is charged with establishing the highest standards for peer review. This scientific statement reviews the current literature on peer review practices, describes the current American Heart Association peer review process and those of other agencies, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of American Heart Association peer review practices, and recommends best practices for the future. © 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bhullar, Naureen; Rose, Karen C.; Utell, Janine M.; Healey, Kathryn N.

2014-01-01

The authors assessed the impact of peer review on student writing in four sections of an undergraduate Developmental Psychology course. They hypothesized that peer review would result in better writing in the peer review group compared to the group with no peer review. Writing was rated independently by two instructors who were blind to the…

28 CFR 34.111 - Compensation.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.111 Compensation. All peer reviewers will be eligible to be paid according to applicable regulations... provided in the OJJDP “Peer Review Guideline”. ...

Total Risk Integrated Methodology (TRIM) - Peer Review and Publications

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

Peer review: Consistent with Agency peer review policy, and the 1994 Agency Task Force on Environmental Regulatory Modeling, internal and external peer review has been an integral part of the TRIM development plan.

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?

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.

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.

Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

Peer Review and the Assessment of Higher Education Quality: An International Perspective. Higher Education Report No. 3.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brennan, John; And Others

This report examines the practices of 19 peer review agencies in the United States, Britain, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Hong Kong to determine variations in peer review in the field of higher education. The report addresses: (1) the sources of authority for peer review; (2) the types and status of peer reviewers; (3) the…

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…

Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review.

PubMed

Levis, Alexander W; Leentjens, Albert F G; Levenson, James L; Lumley, Mark A; Thombs, Brett D

2015-12-01

Some peer reviewers may inappropriately, or coercively request that authors include references to the reviewers' own work. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether, compared to reviews for a journal with single-blind peer review, reviews for a journal with open peer review included (1) fewer self-citations; (2) a lower proportion of self-citations without a rationale; and (3) a lower ratio of proportions of citations without a rationale in self-citations versus citations to others' work. Peer reviews for published manuscripts submitted in 2012 to a single-blind peer review journal, the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, were previously evaluated (Thombs et al., 2015). These were compared to publically available peer reviews of manuscripts published in 2012 in an open review journal, BMC Psychiatry. Two investigators independently extracted data for both journals. There were no significant differences between journals in the proportion of all reviewer citations that were self-citations (Journal of Psychosomatic Research: 71/225, 32%; BMC Psychiatry: 90/315, 29%; p=.50), or in the proportion of self-citations without a rationale (Journal of Psychosomatic Research: 15/71, 21%; BMC Psychiatry: 12/90, 13%; p=.21). There was no significant difference between journals in the proportion of self-citations versus citations to others' work without a rationale (p=.31). Blind and open peer review methodologies have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The present study found that, in reasonably similar journals that use single-blind and open review, there were no substantive differences in the pattern of peer reviewer self-citations. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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…

Demystifying the peer-review process - workshop

EPA Science Inventory

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

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:28611894

Security clustering algorithm based on reputation in hierarchical peer-to-peer network

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Chen, Mei; Luo, Xin; Wu, Guowen; Tan, Yang; Kita, Kenji

2013-03-01

For the security problems of the hierarchical P2P network (HPN), the paper presents a security clustering algorithm based on reputation (CABR). In the algorithm, we take the reputation mechanism for ensuring the security of transaction and use cluster for managing the reputation mechanism. In order to improve security, reduce cost of network brought by management of reputation and enhance stability of cluster, we select reputation, the historical average online time, and the network bandwidth as the basic factors of the comprehensive performance of node. Simulation results showed that the proposed algorithm improved the security, reduced the network overhead, and enhanced stability of cluster.

Paired peer review of university classroom teaching in a school of nursing and midwifery.

PubMed

Bennett, Paul N; Parker, Steve; Smigiel, Heather

2012-08-01

Peer review of university classroom teaching can increase the quality of teaching but is not universally practiced in Australian universities. To report an evaluation of paired peer-review process using both paper and web based teaching evaluation tools. Twenty university teachers in one metropolitan Australian School of Nursing and Midwifery were randomly paired and then randomly assigned to a paper based or web-based peer review tool. Each teacher reviewed each other's classroom teaching as part of a peer review program. The participants then completed an 18 question survey evaluating the peer review tool and paired evaluation process. Responses were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. Regardless of the tool used, participants found this process of peer review positive (75%), collegial (78%), supportive (61%) and non-threatening (71%). Participants reported that the peer review will improve their own classroom delivery (61%), teaching evaluation (61%) and planning (53%). The web-based tool was found to be easier to use and allowed more space than the paper-based tool. Implementation of a web-based paired peer review system can be a positive method of peer review of university classroom teaching. Pairing of teachers to review each other's classroom teaching is a promising strategy and has the potential to improve teaching in teaching universities. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

"I sleep better at night:" How peer review of radiation treatment plans indirectly improves quality of care across radiation treatment programs.

PubMed

Brundage, Michael D; Hart, Margaret; O'Donnell, Jennifer; Reddeman, Lindsay; Gutierrez, Eric; Foxcroft, Sophie; Warde, Padraig

Peer review of radiation oncology treatment plans is increasingly recognized as an important component of quality assurance in radiation treatment planning and delivery. Peer review of treatment plans can directly improve the quality of those plans and can also have indirect effects on radiation treatment programs. We undertook a systematic, qualitative approach to describing the indirect benefits of peer review, factors that were seen to facilitate or act as barriers to the implementation of peer review, and strategies to address these barriers across a provincial jurisdiction of radiation oncology programs (ROPs). Semistructured qualitative interviews were held with radiation oncology department heads and radiation therapy managers (or delegates) in all 14 ROPs in Ontario, Canada. We used a theoretically guided phenomenological qualitative approach to design and analyze the interview content. Themes were recorded by 2 independent reviewers, and any discordance was resolved by consensus. A total of 28 interviews were completed with 32 interviewees. Twenty-two unique themes addressed perceived benefits of peer review, relating to either peer review structure (n = 3), process (n = 9), or outcome (n = 10). Of these 22 themes, 19 related to indirect benefits to ROPs. In addition, 18 themes related to factors that facilitated peer review activities and 30 themes related to key barriers to implementing peer review were identified. Findings were consistent with, and enhanced the understanding of, previous survey-based assessments of the benefits and challenges of implementing peer review programs. Although challenges and concerns regarding the implementation of peer review were evident, the indirect benefits to radiation programs are numerous, far outweigh the implementation challenges, and strongly complement the direct individual-patient benefits that result from peer review quality assurance of radiation treatment plans. Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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.

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

PubMed

Walters, W Patrick; Bajorath, Jürgen

2015-01-01

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

A novel approach to quality improvement in a safety-net practice: concurrent peer review visits.

PubMed

Fiscella, Kevin; Volpe, Ellen; Winters, Paul; Brown, Melissa; Idris, Amna; Harren, Tricia

2010-12-01

Concurrent peer review visits are structured office visits conducted by clinician peers of the primary care clinician that are specifically designed to reduce competing demands, clinical inertia, and bias. We assessed whether a single concurrent peer review visit reduced clinical inertia and improved control of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes control among underserved patients. We conducted a randomized encouragement trial to evaluate concurrent peer review visits with a community health center. Seven hundred twenty-seven patients with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes who were not at goal for systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and/or glycated hemoglobin (A1c) were randomly assigned to an invitation to participate in a concurrent peer review visit or to usual care. We compared change in these measures using mixed models and rates of therapeutic intensification during concurrent peer review visits with control visits. One hundred seventy-one patients completed a concurrent peer review visit. SBP improved significantly (p < .01) more among those completing concurrent peer review visits than among those who failed to respond to a concurrent peer review invitation or those randomized to usual care. There were no differences seen for changes in LDL-C or A1c. Concurrent peer review visits were associated with statistically significant greater clinician intensification of blood pressure (p < .001), lipid (p < .001), and diabetes (p < .005) treatment than either for control visits for patients in either the nonresponse group or usual care group. Concurrent peer review visits represent a promising strategy for improving blood pressure control and improving therapeutic intensification in community health centers.

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.

48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

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.

Lessons from Peer Support Among Individuals with Mental Health Difficulties: A Review of the Literature

PubMed Central

Miyamoto, Yuki; Sono, Tamaki

2012-01-01

We conducted a comprehensive narrative review and used a systematic search strategy to identify studies related to peer support among adults with mental health difficulties. The purposes of this review were to describe the principles, effects and benefits of peer support documented in the published literature, to discuss challenging aspects of peer support and to investigate lessons from peer support. Fifty-one studies, including 8 review articles and 19 qualitative studies, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Most of the challenges for peer support were related to “role” and “relationship” issues; that is, how peer support providers relate to people who receive peer support and how peer support providers are treated in the system. The knowledge gained from peer support relationships, such as mutual responsibility and interdependence, might be a clue toward redefining the helper-helper relationship as well as the concepts of help and support. PMID:22563347

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review Perspective

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Nicol, David; Thomson, Avril; Breslin, Caroline

2014-01-01

Peer review is a reciprocal process whereby students produce feedback reviews on the work of peers and receive feedback reviews from peers on their own work. Prior research has primarily examined the learning benefits that result from the receipt of feedback reviews, with few studies specifically exploring the merits of producing feedback reviews…

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.

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

PubMed

Wicherts, Jelte M

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Wicherts, Jelte M.

2016-01-01

Background Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the peer-review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer-review, and develop and validate a tool enabling different stakeholders to assess transparency of the peer-review process. Methods and Findings Based on editorial guidelines and best practices, I developed a 14-item tool to rate transparency of the peer-review process on the basis of journals’ websites. In Study 1, a random sample of 231 authors of papers in 92 subscription journals in different fields rated transparency of the journals that published their work. Authors’ ratings of the transparency were positively associated with quality of the peer-review process but unrelated to journal’s impact factors. In Study 2, 20 experts on OA publishing assessed the transparency of established (non-OA) journals, OA journals categorized as being published by potential predatory publishers, and journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Results show high reliability across items (α = .91) and sufficient reliability across raters. Ratings differentiated the three types of journals well. In Study 3, academic librarians rated a random sample of 140 DOAJ journals and another 54 journals that had received a hoax paper written by Bohannon to test peer-review quality. Journals with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper and showed higher impact as measured by the h5 index from Google Scholar. Conclusions The tool to assess transparency of the peer-review process at academic journals shows promising reliability and validity. The transparency of the peer-review process can be seen as an indicator of peer-review quality allowing the tool to be used to predict academic quality in new journals. PMID:26824759

Detailed prospective peer review in a community radiation oncology clinic.

PubMed

Mitchell, James D; Chesnut, Thomas J; Eastham, David V; Demandante, Carlo N; Hoopes, David J

In 2012, we instituted detailed prospective peer review of new cases. We present the outcomes of peer review on patient management and time required for peer review. Peer review rounds were held 3 to 4 days weekly and required 2 physicians to review pertinent information from the electronic medical record and treatment planning system. Eight aspects were reviewed for each case: 1) workup and staging; 2) treatment intent and prescription; 3) position, immobilization, and simulation; 4) motion assessment and management; 5) target contours; 6) normal tissue contours; 7) target dosimetry; and 8) normal tissue dosimetry. Cases were marked as, "Meets standard of care," "Variation," or "Major deviation." Changes in treatment plan were noted. As our process evolved, we recorded the time spent reviewing each case. From 2012 to 2014, we collected peer review data on 442 of 465 (95%) radiation therapy patients treated in our hospital-based clinic. Overall, 91 (20.6%) of the cases were marked as having a variation, and 3 (0.7%) as major deviation. Forty-two (9.5%) of the cases were altered after peer review. An overall peer review score of "Variation" or "Major deviation" was highly associated with a change in treatment plan (P < .01). Changes in target contours were recommended in 10% of cases. Gastrointestinal cases were significantly associated with a change in treatment plan after peer review. Indicators on position, immobilization, simulation, target contours, target dosimetry, motion management, normal tissue contours, and normal tissue dosimetry were significantly associated with a change in treatment plan. The mean time spent on each case was 7 minutes. Prospective peer review is feasible in a community radiation oncology practice. Our process led to changes in 9.5% of cases. Peer review should focus on technical factors such as target contours and dosimetry. Peer review required 7 minutes per case. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

Peer-supported review of teaching: making the grade in midwifery and nursing education.

PubMed

Murphy Tighe, Sylvia; Bradshaw, Carmel

2013-11-01

This paper outlines the value of peer-supported review of teaching for nurse and midwifery educators in an academic environment. Reflection and continuing professional development are important tenets of an educators' practice and can be addressed via peer observation. Definitions and models of peer observation are presented. The strengths and challenges associated with peer-supported review of teaching are discussed. The reasons why peer observation is underutilised are explored with some suggestions on how to overcome these challenges. Recent developments in relation to peer observation and peer-supported review are outlined. The need for tangible evidence of development and enhancement of existing teaching expertise is very pronounced in the current economic climate, it is concluded that peer-supported review of teaching can provide such evidence. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Peer review in hematopoietic cell transplantation: are we doing our fair share?

PubMed

Giralt, S; Korngold, R; Lazarus, H M

2016-09-01

Peer review is believed to be important in maintaining the quality and integrity of research in academic endeavors. Recently, the value of the current peer review process, which is more than 100 years old has come into question. In the field of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), peer review was unable to prevent the publication of the largest and most notorious scientific fraud in our field. In order to assess how the HCT community views and how engaged it is with the peer review process, the American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation conducted a survey of all of its members in 2014. The survey was sent to all active members through multiple email communications in August and September 2014. Of a total of 1183 members, 149 responded. Almost all of the respondents had participated in the peer review process, with few respondents declining ever to review manuscripts. The most common cause for declining review requests was lack of time. Most respondents (68%) thought that the current peer review process was relatively fair and unbiased, whereas only 9% of the respondents stated that they did not believe in the peer review process. In conclusion, among the respondents of this survey most felt the peer review process to be valuable and fair, however, the lack of response suggests that further study into improving the peer review process in the field of HCT is warranted in the era of electronic publishing and communication.

The Potential of Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Johnson, Susan Moore; Fiarman, Sarah E.

2012-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review methods. 34.105 Section 34... Review § 34.105 Peer review methods. (a) For both competitive and noncompetitive applications, peer... announcement or otherwise established by the Administrator, together with the assignment of numerical values...

7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400... STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research...

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... be used in the selection of peer reviewers are: (a) Generalized knowledge of juvenile justice or... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Qualifications of peer reviewers. 34.109 Section 34.109 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES...

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... be used in the selection of peer reviewers are: (a) Generalized knowledge of juvenile justice or... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Qualifications of peer reviewers. 34.109 Section 34.109 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES...

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... be used in the selection of peer reviewers are: (a) Generalized knowledge of juvenile justice or... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Qualifications of peer reviewers. 34.109 Section 34.109 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES...

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... be used in the selection of peer reviewers are: (a) Generalized knowledge of juvenile justice or... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Qualifications of peer reviewers. 34.109 Section 34.109 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES...

Peer Review of Teaching: Sharing Best Practices

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Golparian, Shaya; Chan, Judy; Cassidy, Alice

2015-01-01

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

Managing Network Partitions in Structured P2P Networks

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Shafaat, Tallat M.; Ghodsi, Ali; Haridi, Seif

Structured overlay networks form a major class of peer-to-peer systems, which are touted for their abilities to scale, tolerate failures, and self-manage. Any long-lived Internet-scale distributed system is destined to face network partitions. Consequently, the problem of network partitions and mergers is highly related to fault-tolerance and self-management in large-scale systems. This makes it a crucial requirement for building any structured peer-to-peer systems to be resilient to network partitions. Although the problem of network partitions and mergers is highly related to fault-tolerance and self-management in large-scale systems, it has hardly been studied in the context of structured peer-to-peer systems. Structured overlays have mainly been studied under churn (frequent joins/failures), which as a side effect solves the problem of network partitions, as it is similar to massive node failures. Yet, the crucial aspect of network mergers has been ignored. In fact, it has been claimed that ring-based structured overlay networks, which constitute the majority of the structured overlays, are intrinsically ill-suited for merging rings. In this chapter, we motivate the problem of network partitions and mergers in structured overlays. We discuss how a structured overlay can automatically detect a network partition and merger. We present an algorithm for merging multiple similar ring-based overlays when the underlying network merges. We examine the solution in dynamic conditions, showing how our solution is resilient to churn during the merger, something widely believed to be difficult or impossible. We evaluate the algorithm for various scenarios and show that even when falsely detecting a merger, the algorithm quickly terminates and does not clutter the network with many messages. The algorithm is flexible as the tradeoff between message complexity and time complexity can be adjusted by a parameter.

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

PubMed Central

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

2011-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Use of peer review. 34.104 Section 34.104 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34... programs for which a large number of applications is expected, preapplications (concept papers) may be...

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…

7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3411.5, the Administrator shall adopt procedures for the conduct of peer reviews and the...

Toward the Integration of Peer Reviewing and Computational Linguistics Approaches

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Park, Juhwa; Cho, Kwangsu

2017-01-01

Previous research has shown the effectiveness of peer reviewing on the improvement of writing quality. However, the fact that students themselves, arguably novices, judged the improvement leads to concerns about the validity of peer reviewing. We measured writing quality before and after peer reviewing using Coh-Metrix, which computationally…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sondergaard, Harald; Mulder, Raoul A.

2012-01-01

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

Writing to Learn: An Evaluation of the Calibrated Peer Review™ Program in Two Neuroscience Courses

PubMed Central

Prichard, J. Roxanne

2005-01-01

Although the majority of scientific information is communicated in written form, and peer review is the primary process by which it is validated, undergraduate students may receive little direct training in science writing or peer review. Here, I describe the use of Calibrated Peer Review™ (CPR), a free, web-based writing and peer review program designed to alleviate instructor workload, in two undergraduate neuroscience courses: an upper- level sensation and perception course (41 students, three assignments) and an introductory neuroscience course (50 students; two assignments). Using CPR online, students reviewed primary research articles on assigned ‘hot’ topics, wrote short essays in response to specific guiding questions, reviewed standard ‘calibration’ essays, and provided anonymous quantitative and qualitative peer reviews. An automated grading system calculated the final scores based on a student’s essay quality (as determined by the average of three peer reviews) and his or her accuracy in evaluating 1) three standard calibration essays, 2) three anonymous peer reviews, and 3) his or her self review. Thus, students were assessed not only on their skill at constructing logical, evidence-based arguments, but also on their ability to accurately evaluate their peers’ writing. According to both student self-reports and instructor observation, students’ writing and peer review skills improved over the course of the semester. Student evaluation of the CPR program was mixed; while some students felt like the peer review process enhanced their understanding of the material and improved their writing, others felt as though the process was biased and required too much time. Despite student critiques of the program, I still recommend the CPR program as an excellent and free resource for incorporating more writing, peer review, and critical thinking into an undergraduate neuroscience curriculum. PMID:23493247

Distributed Generation Planning using Peer Enhanced Multi-objective Teaching-Learning based Optimization in Distribution Networks

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Selvam, Kayalvizhi; Vinod Kumar, D. M.; Siripuram, Ramakanth

2017-04-01

In this paper, an optimization technique called peer enhanced teaching learning based optimization (PeTLBO) algorithm is used in multi-objective problem domain. The PeTLBO algorithm is parameter less so it reduced the computational burden. The proposed peer enhanced multi-objective based TLBO (PeMOTLBO) algorithm has been utilized to find a set of non-dominated optimal solutions [distributed generation (DG) location and sizing in distribution network]. The objectives considered are: real power loss and the voltage deviation subjected to voltage limits and maximum penetration level of DG in distribution network. Since the DG considered is capable of injecting real and reactive power to the distribution network the power factor is considered as 0.85 lead. The proposed peer enhanced multi-objective optimization technique provides different trade-off solutions in order to find the best compromise solution a fuzzy set theory approach has been used. The effectiveness of this proposed PeMOTLBO is tested on IEEE 33-bus and Indian 85-bus distribution system. The performance is validated with Pareto fronts and two performance metrics (C-metric and S-metric) by comparing with robust multi-objective technique called non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II and also with the basic TLBO.

Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication.

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

The debate on whether the peer-review system is in crisis has been heated recently. A variety of alternative systems have been proposed to improve the system and make it sustainable. However, we lack sufficient evidence and data related to these issues. Here we used a previously developed agent-based model of the scientific publication and peer-review system calibrated with empirical data to compare the efficiency of five alternative peer-review systems with the conventional system. We modelled two systems of immediate publication, with and without online reviews (crowdsourcing), a system with only one round of reviews and revisions allowed (re-review opt-out) and two review-sharing systems in which rejected manuscripts are resubmitted along with their past reviews to any other journal (portable) or to only those of the same publisher but of lower impact factor (cascade). The review-sharing systems outperformed or matched the performance of the conventional one in all peer-review efficiency, reviewer effort and scientific dissemination metrics we used. The systems especially showed a large decrease in total time of the peer-review process and total time devoted by reviewers to complete all reports in a year. The two systems with immediate publication released more scientific information than the conventional one but provided almost no other benefit. Re-review opt-out decreased the time reviewers devoted to peer review but had lower performance on screening papers that should not be published and relative increase in intrinsic quality of papers due to peer review than the conventional system. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent findings to those from our main simulations. We recommend prioritizing a system of review-sharing to create a sustainable scientific publication and peer-review system.

Interventional radiology peer, a newly developed peer-review scoring system designed for interventional radiology practice.

PubMed

d'Othée, Bertrand Janne; Haskal, Ziv J

2013-10-01

Existing diagnostic radiology peer-review systems do not address the specificities of interventional radiology (IR) practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of a specifically developed interventional peer review method, IR Peer. Retrospective review of a prospectively encoded pilot database aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of IR Peer in a multiphysician practice was performed. This scoring system used morning peer review of selected IR cases from the previous day in the form of a five-item questionnaire and an ordinal answer scale that grades reviewers' agreement with imaging findings, procedural/technical management, early outcomes, and follow-up plan. Patient lists from IR Peer and morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences were compared to evaluate the amount of overlap and capability of IR Peer to help detect adverse events (AEs). A total of 417 consecutive reviews of IR attending physician cases by peers were performed in 163 consecutive patients over 18 months, and 94% of cases were reviewed by two or three IR attending physicians. Each question was answered 99%-100% of the time. Answers showed disagreement in 10% of cases (2% by a single reviewer, 8% by several), most related to procedural technique. Overall AE incidence was 1.8%. IR Peer contributed 10.7% of cases to the M&M list. IR Peer is feasible, relevant, and easy to implement in a multiphysician IR practice. When used along with other quality-assurance processes, it might help in the detection of AEs for M&M; the latter will require further confirmatory research. © SIR, 2013.

The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

PubMed

Ferreira, Catarina; Bastille-Rousseau, Guillaume; Bennett, Amanda M; Ellington, E Hance; Terwissen, Christine; Austin, Cayla; Borlestean, Adrian; Boudreau, Melanie R; Chan, Kevin; Forsythe, Adrian; Hossie, Thomas J; Landolt, Kristen; Longhi, Jessica; Otis, Josée-Anne; Peers, Michael J L; Rae, Jason; Seguin, Jacob; Watt, Cristen; Wehtje, Morgan; Murray, Dennis L

2016-08-01

Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer-review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer-review system are merely sticking-plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for. © 2015 Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Implementing Head and Neck Contouring Peer Review without Pathway Delay: The On-demand Approach.

PubMed

Fong, C; Sanghera, P; Good, J; Nightingale, P; Hartley, A

2017-12-01

Peer review of contour volume is a priority in the radiotherapy treatment quality assurance process for head and neck cancer. It is essential that incorporation of peer review activity does not introduce additional delays. An on-demand peer review process was piloted to assess the feasibility and efficiency of this approach, as compared with a historic scheduled weekly approach. Between November 2016 and April 2017 four head and neck clinicians in one centre took part in an on-demand peer review process. Cases were of radical or adjuvant intent of any histology and submitted on a voluntary basis. The outcome of contour peer review would be one of unchanged (UC), unchanged with variation or discretion noted (UV), minor change (M) or significant change (S). The time difference between the completion of the on-demand peer review was compared with the time difference to a hypothetical next Monday or Tuesday weekly peer review meeting. The time taken to review each case was also documented in the latter period of the pilot project. In total, 62 cases underwent peer review. Peer review on-demand provided dosimetrists with an average of an extra two working days available per case to meet treatment start dates. The proportion of cases with outcomes UC, UV, M and S were 45%, 16%, 26% and 13%, respectively. The mean peer review time spent per case was 17 min (12 cases). The main reason for S was discrepancy in imaging interpretation (4/8 cases). A lower proportion of oropharyngeal cases were submitted and had S outcomes. A higher proportion of complex cases, e.g. sinonasal/nasopharynx location or previous downstaging chemotherapy had S outcomes. The distribution of S outcomes appears to be similar regardless of clinician experience. The level of peer review activity among individuals differed by workload and job timetable. On-demand peer review of the head and neck contour volume is feasible, reduces delay to the start of dosimetry planning and bypasses the logistical barriers of weekly meetings. An audit of participation will be required to ensure successful implementation. Copyright © 2017 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process.

PubMed

Farrell, P R; Magida Farrell, L; Farrell, M K

2017-01-01

The formal evaluation of scientific literature by invited referees (peer reviewers) is a relatively recent phenomenon and now is considered a cornerstone of modern science. However, its roots can be traced back to antiquity. As the speed and complexity of scientific information and publishing increases in the digital age, peer review must continue to evolve. To understand the future direction of peer review, we must understand its past. Here, we briefly explore the history of scientific peer review. This may help us predict and design appropriate peer review for the new era. This work was originally presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland in the Spring of 2016.

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.

Final Report from the External Peer Review of the IRIS ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

This document is the final report for the 2004 external peer review for the EPA IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene, prepared by the Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), for the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Database. A panel of external peer reviewers met to discuss the IRIS report and their responses to the charge questions on July 30, 2004. This document contains the final written comments of the external peer reviewers. This document is the final report for the 2004 external peer review for the IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene, prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), for the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). A panel of external peer reviewers met to discuss their responses to the charge questions on July 30, 2004. This document contains the final written comments of the external peer reviewers.

Technology-Enhanced Peer Review: Benefits and Implications of Providing Multiple Reviews

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Papadopoulos, Pantelis M.; Lagkas, Thomas D.; Demetriadis, Stavros N.

2017-01-01

This study analyses the impact of self and peer feedback in technology-enhanced peer review settings. The impact of receiving peer comments ("receiver" perspective) is compared to that of reaching own insights by reviewing others' work ("giver" perspective). In this study, 38 sophomore students were randomly assigned in two…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2012-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding § 3401.12 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3401.7, the Administrator will adopt procedures for the...

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…

Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Vorobel, Oksana; Kim, Deoksoon

2014-01-01

Recent studies on peer review groups in second language classes have focused on various topics, including collaboration (Carr, 2008) and the effect of peer review versus teacher feedback on students' writing (Zhang, 1995). One area that has received little attention is the content of students' speech during peer review. This longitudinal case…

Peer Reviewers Learn from Giving Comments

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cho, Young Hoan; Cho, Kwangsu

2011-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Schwegler, Andria F.; Altman, Barbara W.

2015-01-01

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

Pre-University Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

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

Assessing RN-to-RN peer review on clinical units.

PubMed

Pfeiffer, Judith A; Wickline, Mary A; Deetz, Jill; Berry, Elise S

2012-04-01

The primary purpose of this study was to measure informal registered nurse (RN)-to-RN peer review (defined as collegial communication about the quality of nursing care) at the work-unit level. Survey design with cluster sampling of 28 hospital or ambulatory care units (n = 541 respondents). Results were compared with existing patient safety and satisfaction data. A chi-squared test was used to compare responses against nurse characteristics. Nurses agreed that RN-to-RN peer review takes place on their units, but no correlation with patient safety and satisfaction data was found. Misunderstandings about the meaning of peer review were evident. Open-ended comments revealed barriers to peer review: fear of retribution, language barriers and lack of professionalism. Nurses need clarification of peer review. Issues with common language in a professional environment need to be addressed and nurses can learn collaboration from each other's cultures. Managers should support RN-to-RN peer review on clinical units. Methods used here may be useful to assess current departmental nurse peer review. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Peer Review in Radiology: A Resident and Fellow Perspective.

PubMed

Grenville, Jeffrey; Doucette-Preville, David; Vlachou, Paraskevi A; Mnatzakanian, Gevork N; Raikhlin, Antony; Colak, Errol

2016-02-01

The purpose of this study was to explore Canadian radiology residents' and fellows' understanding, attitudes, opinions, and preferences toward peer review. An Internet-based anonymous questionnaire designed to understand one's familiarity, attitudes, opinions, and preferences toward peer review was distributed to radiology residents and fellows across Canada. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and answers were stratified by level of training. A total of 136 trainees responded to the survey with 92 completed survey responses available for descriptive statistics. Approximately half of respondents are familiar with peer review (49%), and 39% of trainees are involved in peer review. Most respondents (92%) expressed an interest in learning more about peer review; believe that it should be incorporated into the residency training curriculum (86%), be mandatory (72%), and that current participation will increase odds of future participation (91%). Most trainees (80%) are comfortable advising one another about errors, but less comfortable advising staff (21%). Residents and fellows welcome the opportunity to learn more about peer review and believe it should be incorporated into the residency training curriculum. Understanding the attitudes and perceptions held by trainees regarding peer review is important, as a means to optimize education and maximize current and future participation in peer review. Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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 review compared with single blind. 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 Portal: Quality Enhancement in Thesis Writing Using Self-Managed Peer Review on a Mass Scale

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Aghaee, Naghmeh; Hansson, Henrik

2013-01-01

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

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.

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.

Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation-Part 3: Automated Report Analysis and Data Reconciliation.

PubMed

Reiner, Bruce I

2018-02-01

One method for addressing existing peer review limitations is the assignment of peer review cases on a completely blinded basis, in which the peer reviewer would create an independent report which can then be cross-referenced with the primary reader report of record. By leveraging existing computerized data mining techniques, one could in theory automate and objectify the process of report data extraction, classification, and analysis, while reducing time and resource requirements intrinsic to manual peer review report analysis. Once inter-report analysis has been performed, resulting inter-report discrepancies can be presented to the radiologist of record for review, along with the option to directly communicate with the peer reviewer through an electronic data reconciliation tool aimed at collaboratively resolving inter-report discrepancies and improving report accuracy. All associated report and reconciled data could in turn be recorded in a referenceable peer review database, which provides opportunity for context and user-specific education and decision support.

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.

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.

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.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

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

Do Peer Reviews Help Improve Student Writing Abilities in an EFL High School Classroom?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kurihara, Noriko

2017-01-01

Several studies have reported the benefits of peer reviews in English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) writing classrooms. However, there has been little empirical research on whether such peer reviews improve students' writing abilities. The current study investigated the effects of peer review on the development…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

White, Kiri; Boehm, Emilia; Chester, Andrea

2014-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2015-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Adamek, Margaret Ellen

2015-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false How is peer review conducted under this program? 359.30 Section 359.30 Education Regulations of the Offices of the Department of Education (Continued) OFFICE OF...? § 359.30 How is peer review conducted under this program? Peer review is conducted under this program in...

Don't Tell It Like It Is: Preserving Collegiality in the Summative Peer Review of Teaching

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Iqbal, Isabeau A.

2014-01-01

While much literature has considered feedback and professional growth in formative peer reviews of teaching, there has been little empirical research conducted on these issues in the context of summative peer reviews. This article explores faculty members' perceptions of feedback practices in the summative peer review of teaching and reports on…

75 FR 24568 - Notice of Intent To Seek OMB Approval To Collect Information: Revision of a Form Pertaining to...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-05-05

... Peer Review of ARS Research Projects AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA. ACTION: Notice... scientific peer reviews of all research activities conducted by the USDA. The Office manages the ARS peer review system by centrally planning peer panel reviews for ARS research projects on a five-year cycle...

Students' Collaborative Peer Reviewing in an Online Writing Environment

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bradley, Linda; Thouësny, Sylvie

2017-01-01

Peer review is applied as a powerful tool to enhance student collaboration online writing. The purpose of this paper is to analyse learners' mechanisms of peer reviewing in the nature of student interventions and interactions in written online peer reviewing and how categorization of student comments can be used as a means for analysing student…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Knight, Linda V.; Steinbach, Theresa A.

2011-01-01

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

Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is seeking peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of ethylene oxide (cancer) that will appear in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. EPA seeks external peer review on how the Agency responded to the SAB panel recommendations, the exposure-response modeling of epidemiologic data, including new analyses since the 2007 external peer review, and on the adequacy, transparency, and clarity of the revised draft. The peer review will include an opportunity for the public to address the peer reviewers.

External Peer Review Report on the Defense Contract Management Agency Office of Independent Assessment Internal Review Team

DTIC Science & Technology

2015-11-02

External Peer Review Report on the Defense Contract Management Agency Office of Independent Assessment Internal Review Team N O V E M B E R 2 , 2 0 1 5... MANAGEMENT AGENCY SUBJECT: External Peer Review Report on the Defense Contract Management Agency Office of Independent Assessment Internal Review Team...Report No. DODIG-2016-007) Attached is the External Peer Review Report on the Defense Contract Management Agency Office of Independent Assessment

AQUATOX Peer Review Documents

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

AQUATOX Release 2 underwent an external peer review in early 2003, and Release 3 underwent an external peer review in late 2008. Reviewers stated model enhancements have made AQUATOX one of the most exciting tools in aquatic ecosystem management.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Coté, Robert A.

2014-01-01

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

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.

Online Radiology Reporting with Peer Review as a Learning and Feedback Tool in Radiology; Implementation, Validity, and Student Impressions.

PubMed

McEvoy, Fintan J; Shen, Nicholas W; Nielsen, Dorte H; Buelund, Lene E; Holm, Peter

2017-02-01

Communicating radiological reports to peers has pedagogical value. Students may be uneasy with the process due to a lack of communication and peer review skills or to their failure to see value in the process. We describe a communication exercise with peer review in an undergraduate veterinary radiology course. The computer code used to manage the course and deliver images online is reported, and we provide links to the executable files. We tested to see if undergraduate peer review of radiological reports has validity and describe student impressions of the learning process. Peer review scores for student-generated radiological reports were compared to scores obtained in the summative multiple choice (MCQ) examination for the course. Student satisfaction was measured using a bespoke questionnaire. There was a weak positive correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.32, p < 0.01) between peer review scores students received and the student scores obtained in the MCQ examination. The difference in peer review scores received by students grouped according to their level of course performance (high vs. low) was statistically significant (p < 0.05). No correlation was found between peer review scores awarded by the students and the scores they obtained in the MCQ examination (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.17, p = 0.14). In conclusion, we have created a realistic radiology imaging exercise with readily available software. The peer review scores are valid in that to a limited degree they reflect student future performance in an examination. Students valued the process of learning to communicate radiological findings but do not fully appreciated the value of peer review.

Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.

PubMed

Zhu, Jia; Fung, Gabriel; Wong, Wai Hung; Li, Zhixu; Xu, Chuanhua

2016-08-01

In the academic world, peer review is one of the major processes in evaluating a scholars contribution. In this study, we are interested in quantifying the merits of different policies in a peer review process, such as single-blind review, double-blind review, and obtaining authors feedback. Currently, insufficient work has been undertaken to evaluate the benefits of different peer review policies. One of the major reasons for this situation is the inability to conduct any empirical study because data are presently unavailable. In this case, a computer simulation is one of the best ways to conduct a study. We perform a series of simulations to study the effects of different policies on a peer review process. In this study, we focus on the peer review process of a typical computer science conference. Our results point to the crucial role of program chairs in determining the quality and diversity of the articles to be accepted for publication. We demonstrate the importance of discussion among reviewers, suggest circumstances in which the double-blind review policy should be adopted, and question the credibility of the authors feedback mechanism. Finally, we stress that randomness plays an important role in the peer review process, and this role cannot be eliminated. Although our model may not capture every component of a peer review process, it covers some of the most essential elements. Thus, even the simulation results clearly cannot be taken as literal descriptions of an actual peer review process. However, we can at least still use them to identify alternative directions for future study.

7 CFR 3400.14 - Proposal review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research... employees of the Department, the respective peer review group, and ad hoc reviewers, as required. Written...-depth discussions will be provided by peer review group members prior to recommending applications for...

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

PubMed

Cowley, Stephen J

2015-01-01

Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting 'impact': as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose. Endorsing the consensus, I offer a reframing: while a normative social process, peer-review also shapes the writing of a scientific paper. In so far as 'cognition' describes enabling conditions for flexible behavior, the practices of peer-review thus constrain knowledge-making. To pursue cognitive functions of peer-review, however, manuscripts must be seen as 'symbolizations', replicable patterns that use technologically enabled activity. On this bio-cognitive view, peer-review constrains knowledge-making by writers, editors, reviewers. Authors are prompted to recursively re-aggregate symbolizations to present what are deemed acceptable knowledge claims. How, then, can recursive re-embodiment be explored? In illustration, I sketch how the paper's own content came to be re-aggregated: agonistic review drove reformatting of argument structure, changes in rhetorical ploys and careful choice of wordings. For this reason, the paper's knowledge-claims can be traced to human activity that occurs in distributed cognitive systems. Peer-review is on the frontline in the knowledge sector in that it delimits what can count as knowing. Its systemic nature is therefore crucial to not only discipline-centered 'real' science but also its 'post-academic' counterparts.

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

Peer Review for EPA's Biologically Based Dose-Response ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is developing a regulation for perchlorate in drinking water. As part the regulatory process EPA must develop a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG). FDA and EPA scientists developed a biologically based dose-response (BBDR) model to assist in deriving the MCLG. This model is designed to determine under what conditions of iodine nutrition and exposure to perchlorate across sensitive lifestages would result in low serum free and total thyroxine (hypothyroxinemia). EPA is undertaking a peer review to provide a focused, objective independent peer evaluation of the draft model and its model results report. EPA is undertaking a peer review to provide a focused, objective independent peer evaluation of the draft model and its model results report. Peer review is an important component of the scientific process. The criticism, suggestions, and new ideas provided by the peer reviewers stimulate creative thought, strengthen the interpretation of the reviewed material, and confer credibility on the product. The peer review objective is to provide advice to EPA on steps that will yield a highly credible scientific product that is supported by the scientific community and a defensible perchlorate MCLG.

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.

The effect of peer review on mortality rates.

PubMed

Krahwinkel, W; Schuler, E; Liebetrau, M; Meier-Hellmann, A; Zacher, J; Kuhlen, R

2016-10-01

Lowering of mortality rates in hospitals with mortality rates higher than accepted reference values for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), pneumonia, stroke, mechanical ventilation (MV) and colorectal surgery by using an external peer review process that identifies areas requiring rectification and implements protocols directed at improving these areas. Retrospective, observational, quality management study using administrative data to compare in-hospital mortality rates (pre and post an external peer review process that included adoption of improvement protocols) with reference values. German general hospitals of a large, private group. Hospitals with mortality rates higher than reference values. Peer review of medical records by experienced, outside physicians triggered by in-hospital mortality rates higher than expected. Inadequacies were identified, improvement protocols enforced and mortality rates subsequently re-examined. Mortality rates 1 year before and 1 year after peer review and protocol use. For AMI, CHF, pneumonia, stroke, MV and colorectal surgery, the mortality rates 1 year post-peer review were significantly decreased as compared to pre-peer review mortality rates. The standardized mortality ratio for all of the above diagnoses was 1.45, 1 year before peer review, and 0.97, 1 year after peer review. The absolute risk reduction of 7.3% translates into 710 deaths in this population which could have been prevented. Peer review triggered and conducted in the manner described here is associated with a significant lowering of in-hospital mortality rates in hospitals that previously had higher than expected mortality rates. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores

PubMed Central

Lindner, Mark D.; Nakamura, Richard K.

2015-01-01

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

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

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-03-30

... Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: New Threshold for Peer Reviews of Noncompetitive Contracts... Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to modify the threshold for noncompetitive contract peer reviews. DATES...-6088. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background This final rule reduces the threshold for DoD peer...

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

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

Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback.

PubMed

Strickland, N H

2015-11-01

Peer review in radiology means an assessment of the accuracy of a report issued by another radiologist. Inevitably, this involves a judgement opinion from the reviewing radiologist. Peer feedback is the means by which any form of peer review is communicated back to the original author of the report. This article defines terms, discusses the current status, identifies problems, and provides some recommendations as to the way forward, concentrating upon the software requirements for efficient peer review and peer feedback of reported imaging studies. Radiologists undertake routine peer review in their everyday clinical practice, particularly when reporting and preparing for multidisciplinary team meetings. More formal peer review of reported imaging studies has been advocated as a quality assurance measure to promote good clinical practice. It is also a way of assessing the competency of reporting radiologists referred for investigation to bodies such as the General Medical Council (GMC). The literature shows, firstly, that there is a very wide reported range of discrepancy rates in many studies, which have used a variety of non-comparable methodologies; and secondly, that applying scoring systems in formal peer review is often meaningless, unhelpful, and can even be detrimental. There is currently a lack of electronic peer feedback system software on the market to inform radiologists of any review of their work that has occurred or to provide them with clinical outcome information on cases they have previously reported. Learning opportunities are therefore missed. Radiologists should actively engage with the medical informatics industry to design optimal peer review and feedback software with features to meet their needs. Such a system should be easy to use, be fully integrated with the radiological information and picture archiving systems used clinically, and contain a free-text comment box, without a numerical scoring system. It should form a temporary record that cannot be permanently archived. It must provide automated feedback to the original author. Peer feedback, as part of everyday reporting, should enhance daily learning for radiologists. Software requirements for everyday peer feedback differ from those needed for a formal peer review process, which might only be necessary in the setting of a formal GMC enquiry into a particular radiologist's reporting competence, for example. Copyright © 2015 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Doing Peer Review: Reflections from an International Group of Postdoctoral Fellows

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Merry, Lisa; Jarvis, Kimberly; Kupoluyi, Joseph; Lual, Jomama One Jomama

2017-01-01

There is very little written regarding developing the skills of doing peer reviews. In this piece we use our own experience as postdoctoral fellows to offer our reflections on how to get the most out of doing peer reviews as a trainee researcher. We touch upon the variety and complexity of peer reviews, the debates concerning the nature and…

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

PubMed

Moustafa, Khaled

2015-08-01

To make the peer-review process as objective as possible, I suggest the introduction of an 'equal peer-review' statement that preserves author anonymity across the board, thus removing any potential bias related to nominal or institutional 'prestige'; this would guarantee an equal peer-review process for all authors and grant applicants. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Yankulov, Krassimir; Couto, Richard

2012-01-01

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

Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area habitability study. Volume 5. Peer review summary: TRC (Technical Review Committee) responses. Final report

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

Not Available

Environmental studies were conducted to provide data that could be used by the Commissioner of Health for the State of New York in determining whether the Emergency Declaration Area surrounding the Love Canal hazardous-waste site is habitable. These volumes (II through IV) were reviewed by a peer-review panel of expert scientists. The scientists concluded that each of the three environmental studies was well planned and well executed. Volume V summarizes the peer review and gives additional information or clarifications as requested during the peer review. Volume V also provides additional supplemental statistical analyses requested by the peer reviewer panel.

A randomised trial of peer review: the UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project.

PubMed

Roberts, C M; Stone, R A; Buckingham, R J; Pursey, N A; Harrison, B D W; Lowe, D; Potter, J M

2010-06-01

Peer review has been widely employed within the NHS to facilitate health quality improvement but has not been rigorously evaluated. This article reports the largest randomised trial of peer review ever conducted in the UK. The peer review intervention was a reciprocal supportive exercise that included clinicians, hospital management, commissioners and patients which focused on the quality of the provision of four specific evidence-based aspects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care. Follow up at 12 months demonstrated few quantitative differences in the number or quality of services offered in the two groups. Qualitative data in contrast suggested many benefits of peer review in most but not all intervention units and some control teams. Findings suggest peer review in this format is a positive experience for most participants but is ineffective in some situations. Its longer term benefits and cost effectiveness require further study. The generic findings of this study have potential implications for the application of peer review throughout the NHS.

Mentored peer reviewing for PhD faculty and students.

PubMed

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

2016-02-01

There is a need for scholars to be prepared as peer reviewers in order to ensure the continual publication of quality science. However, developing the skills to craft a constructive critique can be difficult. In this commentary, we discuss the use of a group peer review mentoring model for PhD students to gain experience in peer review from a faculty member who is experienced in peer review. Central to this model, was the opportunity for each student and faculty mentor to openly discuss their critique of the manuscript. Through this enriching experience, novice researchers were able to learn the elements of a good peer review, better determine a manuscript's substantive contribution to science, and advance the quality of their own manuscript writing. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is initiating a public comment period prior to peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of ethylene oxide (cancer) that will appear in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. EPA seeks external peer review on how the Agency responded to the SAB panel recommendations, the exposure-response modeling of epidemiologic data, including new analyses since the 2007 external peer review, and on the adequacy, transparency, and clarity of the revised draft. The peer review will include an opportunity for the public to address the peer reviewers.

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... PROGRAM THE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS § 1388.9 Peer review. (a) The purpose of the peer review..., including on-site visits or inspections as necessary. (b) Applications for funding opportunities under part...

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... PROGRAM THE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS § 1388.9 Peer review. (a) The purpose of the peer review..., including on-site visits or inspections as necessary. (b) Applications for funding opportunities under part...

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... PROGRAM THE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS § 1388.9 Peer review. (a) The purpose of the peer review..., including on-site visits or inspections as necessary. (b) Applications for funding opportunities under part...

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

... PROGRAM THE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS § 1388.9 Peer review. (a) The purpose of the peer review..., including on-site visits or inspections as necessary. (b) Applications for funding opportunities under part...

A peer review process as part of the implementation of clinical pathways in radiation oncology: Does it improve compliance?

PubMed

Gebhardt, Brian J; Heron, Dwight E; Beriwal, Sushil

Clinical pathways are patient management plans that standardize evidence-based practices to ensure high-quality and cost-effective medical care. Implementation of a pathway is a collaborative process in our network, requiring the active involvement of physicians. This approach promotes acceptance of pathway recommendations, although a peer review process is necessary to ensure compliance and to capture and approve off-pathway selections. We investigated the peer review process and factors associated with time to completion of peer review. Our cancer center implemented radiation oncology pathways for every disease site throughout a large, integrated network. Recommendations are written based upon national guidelines, published literature, and institutional experience with evidence evaluated hierarchically in order of efficacy, toxicity, and then cost. Physicians enter decisions into an online, menu-driven decision support tool that integrates with medical records. Data were collected from the support tool and included the rate of on- and off-pathway selections, peer review decisions performed by disease site directors, and time to complete peer review. A total of 6965 treatment decisions were entered in 2015, and 605 (8.7%) were made off-pathway and were subject to peer review. The median time to peer review decision was 2 days (interquartile range, 0.2-6.8). Factors associated with time to peer review decision >48 hours on univariate analysis include disease site (P < .0001) with a trend toward significance (P = .066) for radiation therapy modality. There was no difference between recurrent and non-recurrent disease (P = .267). Multivariable analysis revealed disease site was associated with time to peer review (P < .001), with lymphoma and skin/sarcoma most strongly influencing decision time >48 hours. Clinical pathways are an integral tool for standardizing evidence-based care throughout our large, integrated network, with 91.3% of all treatment decisions being made as per pathway. The peer review process was feasible, with <1% selections ultimately rejected, suggesting that awareness of peer review of treatment decisions encourages compliance with clinical pathway recommendations. Copyright © 2017 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed Central

Cowley, Stephen J.

2015-01-01

Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting ‘impact’: as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose. Endorsing the consensus, I offer a reframing: while a normative social process, peer-review also shapes the writing of a scientific paper. In so far as ‘cognition’ describes enabling conditions for flexible behavior, the practices of peer-review thus constrain knowledge-making. To pursue cognitive functions of peer-review, however, manuscripts must be seen as ‘symbolizations’, replicable patterns that use technologically enabled activity. On this bio-cognitive view, peer-review constrains knowledge-making by writers, editors, reviewers. Authors are prompted to recursively re-aggregate symbolizations to present what are deemed acceptable knowledge claims. How, then, can recursive re-embodiment be explored? In illustration, I sketch how the paper’s own content came to be re-aggregated: agonistic review drove reformatting of argument structure, changes in rhetorical ploys and careful choice of wordings. For this reason, the paper’s knowledge-claims can be traced to human activity that occurs in distributed cognitive systems. Peer-review is on the frontline in the knowledge sector in that it delimits what can count as knowing. Its systemic nature is therefore crucial to not only discipline-centered ‘real’ science but also its ‘post-academic’ counterparts. PMID:26579064

Development of a peer-review framework for cancer multidisciplinary meetings.

PubMed

Johnson, Claire E; Slavova-Azmanova, Neli; Saunders, Christobel

2017-05-01

There is no mechanism in place for monitoring or quality improvement of cancer multidisciplinary meetings (MDM) in Australia. To develop a peer-review process for quality improvement of MDM. This project involved three phases: (i) development of a draft peer-review framework, supporting documents and peer-review process; (ii) consultation with key stakeholders; (iii) refinement of the framework, documents and processes following a pilot study with three MDM. Feedback indicated that specific standards included in the framework needed to allow the peer reviewers to be flexible relative to the circumstances of the individual MDM. Conversely, feedback identified the need for clear, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the conduct of MDM, with accepted standards and objective measures of performance. MDM members were divided about the need to employ peer reviewers from the tumour stream of the MDM under review but agreed that closer involvement of the team under review to support the implementation of recommendations is warranted. We developed an adaptable peer-review framework and process using the current available evidence and guidance. While further research is needed to establish what constitutes best practice in MDM and which processes contribute to improved patient outcomes, the structured peer-review process we describe, when modified using the disease-relevant evidence, could be utilised more broadly as a quality improvement tool. © 2017 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

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.

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

PubMed Central

Tennant, Jonathan P.; Dugan, Jonathan M.; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien C.; Waldner, François; Mietchen, Daniel; Elkhatib, Yehia; B. Collister, Lauren; Pikas, Christina K.; Crick, Tom; Masuzzo, Paola; Caravaggi, Anthony; Berg, Devin R.; Niemeyer, Kyle E.; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Mannheimer, Sara; Rigling, Lillian; Katz, Daniel S.; Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian; Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel; Fatima, Nazeefa; Poblet, Marta; Isaakidis, Marios; Irawan, Dasapta Erwin; Renaut, Sébastien; Madan, Christopher R.; Matthias, Lisa; Nørgaard Kjær, Jesper; O'Donnell, Daniel Paul; Neylon, Cameron; Kearns, Sarah; Selvaraju, Manojkumar; Colomb, Julien

2017-01-01

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments. PMID:29188015

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.

PubMed

Tennant, Jonathan P; Dugan, Jonathan M; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien C; Waldner, François; Mietchen, Daniel; Elkhatib, Yehia; B Collister, Lauren; Pikas, Christina K; Crick, Tom; Masuzzo, Paola; Caravaggi, Anthony; Berg, Devin R; Niemeyer, Kyle E; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Mannheimer, Sara; Rigling, Lillian; Katz, Daniel S; Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian; Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel; Fatima, Nazeefa; Poblet, Marta; Isaakidis, Marios; Irawan, Dasapta Erwin; Renaut, Sébastien; Madan, Christopher R; Matthias, Lisa; Nørgaard Kjær, Jesper; O'Donnell, Daniel Paul; Neylon, Cameron; Kearns, Sarah; Selvaraju, Manojkumar; Colomb, Julien

2017-01-01

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

Peer Review: Promoting Efficient School District Operations

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hale, Jason S.

2010-01-01

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

Using Calibrated Peer Review to Teach Basic Research Skills

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bracke, Marianne S.; Graveel, John G.

2014-01-01

Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) is an online tool being used in the class Introduction to Agriculture and Purdue University (AGR 10100) to integrate a writing and research component (http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/Home.aspx). Calibrated Peer Review combines the ability to create writing intensive assignments with an introduction to the peer-review…

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…

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.

Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping.

PubMed

Siler, Kyle; Lee, Kirby; Bero, Lisa

2015-01-13

Peer review is the main institution responsible for the evaluation and gestation of scientific research. Although peer review is widely seen as vital to scientific evaluation, anecdotal evidence abounds of gatekeeping mistakes in leading journals, such as rejecting seminal contributions or accepting mediocre submissions. Systematic evidence regarding the effectiveness--or lack thereof--of scientific gatekeeping is scant, largely because access to rejected manuscripts from journals is rarely available. Using a dataset of 1,008 manuscripts submitted to three elite medical journals, we show differences in citation outcomes for articles that received different appraisals from editors and peer reviewers. Among rejected articles, desk-rejected manuscripts, deemed as unworthy of peer review by editors, received fewer citations than those sent for peer review. Among both rejected and accepted articles, manuscripts with lower scores from peer reviewers received relatively fewer citations when they were eventually published. However, hindsight reveals numerous questionable gatekeeping decisions. Of the 808 eventually published articles in our dataset, our three focal journals rejected many highly cited manuscripts, including the 14 most popular; roughly the top 2 percent. Of those 14 articles, 12 were desk-rejected. This finding raises concerns regarding whether peer review is ill--suited to recognize and gestate the most impactful ideas and research. Despite this finding, results show that in our case studies, on the whole, there was value added in peer review. Editors and peer reviewers generally--but not always-made good decisions regarding the identification and promotion of quality in scientific manuscripts.

OpenKnowledge for peer-to-peer experimentation in protein identification by MS/MS

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

Background Traditional scientific workflow platforms usually run individual experiments with little evaluation and analysis of performance as required by automated experimentation in which scientists are being allowed to access numerous applicable workflows rather than being committed to a single one. Experimental protocols and data under a peer-to-peer environment could potentially be shared freely without any single point of authority to dictate how experiments should be run. In such environment it is necessary to have mechanisms by which each individual scientist (peer) can assess, locally, how he or she wants to be involved with others in experiments. This study aims to implement and demonstrate simple peer ranking under the OpenKnowledge peer-to-peer infrastructure by both simulated and real-world bioinformatics experiments involving multi-agent interactions. Methods A simulated experiment environment with a peer ranking capability was specified by the Lightweight Coordination Calculus (LCC) and automatically executed under the OpenKnowledge infrastructure. The peers such as MS/MS protein identification services (including web-enabled and independent programs) were made accessible as OpenKnowledge Components (OKCs) for automated execution as peers in the experiments. The performance of the peers in these automated experiments was monitored and evaluated by simple peer ranking algorithms. Results Peer ranking experiments with simulated peers exhibited characteristic behaviours, e.g., power law effect (a few dominant peers dominate), similar to that observed in the traditional Web. Real-world experiments were run using an interaction model in LCC involving two different types of MS/MS protein identification peers, viz., peptide fragment fingerprinting (PFF) and de novo sequencing with another peer ranking algorithm simply based on counting the successful and failed runs. This study demonstrated a novel integration and useful evaluation of specific proteomic peers and found MASCOT to be a dominant peer as judged by peer ranking. Conclusion The simulated and real-world experiments in the present study demonstrated that the OpenKnowledge infrastructure with peer ranking capability can serve as an evaluative environment for automated experimentation. PMID:22192521

Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

International Conference in Computational Cell Biology: From the Past to the Future

DTIC Science & Technology

2016-09-12

24061 -0001 ABSTRACT Number of Papers published in peer -reviewed journals: Number of Papers published in non peer -reviewed journals: Final Report...present their latest research and discussed challenges in computational cell biology research and education. (a) Papers published in peer -reviewed...List the papers, including journal references, in the following categories: (b) Papers published in non- peer -reviewed journals (N/A for none) (c

Evidence-based Peer Review for Radiation Therapy - Updated Review of the Literature with a Focus on Tumour Subsite and Treatment Modality.

PubMed

Huo, M; Gorayski, P; Poulsen, M; Thompson, K; Pinkham, M B

2017-10-01

Technological advances in radiation therapy permit steep dose gradients from the target to spare normal tissue, but increase the risk of geographic miss. Suboptimal target delineation adversely affects clinical outcomes. Prospective peer review is a method for quality assurance of oncologists' radiotherapy plans. Published surveys suggest it is widely implemented. However, it may not be feasible to review every case before commencement of radiation therapy in all departments. The rate of plan changes following peer review of cases without a specific subsite or modality is typically around 10%. Stereotactic body radiation therapy, head and neck, gynaecological, gastrointestinal, haematological and lung cases are associated with higher rates of change of around 25%. These cases could thus be prioritised for peer review. Other factors may limit peer review efficacy including organisational culture, time constraints and the physical environment in which sessions are held. Recommendations for peer review endorsed by the American Society for Radiation Oncology were made available in 2013, but a number of relevant studies have been published since. Here we review and update the literature, and provide an updated suggestion for the implementation of peer review to serve as an adjunct to published guidelines. This may help practitioners evaluate their current processes and maximise the utility and effectiveness of peer review sessions. Copyright © 2017 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

Improving your journal article using feedback from peer review.

PubMed

Price, Bob

2014-09-30

While preparation of a journal article for submission may often include informal review by colleagues, an article is not accepted for publication until it has been formally peer reviewed. Peer review is the process whereby journal editors ask expert reviewers to examine the work submitted and prepare a report on its suitability for publication. Two or more revisions of the article may be required following peer review, with the author reworking the article in the light of feedback received on each occasion. This can be challenging for some authors, but used well, it offers a chance to improve the work to the required standard of the journal, and help the author present a more precise and coherent account of the arguments. The extent to which the author responds to the critical commentary of peer reviewers is important, because this may determine whether or not the article is published. This article explores the aims of peer reviewers and recommends ways in which authors can respond to the feedback provided.

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…

42 CFR 52h.9 - What matters must be reviewed for unsolicited contract proposals?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT... covered by this part unless the proposal has been reviewed by a peer review group in accordance with the... proposal. (b) Except to the extent otherwise provided by law, peer review group recommendations are...

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.

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3400.5, the...

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... the peer review process. (c) Ratings will be in the form of numerical scores assigned by individual... results of peer review for a noncompetitive new or continuation project will be in the form of numerical...

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... the peer review process. (c) Ratings will be in the form of numerical scores assigned by individual... results of peer review for a noncompetitive new or continuation project will be in the form of numerical...

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... the peer review process. (c) Ratings will be in the form of numerical scores assigned by individual... results of peer review for a noncompetitive new or continuation project will be in the form of numerical...

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... the peer review process. (c) Ratings will be in the form of numerical scores assigned by individual... results of peer review for a noncompetitive new or continuation project will be in the form of numerical...

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

PubMed

Benson, P J

2015-10-01

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

Pre-university Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2014-10-01

Peer review is a significant component in scientific research. Introducing peer review into inquiry processes may be regarded as an aim to develop student understanding regarding quality in inquiries. This study examines student understanding in inquiry peer reviews among pre-university chemistry students, aged 16-17, when they enact a design of a mimicked scholarly peer review. This design is based on a model of a human activity system. Twenty-five different schools in Brazil, Germany, Poland and The Netherlands participated. The students (n = 880) conducted in small groups (n = 428) open inquiries on fermentation. All groups prepared an inquiry report for peer review. These reports were published on a website. Groups were randomly paired in an internet symposium, where they posted review comments to their peers. These responses were qualitatively analyzed on small groups' level of understanding regarding seven categories: inquiry question, hypothesis, management of control variables, accurate measurement, presenting results, reliability of results, discussion and conclusion. The mimicked scholarly review prompted a collective practice. Student understanding was significantly well on presenting results, discussion and conclusion, and significantly less on inquiry question and reliability of results. An enacted design, based on a model of a human activity system, created student understanding of quality in inquiries as well as an insight in a peer-reviewing practice. To what extent this model can be applied in a broader context of design research in science education needs further study.

Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency.

PubMed

Shepherd, Jonathan; Frampton, Geoff K; Pickett, Karen; Wyatt, Jeremy C

2018-01-01

To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer review of research funding proposals in health. A two-stage evidence synthesis: (1) a systematic map to describe the key characteristics of the evidence base, followed by (2) a systematic review of the studies stakeholders prioritised as relevant from the map on the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review 'innovations'. Standard processes included literature searching, duplicate inclusion criteria screening, study keyword coding, data extraction, critical appraisal and study synthesis. A total of 83 studies from 15 countries were included in the systematic map. The evidence base is diverse, investigating many aspects of the systems for, and processes of, peer review. The systematic review included eight studies from Australia, Canada, and the USA, evaluating a broad range of peer review innovations. These studies showed that simplifying the process by shortening proposal forms, using smaller reviewer panels, or expediting processes can speed up the review process and reduce costs, but this might come at the expense of peer review quality, a key aspect that has not been assessed. Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed. There is increasing international research activity into the peer review of health research funding. The studies reviewed had methodological limitations and variable generalisability to research funders. Given these limitations it is not currently possible to recommend immediate implementation of these innovations. However, many appear promising based on existing evidence, and could be adapted as necessary by funders and evaluated. Where feasible, experimental evaluation, including randomised controlled trials, should be conducted, evaluating impact on effectiveness, efficiency and quality.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Woodman, Richard J.; Parappilly, Maria B.

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Pöschl, Ulrich

2012-01-01

The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to all demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today’s highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be advanced and complemented by interactive and transparent forms of review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public. The advantages of open access, public peer review, and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional scientific peer review. Since 2001 the benefits and viability of this approach are clearly demonstrated by the highly successful interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP, www.atmos-chem-phys.net) and a growing number of sister journals launched and operated by the European Geosciences Union (EGU, www.egu.eu) and the open access publisher Copernicus (www.copernicus.org). The interactive open access journals are practicing an integrative multi-stage process of publication and peer review combined with interactive public discussion, which effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance. Key features and achievements of this approach are: top quality and impact, efficient self-regulation and low rejection rates, high attractivity and rapid growth, low costs, and financial sustainability. In fact, ACP and the EGU interactive open access sister journals are by most if not all standards more successful than comparable scientific journals with traditional or alternative forms of peer review (editorial statistics, publication statistics, citation statistics, economic costs, and sustainability). The high efficiency and predictive validity of multi-stage open peer review have been confirmed in a series of dedicated studies by evaluation experts from the social sciences, and the same or similar concepts have recently also been adopted in other disciplines, including the life sciences and economics. Multi-stage open peer review can be flexibly adjusted to the needs and peculiarities of different scientific communities. Due to the flexibility and compatibility with traditional structures of scientific publishing and peer review, the multi-stage open peer review concept enables efficient evolution in scientific communication and quality assurance. It has the potential for swift replacement of hidden peer review as the standard of scientific quality assurance, and it provides a basis for open evaluation in science. PMID:22783183

Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?

PubMed Central

Shashok, Karen

2008-01-01

Background Peer review is assumed to improve the quality of research reports as tools for scientific communication, yet strong evidence that this outcome is obtained consistently has been elusive. Failure to distinguish between aspects of discipline-specific content and aspects of the writing or use of language may account for some deficiencies in current peer review processes. Discussion The process and outcomes of peer review may be analyzed along two dimensions: 1) identifying scientific or technical content that is useful to other researchers (i.e., its "screening" function), and 2) improving research articles as tools for communication (i.e., its "improving" function). However, editors and reviewers do not always distinguish clearly between content criteria and writing criteria. When peer reviewers confuse content and writing, their feedback can be misunderstood by authors, who may modify texts in ways that do not make the readers' job easier. When researchers in peer review confuse the two dimensions, this can lead to content validity problems that foil attempts to define informative variables and outcome measures, and thus prevent clear trends from emerging. Research on writing, revising and editing suggests some reasons why peer review is not always as effective as it might be in improving what is written. Summary Peer review could be improved if stakeholders were more aware of variations in gatekeepers' (reviewers' and editors') ability to provide feedback about the content or the writing. Gatekeepers, academic literacy researchers, and wordface professionals (author's editors, medical writers and translators) could work together to discover the types of feedback authors find most useful. I offer suggestions to help editologists design better studies of peer review which could make the process an even stronger tool for manuscript improvement than it is now. PMID:18237378

Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?

PubMed

Shashok, Karen

2008-01-31

Peer review is assumed to improve the quality of research reports as tools for scientific communication, yet strong evidence that this outcome is obtained consistently has been elusive. Failure to distinguish between aspects of discipline-specific content and aspects of the writing or use of language may account for some deficiencies in current peer review processes. The process and outcomes of peer review may be analyzed along two dimensions: 1) identifying scientific or technical content that is useful to other researchers (i.e., its "screening" function), and 2) improving research articles as tools for communication (i.e., its "improving" function). However, editors and reviewers do not always distinguish clearly between content criteria and writing criteria. When peer reviewers confuse content and writing, their feedback can be misunderstood by authors, who may modify texts in ways that do not make the readers' job easier. When researchers in peer review confuse the two dimensions, this can lead to content validity problems that foil attempts to define informative variables and outcome measures, and thus prevent clear trends from emerging. Research on writing, revising and editing suggests some reasons why peer review is not always as effective as it might be in improving what is written. Peer review could be improved if stakeholders were more aware of variations in gatekeepers' (reviewers' and editors') ability to provide feedback about the content or the writing. Gatekeepers, academic literacy researchers, and wordface professionals (author's editors, medical writers and translators) could work together to discover the types of feedback authors find most useful. I offer suggestions to help editologists design better studies of peer review which could make the process an even stronger tool for manuscript improvement than it is now.

Large-Scale Cooperative Task Distribution on Peer-to-Peer Networks

DTIC Science & Technology

2012-01-01

SUBTITLE Large-scale cooperative task distribution on peer-to-peer networks 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6...of agents, and each agent attempts to form a coalition with its most profitable partner. The second algorithm builds upon the Shapley for- mula [37...ters at the second layer. These Category Layer clusters each represent a single resource, and agents join one or more clusters based on their

Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 1: Creation of a Standardized Methodology and Referenceable Database.

PubMed

Reiner, Bruce I

2017-10-01

Conventional peer review practice is compromised by a number of well-documented biases, which in turn limit standard of care analysis, which is fundamental to determination of medical malpractice. In addition to these intrinsic biases, other existing deficiencies exist in current peer review including the lack of standardization, objectivity, retrospective practice, and automation. An alternative model to address these deficiencies would be one which is completely blinded to the peer reviewer, requires independent reporting from both parties, utilizes automated data mining techniques for neutral and objective report analysis, and provides data reconciliation for resolution of finding-specific report differences. If properly implemented, this peer review model could result in creation of a standardized referenceable peer review database which could further assist in customizable education, technology refinement, and implementation of real-time context and user-specific decision support.

Algorithm-Based Fault Tolerance for Numerical Subroutines

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Tumon, Michael; Granat, Robert; Lou, John

2007-01-01

A software library implements a new methodology of detecting faults in numerical subroutines, thus enabling application programs that contain the subroutines to recover transparently from single-event upsets. The software library in question is fault-detecting middleware that is wrapped around the numericalsubroutines. Conventional serial versions (based on LAPACK and FFTW) and a parallel version (based on ScaLAPACK) exist. The source code of the application program that contains the numerical subroutines is not modified, and the middleware is transparent to the user. The methodology used is a type of algorithm- based fault tolerance (ABFT). In ABFT, a checksum is computed before a computation and compared with the checksum of the computational result; an error is declared if the difference between the checksums exceeds some threshold. Novel normalization methods are used in the checksum comparison to ensure correct fault detections independent of algorithm inputs. In tests of this software reported in the peer-reviewed literature, this library was shown to enable detection of 99.9 percent of significant faults while generating no false alarms.

Female androgen insufficiency: the Princeton consensus statement on definition, classification, and assessment.

PubMed

Bachmann, Gloria; Bancroft, John; Braunstein, Glenn; Burger, Henry; Davis, Susan; Dennerstein, Lorraine; Goldstein, Irwin; Guay, Andre; Leiblum, Sandra; Lobo, Rogerio; Notelovitz, Morris; Rosen, Raymond; Sarrel, Philip; Sherwin, Barbara; Simon, James; Simpson, Evan; Shifren, Jan; Spark, Richard; Traish, Abdul

2002-04-01

To evaluate the evidence for and against androgen insufficiency as a cause of sexual and other health-related problems in women and to make recommendations regarding definition, diagnosis, and assessment of androgen deficiency states in women. Evaluation of peer-review literature and consensus conference of international experts. Multinational conference in the United States. Premenopausal and postmenopausal women with androgen deficiency. Evaluation of peer-review literature and development of consensus panel guidelines. The term "female androgen insufficiency" was defined as consisting of a pattern of clinical symptoms in the presence of decreased bioavailable T and normal estrogen status. Currently available assays were found to be lacking in sensitivity and reliability at the lower ranges, and the need for an equilibrium dialysis measure was strongly emphasized. Causes of androgen insufficiency in women were classified as ovarian, adrenal, hypothalamic-pituitary, drug-related, and idiopathic. A simplified management algorithm and clinical guidelines were proposed to assist clinicians in diagnosis and assessment. Androgen replacement is currently available in several forms, although none has been approved for treatment of sexual dysfunction or other common symptoms of female androgen insufficiency. Potential risks associated with treatment were identified, and the need for informed consent and careful monitoring was noted. Finally, the panel identified key goals and priorities for future research. A new definition of androgen insufficiency in women has been proposed along with consensus-based guidelines for clinical assessment and diagnosis. A simplified management algorithm for women with low androgen in the presence of clinical symptoms and normal estrogen status has also been proposed.

Radiologist Peer Review by Group Consensus.

PubMed

Harvey, H Benjamin; Alkasab, Tarik K; Prabhakar, Anand M; Halpern, Elkan F; Rosenthal, Daniel I; Pandharipande, Pari V; Gazelle, G Scott

2016-06-01

The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the consensus-oriented group review (COGR) method of radiologist peer review within a large subspecialty imaging department. This study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Radiologist interpretations of CT, MRI, and ultrasound examinations at a large academic radiology department were subject to peer review using the COGR method from October 2011 through September 2013. Discordance rates and sources of discordance were evaluated on the basis of modality and division, with group differences compared using a χ(2) test. Potential associations between peer review outcomes and the time after the initiation of peer review or the number of radiologists participating in peer review were tested by linear regression analysis and the t test, respectively. A total of 11,222 studies reported by 83 radiologists were peer reviewed using COGR during the two-year study period. The average radiologist participated in 112 peer review conferences and had 3.3% of his or her available CT, MRI and ultrasound studies peer reviewed. The rate of discordance was 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4%-3.0%), with significant differences in discordance rates on the basis of division and modality. Discordance rates were highest for MR (3.4%; 95% CI, 2.8%-4.1%), followed by ultrasound (2.7%; 95% CI, 2.0%-3.4%) and CT (2.4%; 95% CI, 2.0%-2.8%). Missed findings were the most common overall cause for discordance (43.8%; 95% CI, 38.2%-49.4%), followed by interpretive errors (23.5%; 95% CI, 18.8%-28.3%), dictation errors (19.0%; 95% CI, 14.6%-23.4%), and recommendation (10.8%; 95% CI, 7.3%-14.3%). Discordant cases, compared with concordant cases, were associated with a significantly greater number of radiologists participating in the peer review process (5.9 vs 4.7 participating radiologists, P < .001) and were significantly more likely to lead to an addendum (62.9% vs 2.7%, P < .0001). COGR permits departments to collect highly contextualized peer review data to better elucidate sources of error in diagnostic imaging reports, while reviewing a sufficient case volume to comply with external standards for ongoing performance review. Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The mechanisms underpinning peer support: a literature review.

PubMed

Watson, Emma

2017-12-20

The employment of Peer Support Workers, who themselves have experience of significant emotional distress, can promote recovery at an individual and organisational level. While research examining the benefits of peer support within mental health services continues to grow, an understanding of how, and through what processes, these benefits are reached remains under-developed. To review the published research literature relating to the process of peer support and its underpinning mechanisms to better understand how and why it works. A scoping review of published literature identified studies relating to peer support mechanisms, processes and relationships. Studies were summarised and findings analysed. Five mechanisms were found to underpin peer support relationships (lived experience, love labour, the liminal position of the peer worker, strengths-focussed social and practical support, and the helper role). The identified mechanisms can underpin both the success and difficulties associated with peer support relationships. Further research should review a broader range of literature and clarify how these mechanisms contribute to peer support in different contexts.

Effectiveness of Guided Peer Review of Student Essays in a Large Undergraduate Biology Course

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kelly, Lauren

2015-01-01

Instructors and researchers often consider peer review an integral part of the writing process, providing myriad benefits for both writers and reviewers. Few empirical studies, however, directly address the relationship between specific methodological changes and peer review effectiveness, especially outside the composition classroom. To…

42 CFR 52h.6 - Availability of information.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... a peer review group will be available for public inspection and copying to the extent provided by... regulations (45 CFR parts 5, 5b). (b) Meetings of peer review groups reviewing grant applications or contract... by peer review groups that contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information obtained from...

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…

42 CFR 52h.7 - What matters must be reviewed for grants?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PROJECTS § 52h.7... reviewed by a peer review group in accordance with the provisions of this part and the group has made... appropriate peer review group, in accordance with the provisions of this part, and the group has made...

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…

Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Full Report

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

none,

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

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 review and to the establishment of an appeal system. Female academics, experience of personal attacks and imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers were related to disagreement about fairness of the peer review system of biomedical journals. PMID:23758823

Four peer reviews in support of the Tier 3 rulemaking ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

Peer review of ERG's KenCaryl (CO) estimated summer hot-soak distributions report in support of the Tier 3 rulemaking To peer review ERG's KenCaryl (CO) estimated summer hot-soak distributions report (for Tier 3 rulemaking)

Clinical perspective: creating an effective practice peer review process-a primer.

PubMed

Gandhi, Manisha; Louis, Frances S; Wilson, Shae H; Clark, Steven L

2017-03-01

Peer review serves as an important adjunct to other hospital quality and safety programs. Despite its importance, the available literature contains virtually no guidance regarding the structure and function of effective peer review committees. This Clinical Perspective provides a summary of the purposes, structure, and functioning of effective peer review committees. We also discuss important legal considerations that are a necessary component of such processes. This discussion includes useful templates for case selection and review. Proper committee structure, membership, work flow, and leadership as well as close cooperation with the hospital medical executive committee and legal representatives are essential to any effective peer review process. A thoughtful, fair, systematic, and organized approach to creating a peer review process will lead to confidence in the committee by providers, hospital leadership, and patients. If properly constructed, such committees may also assist in monitoring and enforcing compliance with departmental protocols, thus reducing harm and promoting high-quality practice. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Algorithms for Lightweight Key Exchange.

PubMed

Alvarez, Rafael; Caballero-Gil, Cándido; Santonja, Juan; Zamora, Antonio

2017-06-27

Public-key cryptography is too slow for general purpose encryption, with most applications limiting its use as much as possible. Some secure protocols, especially those that enable forward secrecy, make a much heavier use of public-key cryptography, increasing the demand for lightweight cryptosystems that can be implemented in low powered or mobile devices. This performance requirements are even more significant in critical infrastructure and emergency scenarios where peer-to-peer networks are deployed for increased availability and resiliency. We benchmark several public-key key-exchange algorithms, determining those that are better for the requirements of critical infrastructure and emergency applications and propose a security framework based on these algorithms and study its application to decentralized node or sensor networks.

Why Are Chemists and Other Scientists Afraid of the Peer Review of Teaching?

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Atwood, Charles H.; Taylor, James W.; Hutchings, Pat A.

2000-02-01

This paper presents a series of arguments that teaching should be subjected to the similar review standards that chemical research employs. Through peer review, the hope is to elevate the status of teaching in academe. The paper also describes a national effort through the American Association for Higher Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to establish a peer-review process appropriate for teaching. Finally, an examination of some of the perceived barriers to peer review, including fear, is detailed.

Helping agencies improve their planning analysis techniques.

DOT National Transportation Integrated Search

2011-11-18

This report summarizes the results of a peer review of the AZTDM. The peer review was : supported by the Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP), which is sponsored by FHWA. : The peer review of a travel model can serve multiple purposes, including i...

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

EPA Science Inventory

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

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…

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…

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

EPA Science Inventory

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

Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Feedstock Platform Summary

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

none,

This document discloses the comments provided by a review panel at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Biomass Program Peer Review held on November 15-16, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and the Feedstock Platform Portfolio Peer Review held on August 21st through 23rd in Washington D.C.

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…

The Problem of Humiliation in Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Comer, Debra R.; Schwartz, Michael

2014-01-01

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

Online Peer Review: Encouraging Student Response and Development

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lansiquot, Reneta; Rosalia, Christine

2015-01-01

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

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.

A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.

PubMed

Glonti, Ketevan; Cauchi, Daniel; Cobo, Erik; Boutron, Isabelle; Moher, David; Hren, Darko

2017-10-22

The primary functions of peer reviewers are poorly defined. Thus far no body of literature has systematically identified the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. A clear establishment of these can lead to improvements in the peer review process. The purpose of this scoping review is to determine what is known on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers. We will use the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and subsequently adapted by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The scoping review will include all study designs, as well as editorials, commentaries and grey literature. The following eight electronic databases will be searched (from inception to May 2017): Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Two reviewers will use inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the 'Population-Concept-Context' framework to independently screen titles and abstracts of articles considered for inclusion. Full-text screening of relevant eligible articles will also be carried out by two reviewers. The search strategy for grey literature will include searching in websites of existing networks, biomedical journal publishers and organisations that offer resources for peer reviewers. In addition we will review journal guidelines to peer reviewers on how to perform the manuscript review. Journals will be selected using the 2016 journal impact factor. We will identify and assess the top five, middle five and lowest-ranking five journals across all medical specialties. This scoping review will undertake a secondary analysis of data already collected and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in peer review in biomedical research. © 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.

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.

From Natural Variation to Optimal Policy? The Lucas Critique Meets Peer Effects. NBER Working Paper No. 16865

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Carrell, Scott E.; Sacerdote, Bruce I.; West, James E.

2011-01-01

We take cohorts of entering freshmen at the United States Air Force Academy and assign half to peer groups with the goal of maximizing the academic performance of the lowest ability students. Our assignment algorithm uses peer effects estimates from the observational data. We find a negative and significant treatment effect for the students we…

U.S. EPA. 2000. Science Policy Council Handbook: Peer Review

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

The goal of the Peer Review Policy and this Handbook is to enhance the quality and credibility of Agency decisions by ensuring that the scientific and technical work products underlying these decisions receive appropriate levels of peer review by independe

A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer education and peer support in prisons.

PubMed

Bagnall, Anne-Marie; South, Jane; Hulme, Claire; Woodall, James; Vinall-Collier, Karen; Raine, Gary; Kinsella, Karina; Dixey, Rachael; Harris, Linda; Wright, Nat M J

2015-03-25

Prisoners experience significantly worse health than the general population. This review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer interventions in prison settings. A mixed methods systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, including qualitative and quantitative synthesis was conducted. In addition to grey literature identified and searches of websites, nineteen electronic databases were searched from 1985 to 2012. Study selection criteria were: Prisoners resident in adult prisons and children resident in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). Peer-based interventions. Review questions 3 and 4 compared peer and professionally led approaches. Prisoner health or determinants of health; organisational/process outcomes; views of prison populations. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed method evaluations. Fifty-seven studies were included in the effectiveness review and one study in the cost-effectiveness review; most were of poor methodological quality. Evidence suggested that peer education interventions are effective at reducing risky behaviours, and that peer support services are acceptable within the prison environment and have a positive effect on recipients, practically or emotionally. Consistent evidence from many, predominantly qualitative, studies, suggested that being a peer deliverer was associated with positive effects. There was little evidence on cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions. There is consistent evidence from a large number of studies that being a peer worker is associated with positive health; peer support services are also an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and can have a positive effect on recipients. Research into cost-effectiveness is sparse. PROSPERO ref: CRD42012002349.

Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science

PubMed Central

Wicherts, Jelte M.; Kievit, Rogier A.; Bakker, Marjan; Borsboom, Denny

2012-01-01

With the emergence of online publishing, opportunities to maximize transparency of scientific research have grown considerably. However, these possibilities are still only marginally used. We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication. First, peer-reviewed peer review entails a community-wide review system in which reviews are published online and rated by peers. This ensures accountability of reviewers, thereby increasing academic quality of reviews. Second, reviewers who write many highly regarded reviews may move to higher editorial positions. Third, online publication of data ensures the possibility of independent verification of inferential claims in published papers. This counters statistical errors and overly positive reporting of statistical results. We illustrate the benefits of these strategies by discussing an example in which the classical publication system has gone awry, namely controversial IQ research. We argue that this case would have likely been avoided using more transparent publication practices. We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses. PMID:22536180

Expanding capacity and promoting inclusion in introductory computer science: a focus on near-peer mentor preparation and code review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Pon-Barry, Heather; Packard, Becky Wai-Ling; St. John, Audrey

2017-01-01

A dilemma within computer science departments is developing sustainable ways to expand capacity within introductory computer science courses while remaining committed to inclusive practices. Training near-peer mentors for peer code review is one solution. This paper describes the preparation of near-peer mentors for their role, with a focus on regular, consistent feedback via peer code review and inclusive pedagogy. Introductory computer science students provided consistently high ratings of the peer mentors' knowledge, approachability, and flexibility, and credited peer mentor meetings for their strengthened self-efficacy and understanding. Peer mentors noted the value of videotaped simulations with reflection, discussions of inclusion, and the cohort's weekly practicum for improving practice. Adaptations of peer mentoring for different types of institutions are discussed. Computer science educators, with hopes of improving the recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups, can benefit from expanding their peer support infrastructure and improving the quality of peer mentor preparation.

Implementation and Validation of PACS Integrated Peer Review for Discrepancy Recording of Radiology Reporting.

PubMed

Olthof, A W; van Ooijen, P M A

2016-09-01

The purpose of this work is to demonstrate the possibility of implementation of a PACS-integrated peer review system based on RADPEER™ classification providing a step-wise implementation plan utilizing features already present in the standard PACS implementation and without the requirement of additional software development. Furthermore, we show the usage and effects of the system during the first 30 months of usage. To allow fast and easy implementation into the daily workflow the key-word feature of the PACS was used. This feature allows to add a key-word to an imaging examination for easy searching in the PACS database (e.g. by entering keywords for different kinds of pathology). For peer review we implemented a keyword structure including a code for each of the existing RADPEER™ scoring language terms and a keyword with the phrase "second reading" followed by the name of the individual radiologist. The use of the short-keys to enter the codes in relation to the peer review was a simple to use solution. During the study 599 reports were peer reviewed. The active participation in this study of the radiologists varies and ranges from 3 to 327 reviews per radiologist. The number of peer review is highest in CT and CR. There are no significant technical obstacles to implement a PACS-integrated RADPEER™ -system based on key-words allowing easy integration of peer review into the daily routine without the requirement of additional software. Peer review implemented in a non-random setting based on relevant priors could already help in increasing the quality of radiological reporting and serve as continuing education among peers. Decisiveness, tact and trust are needed to promote use of the system and collaborative discussion of the results by radiologist.

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 market in an industry or trade. Such journals are often considered to be news magazines and may contain industry specific advertisements and/or job ads. A peer-reviewed journal, a.k.a 'referred journal', in contrast, contains peer-reviewed papers. A peer-reviewed paper is one that has been vetted by the peer review process. In this process, the paper is typically sent to independent experts for review and consideration. A peer-reviewed paper might cover experimental results, and/or a rigorous study, analyses, research efforts, theory, models, or one of many other scholarly endeavors.« less

Barriers and attitudes influencing non-engagement in a peer feedback model to inform evidence for GP appraisal

PubMed Central

2012-01-01

Background The UK general practitioner (GP) appraisal system is deemed to be an inadequate source of performance evidence to inform a future medical revalidation process. A long-running voluntary model of external peer review in the west of Scotland provides feedback by trained peers on the standard of GP colleagues' core appraisal activities and may 'add value' in strengthening the robustness of the current system in support of revalidation. A significant minority of GPs has participated in the peer feedback model, but a clear majority has yet to engage with it. We aimed to explore the views of non-participants to identify barriers to engagement and attitudes to external peer review as a means to inform the current appraisal system. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of west of Scotland GPs who had yet to participate in the peer review model. A thematic analysis of the interview transcriptions was conducted using a constant comparative approach. Results 13 GPs were interviewed of whom nine were males. Four core themes were identified in relation to the perceived and experienced 'value' placed on the topics discussed and their relevance to routine clinical practice and professional appraisal: 1. Value of the appraisal improvement activity. 2. Value of external peer review. 3. Value of the external peer review model and host organisation and 4. Attitudes to external peer review. Conclusions GPs in this study questioned the 'value' of participation in the external peer review model and the national appraisal system over the standard of internal feedback received from immediate work colleagues. There was a limited understanding of the concept, context and purpose of external peer review and some distrust of the host educational provider. Future engagement with the model by these GPs is likely to be influenced by policy to improve the standard of appraisal and contractual related activities, rather than a self-directed recognition of learning needs. PMID:22443714

Barriers and attitudes influencing non-engagement in a peer feedback model to inform evidence for GP appraisal.

PubMed

Curnock, Esther; Bowie, Paul; Pope, Lindsey; McKay, John

2012-03-23

The UK general practitioner (GP) appraisal system is deemed to be an inadequate source of performance evidence to inform a future medical revalidation process. A long-running voluntary model of external peer review in the west of Scotland provides feedback by trained peers on the standard of GP colleagues' core appraisal activities and may 'add value' in strengthening the robustness of the current system in support of revalidation. A significant minority of GPs has participated in the peer feedback model, but a clear majority has yet to engage with it. We aimed to explore the views of non-participants to identify barriers to engagement and attitudes to external peer review as a means to inform the current appraisal system. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of west of Scotland GPs who had yet to participate in the peer review model. A thematic analysis of the interview transcriptions was conducted using a constant comparative approach. 13 GPs were interviewed of whom nine were males. Four core themes were identified in relation to the perceived and experienced 'value' placed on the topics discussed and their relevance to routine clinical practice and professional appraisal: 1. Value of the appraisal improvement activity. 2. Value of external peer review. 3. Value of the external peer review model and host organisation and 4. Attitudes to external peer review. GPs in this study questioned the 'value' of participation in the external peer review model and the national appraisal system over the standard of internal feedback received from immediate work colleagues. There was a limited understanding of the concept, context and purpose of external peer review and some distrust of the host educational provider. Future engagement with the model by these GPs is likely to be influenced by policy to improve the standard of appraisal and contractual related activities, rather than a self-directed recognition of learning needs.

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.101 - Exceptions to applicability.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... Section 34.101 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.101 Exceptions to applicability. The assistance and procurement contract situations... outside the scope of the section 262(d) peer review requirement as set forth in this subpart. ...

The "peer" in "peer review"

USGS Publications Warehouse

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

2011-01-01

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

A Descriptive Study of Nursing Peer-Review Programs in US Magnet® Hospitals.

PubMed

Roberts, Holli; Cronin, Sherill Nones

2017-04-01

The goal of this study was to assess the types of nursing peer review (NPR) programs in US Magnet® organizations. The 2 most predominant models of NPR programs in the literature are performance evaluation and clinical peer review. The literature on clinical peer review is primarily descriptive, outlining structures and anecdotal outcomes. Participants from hospitals holding Magnet recognition were selected using a stratified random-sampling method. A survey developed by the researchers assessed the presence of NPR. If clinical NPR was in place, program design, evaluation measurements, and barriers were explored. Findings suggest wide variability in NPR models. More than one-third of the respondents conduct peer evaluation as the only mechanism of NPR. Most hospitals with a clinical peer-review program reported a case review structure and process measurements not supported by data. The variations noted in this study suggest more research is needed to measure the effectiveness of NPR models and associated outcomes.

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

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

PubMed

Vyas, Dinesh; Cronin, Sean

2015-12-01

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

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2012-12-01

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

Tardive Dyskinesia

MedlinePlus

... Supplements Peer Review Process Review Committees Application Support Library Clinical Research Next Steps Pre-Funding: After Review Terms of ... Supplements Peer Review Process Review Committees Application Support Library Clinical Research Next Steps Pre-Funding: After Review Terms of ...

Hemicrania Continua

MedlinePlus

... Supplements Peer Review Process Review Committees Application Support Library Clinical Research Next Steps Pre-Funding: After Review Terms of ... Supplements Peer Review Process Review Committees Application Support Library Clinical Research Next Steps Pre-Funding: After Review Terms of ...

Benign Essential Blepharospasm

MedlinePlus

... Supplements Peer Review Process Review Committees Application Support Library Clinical Research Next Steps Pre-Funding: After Review Terms of ... Supplements Peer Review Process Review Committees Application Support Library Clinical Research Next Steps Pre-Funding: After Review Terms of ...

Parameter Estimation and Model Validation of Nonlinear Dynamical Networks

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

Abarbanel, Henry; Gill, Philip

In the performance period of this work under a DOE contract, the co-PIs, Philip Gill and Henry Abarbanel, developed new methods for statistical data assimilation for problems of DOE interest, including geophysical and biological problems. This included numerical optimization algorithms for variational principles, new parallel processing Monte Carlo routines for performing the path integrals of statistical data assimilation. These results have been summarized in the monograph: “Predicting the Future: Completing Models of Observed Complex Systems” by Henry Abarbanel, published by Spring-Verlag in June 2013. Additional results and details have appeared in the peer reviewed literature.

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kendall, Diana

1999-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Garousi, V.

2010-01-01

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

Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

PubMed

Loonen, Martijn P J; Hage, J Joris; Kon, Moshe

2005-10-01

Little is known of what is done with the comments on submitted manuscripts provided by peer reviewers or to what extent these comments benefit the editor in deciding to accept or reject the manuscript, the author(s) in revising their manuscript, or the readership at large. Furthermore, nothing is known of any possible benefits of the process to the peer reviewer. Finally, the peer-review process may even be maleficent because of its implicit delay of publication and a possible bias against manuscripts originating from non-Anglo-American countries. The authors evaluated the benefits of the peer-review process to authors, editor, readers, and reviewers by a bibliometric analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review made by the editor of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 1992 through 2003. The publication delay and potential geographical bias were evaluated as potential disadvantages. The authors' reviewer advised acceptance of 56 percent of the manuscripts, and the editor mostly agreed with his advice. This suggests that the editor benefited from the review. The authors addressed 48 to 81 percent of the reviewer's constructive suggestions, and this suggests that they and the readers benefited also. Readers of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery may further benefit because manuscripts rejected by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery end up in less prestigious journals. The implicit delay of publication is limited, and the authors found no bias against non-Anglo-American submissions. The cost-effectiveness of the process for the peer reviewer remains unclear. The peer-review system of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, in general, is beneficial.

Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency

PubMed Central

Frampton, Geoff K.; Pickett, Karen; Wyatt, Jeremy C.

2018-01-01

Objective To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer review of research funding proposals in health. Methods A two-stage evidence synthesis: (1) a systematic map to describe the key characteristics of the evidence base, followed by (2) a systematic review of the studies stakeholders prioritised as relevant from the map on the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review ‘innovations’. Standard processes included literature searching, duplicate inclusion criteria screening, study keyword coding, data extraction, critical appraisal and study synthesis. Results A total of 83 studies from 15 countries were included in the systematic map. The evidence base is diverse, investigating many aspects of the systems for, and processes of, peer review. The systematic review included eight studies from Australia, Canada, and the USA, evaluating a broad range of peer review innovations. These studies showed that simplifying the process by shortening proposal forms, using smaller reviewer panels, or expediting processes can speed up the review process and reduce costs, but this might come at the expense of peer review quality, a key aspect that has not been assessed. Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed. Conclusions There is increasing international research activity into the peer review of health research funding. The studies reviewed had methodological limitations and variable generalisability to research funders. Given these limitations it is not currently possible to recommend immediate implementation of these innovations. However, many appear promising based on existing evidence, and could be adapted as necessary by funders and evaluated. Where feasible, experimental evaluation, including randomised controlled trials, should be conducted, evaluating impact on effectiveness, efficiency and quality. PMID:29750807

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Speer, Sandra

2011-01-01

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

Peering into peer-review at GigaScience.

PubMed

Edmunds, Scott C

2013-01-24

Fostering and promoting more open and transparent science is one of the goals of GigaScience. One of the ways we have been doing this is by throwing light on the peer-review process and carrying out open peer-review as standard. In this editorial, we provide our rationale for undertaking this policy, give examples of our positive experiences to date, and encourage others to open up the normally opaque publication process.

Two decades of external peer review of cancer care in general hospitals; the Dutch experience.

PubMed

Kilsdonk, Melvin J; Siesling, Sabine; Otter, Rene; van Harten, Wim H

2016-03-01

External peer review was introduced in general hospitals in the Netherlands in 1994 to assess and improve the multidisciplinary team approach in cancer care. This paper aims to explore the value, perceived impact, and (future) role of external peer review in cancer care. Semistructured interviews were held with clinicians, oncology nurses, and managers from fifteen general hospitals that participated in three rounds of peer review over a period of 16 years. Interviewees reflected on the goals and expectations, experiences, perceived impact, and future role of external peer review. Transcriptions of the interviews were coded to discover recurrent themes. Improving clinical care and organization were the main motives for participation. Positive impact was perceived on multiple aspects of care such as shared responsibilities, internal prioritization of cancer care, improved communication, and a clear structure and position of cancer care within general hospitals. Establishing a direct relationship between the external peer review and organizational or clinical impact proved to be difficult. Criticism was raised on the content of the program being too theoretical and organization-focussed after three rounds. According to most stakeholders, external peer review can improve multidisciplinary team work in cancer care; however, the acceptance is threatened by a perceived disbalance between effort and visible clinical impact. Leaner and more clinically focused programs are needed to keep repeated peer reviews challenging and worthwhile. © 2015 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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

PubMed

McCarty, Lynn S; Borgert, Christopher J; Mihaich, Ellen M

2012-07-01

There is an ongoing discussion on the provenance of toxicity testing data regarding how best to ensure its validity and credibility. A central argument is whether journal peer-review procedures are superior to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards employed for compliance with regulatory mandates. We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards. We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations. Some contend that peer review is a coherent, consistent evaluative procedure providing quality control for experimental data generation, analysis, and reporting sufficient to reliably establish relative merit, whereas GLP is seen as merely a tracking process designed to thwart investigator corruption. This view is not supported by published analyses pointing to subjectivity and variability in peer-review processes. Although GLP is not designed to establish relative merit, it is an internationally accepted quality assurance, quality control method for documenting experimental conduct and data. Neither process is completely sufficient for establishing relative scientific soundness. However, changes occurring both in peer-review processes and in regulatory guidance resulting in clearer, more transparent communication of scientific information point to an emerging convergence in ensuring information quality. The solution to determining relative merit lies in developing a well-documented, generally accepted weight-of-evidence scheme to evaluate both peer-reviewed and GLP information used in regulatory decision making where both merit and specific relevance inform the process.

Appendix G: Peer review nondisclosure agreement

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

None, None

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

A Review of Peer Social Development in Early Childhood.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Goin, Robin P.

1998-01-01

Reviews the literature on young children's peer social development. Addresses implications of social learning theory and empirical research. Discusses recurring themes, including child/peer versus child/adult interactions, incorporation of toys and games, influence of mothers, and gender peer preferences. Considers areas lacking empirical support…

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.

[Improving patient safety through voluntary peer review].

PubMed

Kluge, S; Bause, H

2015-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

...) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3411.5, the Administrator shall adopt procedures...

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

...) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3400.5, the Administrator will adopt procedures for the...

42 CFR 52h.5 - Conflict of interest.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF...) This section applies only to conflicts of interest involving members of peer review groups. This... Executive Order 11222, as amended. For those federal employees serving on peer review groups, in accordance...

42 CFR 52h.5 - Conflict of interest.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF...) This section applies only to conflicts of interest involving members of peer review groups. This... Executive Order 11222, as amended. For those federal employees serving on peer review groups, in accordance...

42 CFR 52h.5 - Conflict of interest.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

... Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF...) This section applies only to conflicts of interest involving members of peer review groups. This... Executive Order 11222, as amended. For those federal employees serving on peer review groups, in accordance...

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.

o'Peer: open peer review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Brewer, J. H.

2014-12-01

I have built a "demonstration" website at http://oPeer.org to illustrate how peer review and publication might be improved relative to the current model, which was designed and implemented in an era when scientific communication was either face-to-face or relied upon human delivery of ink marks on dead trees.

Algorithms for Lightweight Key Exchange †

PubMed Central

Santonja, Juan; Zamora, Antonio

2017-01-01

Public-key cryptography is too slow for general purpose encryption, with most applications limiting its use as much as possible. Some secure protocols, especially those that enable forward secrecy, make a much heavier use of public-key cryptography, increasing the demand for lightweight cryptosystems that can be implemented in low powered or mobile devices. This performance requirements are even more significant in critical infrastructure and emergency scenarios where peer-to-peer networks are deployed for increased availability and resiliency. We benchmark several public-key key-exchange algorithms, determining those that are better for the requirements of critical infrastructure and emergency applications and propose a security framework based on these algorithms and study its application to decentralized node or sensor networks. PMID:28654006

Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units

PubMed Central

Kumpf, Oliver; Bloos, Frank; Bause, Hanswerner; Brinkmann, Alexander; Deja, Maria; Marx, Gernot; Kaltwasser, Arnold; Dubb, Rolf; Muhl, Elke; Greim, Clemens-A.; Weiler, Norbert; Chop, Ines; Jonitz, Günther; Schaefer, Henning; Felsenstein, Matthias; Liebeskind, Ursula; Leffmann, Carsten; Jungbluth, Annemarie; Waydhas, Christian; Pronovost, Peter; Spies, Claudia; Braun, Jan-Peter

2014-01-01

Introduction: Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports. Methods: Retrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs – representing over 300 patient beds – had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented. Results: External assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interesting Conclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators. PMID:25587245

Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit--a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units.

PubMed

Kumpf, Oliver; Bloos, Frank; Bause, Hanswerner; Brinkmann, Alexander; Deja, Maria; Marx, Gernot; Kaltwasser, Arnold; Dubb, Rolf; Muhl, Elke; Greim, Clemens-A; Weiler, Norbert; Chop, Ines; Jonitz, Günther; Schaefer, Henning; Felsenstein, Matthias; Liebeskind, Ursula; Leffmann, Carsten; Jungbluth, Annemarie; Waydhas, Christian; Pronovost, Peter; Spies, Claudia; Braun, Jan-Peter

2014-01-01

Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports. Retrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs - representing over 300 patient beds - had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented. External assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interesting Conclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators.

Three decades of disasters: a review of disaster-specific literature from 1977-2009.

PubMed

Smith, Erin; Wasiak, Jason; Sen, Ayan; Archer, Frank; Burkle, Frederick M

2009-01-01

The potential for disasters exists in all communities. To mitigate the potential catastrophes that confront humanity in the new millennium, an evidence-based approach to disaster management is required urgently. This study moves toward such an evidence-based approach by identifying peer-reviewed publications following a range of disasters and events over the past three decades. Peer-reviewed, event-specific literature was identified using a comprehensive search of the electronically indexed database, MEDLINE (1956-January 2009). An extended comprehensive search was conducted for one event to compare the event-specific literature indexed in MEDLINE to other electronic databases (EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, CENTRAL, Psych Info, Maternity and Infant Care, EBM Reviews). Following 25 individual disasters or overwhelming crises, a total of 2,098 peer-reviewed, event-specific publications were published in 789 journals (652 publications following disasters/events caused by natural hazards, 966 following human-made/technological disasters/events, and 480 following conflict/complex humanitarian events).The event with the greatest number of peer-reviewed, event-specific publications was the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks (686 publications). Prehospital and Disaster Medicine published the greatest number of peer-reviewed, event-specific publications (54), followed by Journal of Traumatic Stress (42), Military Medicine (40), and Psychiatric Services (40). The primary topics of event-specific publications were mental health, medical health, and response. When an extended, comprehensive search was conducted for one event, 75% of all peer-reviewed, event-specific publications were indexed in MEDLINE. A broad range of multi-disciplinary journals publish peer reviewed, event-specific publications. While the majority of peer-reviewed, event-specific literature is indexed in MEDLINE, comprehensive search strategies should include EMBASE to increase yield.

Reflections of a CHAMPUS-APA peer reviewer.

PubMed

Parlour, R R

1986-02-01

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

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…

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PERSONNEL SENIOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH SERVICE § 24.5 Peer review. An individual may not be considered for appointment into the SBRS unless his/her...

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PERSONNEL SENIOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH SERVICE § 24.5 Peer review. An individual may not be considered for appointment into the SBRS unless his/her...

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PERSONNEL SENIOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH SERVICE § 24.5 Peer review. An individual may not be considered for appointment into the SBRS unless his/her...

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PERSONNEL SENIOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH SERVICE § 24.5 Peer review. An individual may not be considered for appointment into the SBRS unless his/her...

78 FR 63795 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Chromolaena...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-10-24

... responses. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and they provided... corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions... discussion, below. (6) Comment: One peer reviewer provided research findings on the seed longevity and...

Peer Review Undergoing Revitalization

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sawchuk, Stephen

2009-01-01

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

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.

The objective impact of clinical peer review on hospital quality and safety.

PubMed

Edwards, Marc T

2011-01-01

Despite its importance, the objective impact of clinical peer review on the quality and safety of care has not been studied. Data from 296 acute care hospitals show that peer review program and related organizational factors can explain up to 18% of the variation in standardized measures of quality and patient safety. The majority of programs rely on an outmoded and dysfunctional process model. Adoption of best practices informed by the continuing study of peer review program effectiveness has the potential to significantly improve patient outcomes.

Identifying and Remediating Student Misconceptions in Introductory Biology via Writing-to-Learn Assignments and Peer Review.

PubMed

Halim, Audrey S; Finkenstaedt-Quinn, Solaire A; Olsen, Laura J; Gere, Anne Ruggles; Shultz, Ginger V

2018-06-01

Student misconceptions are an obstacle in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses and unless remediated may continue causing difficulties in learning as students advance in their studies. Writing-to-learn assignments (WTL) are characterized by their ability to promote in-depth conceptual learning by allowing students to explore their understanding of a topic. This study sought to determine whether and what types of misconceptions are elicited by WTL assignments and how the process of peer review and revision leads to remediation or propagation of misconceptions. We examined four WTL assignments in an introductory biology course in which students first wrote about content by applying it to a realistic scenario, then participated in a peer-review process before revising their work. Misconceptions were identified in all four assignments, with the greatest number pertaining to protein structure and function. Additionally, in certain contexts, students used scientific terminology incorrectly. Analysis of the drafts and peer-review comments generated six profiles by which misconceptions were addressed through the peer-review process. The prevalent mode of remediation arose through directed peer-review comments followed by correction during revision. It was also observed that additional misconceptions were elicited as students revised their writing in response to general peer-review suggestions.

Peering into peer-review at GigaScience

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Fostering and promoting more open and transparent science is one of the goals of GigaScience. One of the ways we have been doing this is by throwing light on the peer-review process and carrying out open peer-review as standard. In this editorial, we provide our rationale for undertaking this policy, give examples of our positive experiences to date, and encourage others to open up the normally opaque publication process. PMID:23587291

Peer-review for selection of oral presentations for conferences: Are we reliable?

PubMed

Deveugele, Myriam; Silverman, Jonathan

2017-11-01

Although peer-review for journal submission, grant-applications and conference submissions has been called 'a counter- stone of science', and even 'the gold standard for evaluating scientific merit', publications on this topic remain scares. Research that has investigated peer-review reveals several issues and criticisms concerning bias, poor quality review, unreliability and inefficiency. The most important weakness of the peer review process is the inconsistency between reviewers leading to inadequate inter-rater reliability. To report the reliability of ratings for a large international conference and to suggest possible solutions to overcome the problem. In 2016 during the International Conference on Communication in Healthcare, organized by EACH: International Association for Communication in Healthcare, a calibration exercise was proposed and feedback was reported back to the participants of the exercise. Most abstracts, as well as most peer-reviewers, receive and give scores around the median. Contrary to the general assumption that there are high and low scorers, in this group only 3 peer-reviewers could be identified with a high mean, while 7 has a low mean score. Only 2 reviewers gave only high ratings (4 and 5). Of the eight abstracts included in this exercise, only one abstract received a high mean score and one a low mean score. Nevertheless, both these abstracts received both low and high scores; all other abstracts received all possible scores. Peer-review of submissions for conferences are, in accordance with the literature, unreliable. New and creative methods will be needed to give the participants of a conference what they really deserve: a more reliable selection of the best abstracts. More raters per abstract improves the inter-rater reliability; training of reviewers could be helpful; providing feedback to reviewers can lead to less inter-rater disagreement; fostering negative peer-review (rejecting the inappropriate submissions) rather than a positive (accepting the best) could be fruitful for selecting abstracts for conferences. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Data bank has operational impact. Proper peer review can protect hospitals from antitrust and defamation suits.

PubMed

Purtell, D L

1990-11-01

The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 can help protect medical professionals and healthcare facilities from antitrust and defamation claims and other forms of litigation arising from the peer review process. Some hospitals may need to make major changes in their peer review activity as a result of the act. The healthcare entity, not the physicians involved in peer review, has the burden of complying with the provisions of the act. Failure to comply with the act can lead to loss of immunity from damages, fines, and potential exclusion from the Medicare program. The potential for liability has sparked a need for hospitals to reexamine and possibly reorganize medical staff and update procedures and related governing documents. Healthcare entities may consider changes such as implementing a director of medical affairs function, choosing medical staff for multiple-year terms, and centralizing physician review files. In the 1980s many hospitals created quality assurance and risk management programs. Risk managers need to share data with quality assurance personnel, who must in turn share the information with medical staff involved with credentialing, peer review, and medical affairs management. Legal counsel will need to be familiar with the legalities of the act, as well as the hospital's peer review procedures and operations. General legal counsel should oversee coordination of hospital proceedings and assist in educating staff on the legalities of peer review.

The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings.

PubMed

McGrath, Robert J; Priestley, Jennifer Lewis; Zhou, Yiyun; Culligan, Patrick J

2018-04-09

Information from ratings sites are increasingly informing patient decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians. The current study sought to determine the validity of online patient ratings of physicians through comparison with physician peer review. We extracted 223,715 reviews of 41,104 physicians from 10 of the largest cities in the United States, including 1142 physicians listed as "America's Top Doctors" through physician peer review. Differences in mean online patient ratings were tested for physicians who were listed and those who were not. Overall, no differences were found between the online patient ratings based upon physician peer review status. However, statistical differences were found for four specialties (family medicine, allergists, internal medicine, and pediatrics), with online patient ratings significantly higher for those physicians listed as a peer-reviewed "Top Doctor" versus those who were not. The results of this large-scale study indicate that while online patient ratings are consistent with physician peer review for four nonsurgical, primarily in-office specializations, patient ratings were not consistent with physician peer review for specializations like anesthesiology. This result indicates that the validity of patient ratings varies by medical specialization. ©Robert J McGrath, Jennifer Lewis Priestley, Yiyun Zhou, Patrick J Culligan. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (http://www.i-jmr.org/), 09.04.2018.

Clinical peer review program self-evaluation for US hospitals.

PubMed

Edwards, Marc T

2010-01-01

Prior research has shown wide variation in clinical peer review program structure, process, governance, and perceived effectiveness. This study sought to validate the utility of a Peer Review Program Self-Evaluation Tool as a potential guide to physician and hospital leaders seeking greater program value. Data from 330 hospitals show that the total score from the self-evaluation tool is strongly associated with perceived quality impact. Organizational culture also plays a significant role. When controlling for these factors, there was no evidence of benefit from a multispecialty review process. Physicians do not generally use reliable methods to measure clinical performance. A high rate of change since 2007 has not produced much improvement. The Peer Review Program Self-Evaluation Tool reliably differentiates hospitals along a continuum of perceived program performance. The full potential of peer review as a process to improve the quality and safety of care has yet to be realized.

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.

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 routinely monitor the quality of their reviews (and thus the quality of the science they publish). PMID:17411314

Directly Improving the Quality of Radiation Treatment Through Peer Review: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Cancer Centers Across a Provincial Cancer Program.

PubMed

Rouette, Julie; Gutierrez, Eric; O'Donnell, Jennifer; Reddeman, Lindsay; Hart, Margaret; Foxcroft, Sophie; Mitera, Gunita; Warde, Padraig; Brundage, Michael D

2017-07-01

To describe the outcomes of peer review across all 14 cancer centers in Ontario. We identified all peer-reviewed, curative treatment plans delivered in Ontario within a 3-month study period from 2013 to 2014 using a provincial cancer treatment database and collected additional data on the peer-review outcomes. Considerable variation was found in the proportion of peer-reviewed plans across the centers (average 70.2%, range 40.8%-99.2%). During the study period, 5561 curative plans underwent peer review. Of those, 184 plans (3.3%) had changes recommended. Of the 184 plans, the changes were major (defined as requiring repeat planning or having a major effect on planning or clinical outcomes, or both) in 40.2% and minor in 47.8%. For the remaining 12.0%, data were missing. The proportions of recommended changes varied among disease sites (0.0%-7.0%). The disease sites with the most recommended changes to treatment plans after peer review and with the greatest potential for benefit were the esophagus (7.0%), uterus (6.7%), upper limb (6.3%), cervix and lower limb (both 6.0%), head and neck and bilateral lung (both 5.9%), right supraclavicular lymph nodes (5.7%), rectum (5.3%), and spine (5.0%). Although the heart is an organ at risk in left-sided breast treatment plans, the proportions of recommended changes did not significantly differ between the left breast treatment plans (3.0%, 95% confidence interval 2.0%-4.5%) and right breast treatment plans (2.4%, 95% confidence interval 1.5%-3.8%). The recommended changes were more frequently made when peer review occurred before radiation therapy (3.8%) than during treatment (1.4%-2.8%; P=.0048). The proportion of plans with recommended changes was not significantly associated with patient volume (P=.23), peer-review performance (P=.36), or center academic status (P=.75). Peer review of treatment plans directly affects the quality of care by identifying important clinical and planning changes. Provincial strategies are underway to optimize its conduct in radiation oncology. Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation

PubMed Central

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

2011-01-01

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

IRIS Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

On August 25, 2011, the draft Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White House Offices before public release. In the new IRIS process (May 2009), introduced by the EPA Administrator, all written comments on IRIS assessments submitted by other federal agencies and White House Offices will be made publicly available. Accordingly, interagency comments and the interagency science consultation draft of the IRIS Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos and the charge to external peer reviewers are posted on this site. The project supports OSWER and Region 8 site clean-up and related risk management initiatives at this Superfund site. As with all IRIS assessments, the draft document will undergo agency review, OMB/interagency review and independent external peer review before being included on the IRIS data base.

Successful peer review of courses: a case study.

PubMed

Horowitz, S; Van Eyck, S; Albanese, M

1998-03-01

The authors describe their school's system of peer review for courses, established in 1988 to facilitate faculty evaluation and continual course and curriculum improvement. (The system has been temporarily suspended while the school's new curriculum becomes established.) They explain how the system was created and then report how faculty reviews of courses over the five-year operation of the system compared with students' reviews of the same courses. The faculty and students' ratings were in agreement 75% of the time. When not in agreement, the students' ratings tended to upgrade courses that were not very demanding, had easy grading, and emphasized clinical details, often at the expense of basic concepts and the big picture. The authors then document how the work of the peer review system favorably influenced the transformation of the school's curriculum. They also provide guidelines for the creation and operation of a course review process that uses faculty peers. The authors maintain that the peer review system worked because it was run by a committee of experienced and respected teachers who had been selected by their peers, the other faculty. Additional reasons for its success were that the school's faculty supported and respected the committee and its work, that course directors helped evaluate their courses, and that peer reviewers took their work seriously despite having no remuneration, and the clearly positive impact of the review system on faculty interaction, faculty-student interaction, and the reform of the curriculum.

Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: Executive summary

PubMed Central

Marks, Lawrence B.; Adams, Robert D.; Pawlicki, Todd; Blumberg, Albert L.; Hoopes, David; Brundage, Michael D.; Fraass, Benedick A.

2013-01-01

This report is part of a series of white papers commissioned for the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Board of Directors as part of ASTRO's Target Safely Campaign, focusing on the role of peer review as an important component of a broad safety/quality assurance (QA) program. Peer review is one of the most effective means for assuring the quality of qualitative, and potentially controversial, patient-specific decisions in radiation oncology. This report summarizes many of the areas throughout radiation therapy that may benefit from the application of peer review. Each radiation oncology facility should evaluate the issues raised and develop improved ways to apply the concept of peer review to its individual process and workflow. This might consist of a daily multidisciplinary (eg, physicians, dosimetrists, physicists, therapists) meeting to review patients being considered for, or undergoing planning for, radiation therapy (eg, intention to treat and target delineation), as well as meetings to review patients already under treatment (eg, adequacy of image guidance). This report is intended to clarify and broaden the understanding of radiation oncology professionals regarding the meaning, roles, benefits, and targets for peer review as a routine quality assurance tool. It is hoped that this work will be a catalyst for further investigation, development, and study of the efficacy of peer review techniques and how these efforts can help improve the safety and quality of our treatments. PMID:24175002

Peer Victimization among Schoolchildren: Correlations, Causes, Consequences, and Considerations in Assessment and Intervention

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Card, Noel A.; Hodges, Ernest V. E.

2008-01-01

Peer victimization among schoolchildren is a common problem that predicts serious maladjustment. In this article, the authors define peer victimization, provide a brief overview of the history of research on the topic, and review prevalence rates, common measurement approaches, and the correlates of peer victimization. This review leads to…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hutchings, Pat

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

Research management peer exchange hosted by the Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group, August 20-24, 2001. Summary report.

DOT National Transportation Integrated Search

2001-05-01

The team began this peer exchange with a review of the first Oregon Peer Exchange conducted in may, 1998. The review included a summary of recommendations made and the changes made as a result of the 1998 Peer Exchange Report. : The primary focus of ...

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.

2017 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report

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

None, None

The 2017 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report summarizes the feedback submitted by reviewers for the 109 Building Technologies Office (BTO) projects presented at the 2017 BTO Peer Review. The report presents an overview of the goals and activities under each technology program area, a summary of project scores for each program, and a brief analysis of general evaluation trends within each program area or its constituent subprograms.

Peer Review of Submissions to the Annual American Evaluation Association Conference by the Graduate Student & New Evaluators Topical Interest Group

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Schroter, Daniela C.; Coryn, Chris L. S.; Montrosse, Bianca E.

2008-01-01

Peer review is an umbrella term that refers to a class of selection and oversight practices, including the familiar mechanisms of the review of proposals submitted for funding, of manuscripts for scholarly publications, and of personnel qualifications and portfolios for selection and promotion. Peer review has long been a cornerstone of modern…

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

PubMed

Guthrie, Susan; Ghiga, Ioana; Wooding, Steven

2017-01-01

 Peer review decisions award >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved.  This paper summarises evidence from 105 relevant papers identified through a literature search on the effectiveness and burden of peer review for grant funding.  There is a remarkable paucity of evidence about the overall efficiency of peer review for funding allocation, given its centrality to the modern system of science. From the available evidence, we can identify some conclusions around the effectiveness and burden of peer review. The strongest evidence around effectiveness indicates a bias against innovative research. There is also fairly clear evidence that peer review is, at best, a weak predictor of future research performance, and that ratings vary considerably between reviewers. There is some evidence of age bias and cronyism. Good evidence shows that the burden of peer review is high and that around 75% of it falls on applicants. By contrast, many of the efforts to reduce burden are focused on funders and reviewers/panel members.  We suggest funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers' uncertainty as an input to funding decisions. Funders could consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process, to reduce both burden and bias, and allow better evaluation of decision processes. Alternatively, the distribution of scores from different reviewers could be better utilised as a possible way to identify novel, innovative research. Above all, there is a need for open, transparent experimentation and evaluation of different ways to fund research. This also requires more openness across the wider scientific community to support such investigations, acknowledging the lack of evidence about the primacy of the current system and the impossibility of achieving perfection.

Peer Review: Structured, Informal, Confidential, Helpful!

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cassidy, Alice; Lee, Jack

2011-01-01

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

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…

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…

Peer Review of Teaching: Best Practices for a Non-Programmatic Approach

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Alabi, Jaena; Weare, William H., Jr.

2014-01-01

Many academic librarians who provide library instruction have never received formal training in educational theory and methods. To bridge this gap and improve the teaching skills of instruction librarians, some academic libraries have established peer review of teaching programs. Despite the recognized benefits of peer review, it may not be…

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)

Influence of Peer Effects on Learning Outcomes: A Review of the Literature.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Wilkinson, Ian A. G.; Hattie, John A.; Parr, Judy M.; Townsend, Michael A. R.; Fung, Irene; Ussher, Charlotte; Thrupp, Martin; Lauder, Hugh; Robinson, Tony

This report presents a literature review and conceptual model summarizing the influence of peer effects on learning outcomes. The report describes the approach to the review and provides a theoretical account of the environments, mechanisms, and processes that mediate learning among peers. It then summarizes the literature on compositional effects…

77 FR 58802 - Notice of Intent To Seek OMB Approval To Collect Information: Forms Pertaining to the Peer Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-09-24

... Collect Information: Forms Pertaining to the Peer Review of ARS Research Projects AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The proposed information... allow the ARS to efficiently manage data associated with the peer review of agricultural research. All...

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cakir, Mustafa; Carlsen, William S.

2007-01-01

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

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

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

Not Available

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

Peer Review of Report Modeling the Relationship Between Lead in Drinking Water and Blood Lead Levels in Children

EPA Science Inventory

EPA is peer reviewing the Agency’s report modeling the relationship between lead in drinking water and blood lead levels in children utilizing the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model. The report being peer reviewed may be used to inform the derivation of a concent...

Peer Review: The CHAMPUS Program.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Stricker, George

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

Systematic review of peer education intervention programmes among individuals with type 2 diabetes.

PubMed

Gatlin, Tricia K; Serafica, Reimund; Johnson, Michael

2017-12-01

To systematically review published randomised controlled trials of peer education interventions among adults with type 2 diabetes. Systematic reviews have shown mixed results for peer support interventions to improve diabetes self-management. Given the effectiveness of diabetes education by healthcare professionals, peer education interventions may be a useful alternative approach. This review addressed that gap. Systematic review. A systematic search of published randomised controlled trials between 2006-2016 was conducted using the keywords diabetes, type 2 diabetes, randomised controlled trials, self-management, peer education and peer support. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Jadad scale. Seven studies were included in the final review, and the Jadad scores ranged from 8-10 of a possible 13 points. There was no consistent design, setting, or outcome measurement among the studies. There were two types of peer education interventions compared to traditional diabetes education: face-to-face or a combination of face-to-face and telephone/texting. The most common clinical outcome measure was HbA1c. Two of six studies showed statistically significant improvement in HbA1c between intervention and control groups. An increase in diabetes knowledge was also statistically significant in two of five studies. Peer education could be successful in improving clinical outcomes. No evidence was found indicating that healthcare provider education was superior in regard to clinical knowledge or behavioural or psychological outcome measures than peer education. HbA1c was statistically significantly lower in some peer education groups compared to control groups. There is evidence that peer education can be useful in achieving positive clinical outcomes such as decreasing HbA1c levels and increasing diabetes knowledge. A certified diabetes educator or a trained healthcare professional should not be overlooked though when using peer educators. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Transformation of Adolescent Peer Relations in the Social Media Context: Part 2-Application to Peer Group Processes and Future Directions for Research.

PubMed

Nesi, Jacqueline; Choukas-Bradley, Sophia; Prinstein, Mitchell J

2018-04-07

As social media use becomes increasingly widespread among adolescents, research in this area has accumulated rapidly. Researchers have shown a growing interest in the impact of social media on adolescents' peer experiences, including the ways that the social media context shapes a variety of peer relations constructs. This paper represents Part 2 of a two-part theoretical review. In this review, we offer a new model for understanding the transformative role of social media in adolescents' peer experiences, with the goal of stimulating future empirical work that is grounded in theory. The transformation framework suggests that the features of the social media context transform adolescents' peer experiences by changing their frequency or immediacy, amplifying demands, altering their qualitative nature, and/or offering new opportunities for compensatory or novel behaviors. In the current paper, we consider the ways that social media may transform peer relations constructs that often occur at the group level. Our review focuses on three key constructs: peer victimization, peer status, and peer influence. We selectively review and highlight existing evidence for the transformation of these domains through social media. In addition, we discuss methodological considerations and key conceptual principles for future work. The current framework offers a new theoretical perspective through which peer relations researchers may consider adolescent social media use.

Peer review of human studies run amok: a break in the fiduciary relation between scientists and the public.

PubMed

Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W; Saitz, Richard

2015-02-01

Peer review aims to ensure the quality and credibility of research reporting. Conducted by volunteer scientists who receive no guidance or direction, peer review widely varies from fast and facilitative, to unclear and obstructive. Poor quality is an issue because most science research is publicly funded, whereby scientists must make an effort to quickly disseminate their findings back to the public. An unfortunately not uncommon barrier in this process is ineffective peer review. Most scientists agree that when done well, editors and reviewers drive and maintain the high standards of science. At the same time, ineffective peer review can cause great delay with no introduced improvement in final product. These delays and requests interfere with the path of communication between scientist and public, at a great cost to editors, reviewers, authors and those who stand to benefit from application of the results of the studies. We offer a series of concrete recommendations to improve this process.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic (Cancer) ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

On February 19, 2010, the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic (Cancer) external review draft document and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for public review and comment. The draft document and the charge to external peer reviewers were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White House Offices before public release. In the new IRIS process, introduced by the EPA Administrator, all written comments on IRIS assessments submitted by other federal agencies and White House Offices will be made publicly available. Accordingly, interagency comments and the interagency science consultation draft of the Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic and the charge to external peer reviewers are posted on this site. This draft IRIS health assessment addresses only cancer human health effects that may result from chronic exposure to this chemical. An assessment of noncancer health effects of inorganic arsenic will be released for external peer review and public comment at a later date.

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

Mitigation of Disagreement in Peer Review among L2 Learners and Native Speakers in a College Writing Class (Mitigación del Impacto de las Opiniones de Desacuerdo en el Proceso de Revisión por Pares entre Estudiantes de una Segunda Lengua y Hablantes Nativos en una Clase de Escritura a Nivel Universitario)

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Christoffersen, Katherine O'Donnell

2015-01-01

Peer review is now a commonplace practice in process-oriented writing instruction. A crucial aspect of peer review is assessing another classmate's work, which encompasses the act of disagreement. Given its prevalence in the classroom, it is necessary to analyze how L2 learners mitigate disagreement in the context of peer review with other L2…

Doing peer review and receiving feedback: impact on scientific literacy and writing skills.

PubMed

Geithner, Christina A; Pollastro, Alexandria N

2016-03-01

Doing peer review has been effectively implemented to help students develop critical reading and writing skills; however, its application in Human Physiology programs is limited. The purpose of the present study was to determine the impact of peer review on Human Physiology majors' perceptions of their scientific literacy and writing skills. Students enrolled in the Scientific Writing course completed multiple writing assignments, including three revisions after receiving peer and instructor feedback. Students self-assessed their knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to science and writing in pre- and postcourse surveys (n = 26 with complete data). Seven survey items related to scientific literacy and writing skills impacted by peer review were selected for analysis. Scores on these survey items were summed to form a composite self-rating score. Responses to two questions regarding the most useful learning activities were submitted to frequency analysis. Mean postcourse scores for individual survey items and composite self-rating scores were significantly higher than precourse means (P < 0.05). Peer review was the most frequently noted among 21 learning activities for increasing scientific literacy and in the top 5 for improving writing skills. In conclusion, peer review is an effective teaching/learning approach for improving undergraduate Human Physiology majors' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding science and scientific writing. Copyright © 2016 The American Physiological Society.

Peer Acceptance and Friendship in Early Childhood: The Conceptual Distinctions between Them

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Beazidou, Eleftheria; Botsoglou, Kafenia

2016-01-01

This paper reviews previous literature about peer acceptance and friendship, two of the most critical aspects of peer relations that have received most of research attention during the past years. In this review, we will focus on the processes explaining the way children use the ability to socialise with peers; explore the hypothesis that certain…

Peer Response to L2 Student Writing: Patterns and Expectations

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Abdalla Salih, Abdel Rahman

2013-01-01

This paper reports the corrective feedback patterns in L2 writing and the student writers' preferences for peer feedback. The study examines the actual focus of peer review and the types of corrective feedback provided in L2 composing process. Sixteen L2 matriculation students at a Malaysian university took part in five peer review sessions,…

Iterative Design and Classroom Evaluation of Automated Formative Feedback for Improving Peer Feedback Localization

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Nguyen, Huy; Xiong, Wenting; Litman, Diane

2017-01-01

A peer-review system that automatically evaluates and provides formative feedback on free-text feedback comments of students was iteratively designed and evaluated in college and high-school classrooms. Classroom assignments required students to write paper drafts and submit them to a peer-review system. When student peers later submitted feedback…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brammer, Charlotte; Rees, Mary

2007-01-01

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

Peer Mentoring and Peer Tutoring among K-12 Students: A Literature Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Goodrich, Andrew

2018-01-01

The purpose of this literature review is to examine research on peer mentoring among K-12 students to assist practitioners with how to incorporate these instructional techniques into their own music programs. Primary themes across the music education literature of peer mentoring include the role of music teachers, the role of students as they…

Unmanned Maritime Systems Incremental Acquisition Approach

DTIC Science & Technology

2016-12-01

We find that current UMS acquisitions are utilizing previous acquisition reforms, but could benefit from additional contractor peer competition and...peer review. Additional cost and schedule benefits could result from contractor competition during build processes in each incremental process. We...acquisitions are utilizing previous acquisition reforms, but could benefit from additional contractor peer competition and peer review. Additional

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

PubMed Central

Guthrie, Susan; Ghiga, Ioana; Wooding, Steven

2018-01-01

Background: Peer review decisions award an estimated >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved. Methods: This paper summarises evidence from 105 papers identified through a literature search on the effectiveness and burden of peer review for grant funding. Results: There is a remarkable paucity of evidence about the efficiency of peer review for funding allocation, given its centrality to the modern system of science. From the available evidence, we can identify some conclusions around the effectiveness and burden of peer review. The strongest evidence around effectiveness indicates a bias against innovative research. There is also fairly clear evidence that peer review is, at best, a weak predictor of future research performance, and that ratings vary considerably between reviewers. There is some evidence of age bias and cronyism. Good evidence shows that the burden of peer review is high and that around 75% of it falls on applicants. By contrast, many of the efforts to reduce burden are focused on funders and reviewers/panel members. Conclusions: We suggest funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers’ uncertainty as an input to funding decisions. Funders could consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process, to reduce both burden and bias, and allow better evaluation of decision processes. Alternatively, the distribution of scores from different reviewers could be better utilised as a possible way to identify novel, innovative research. Above all, there is a need for open, transparent experimentation and evaluation of different ways to fund research. This also requires more openness across the wider scientific community to support such investigations, acknowledging the lack of evidence about the primacy of the current system and the impossibility of achieving perfection. PMID:29707193

State-of-The-Art of Modeling Methodologies and Optimization Operations in Integrated Energy System

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Zheng, Zhan; Zhang, Yongjun

2017-08-01

Rapid advances in low carbon technologies and smart energy communities are reshaping future patterns. Uncertainty in energy productions and demand sides are paving the way towards decentralization management. Current energy infrastructures could not meet with supply and consumption challenges, along with emerging environment and economic requirements. Integrated Energy System(IES) whereby electric power, natural gas, heating couples with each other demonstrates that such a significant technique would gradually become one of main comprehensive and optimal energy solutions with high flexibility, friendly renewables absorption and improving efficiency. In these global energy trends, we summarize this literature review. Firstly the accurate definition and characteristics of IES have been presented. Energy subsystem and coupling elements modeling issues are analyzed. It is pointed out that decomposed and integrated analysis methods are the key algorithms for IES optimization operations problems, followed by exploring the IES market mechanisms. Finally several future research tendencies of IES, such as dynamic modeling, peer-to-peer trading, couple market design, sare under discussion.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic (Cancer) (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On February 19, 2010, the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic (Cancer) external review draft document and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for public review and comment. The draft document and the charge to external peer reviewers were reviewed...

Performance results for a workstation-integrated radiology peer review quality assurance program.

PubMed

O'Keeffe, Margaret M; Davis, Todd M; Siminoski, Kerry

2016-06-01

To assess review completion rates, RADPEER score distribution, and sources of disagreement when using a workstation-integrated radiology peer review program, and to evaluate radiologist perceptions of the program. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Large private outpatient radiology practice. Radiologists (n = 66) with a mean of 16.0 (standard deviation, 9.2) years of experience. Prior studies and reports of cases being actively reported were randomly selected for peer review using the RADPEER scoring system (a 4-point scale, with a score of 1 indicating agreement and scores of 2-4 indicating increasing levels of disagreement). Assigned peer review completion rates, review scores, sources of disagreement and radiologist survey responses. Of 31 293 assigned cases, 29 044 (92.8%; 95% CI 92.5-93.1%) were reviewed. Discrepant scores (score = 2, 3 or 4) were given in 0.69% (95% CI 0.60-0.79%) of cases and clinically significant discrepancy (score = 3 or 4) was assigned in 0.42% (95% CI 0.35-0.50%). The most common cause of disagreement was missed diagnosis (75.2%; 95% CI 66.8-82.1%). By anonymous survey, 94% of radiologists felt that peer review was worthwhile, 90% reported that the scores they received were appropriate and 78% felt that the received feedback was valuable. Workstation-based peer review can increase completion rates and levels of radiologist acceptance while producing RADPEER scores similar to those previously reported. This approach may be one way to increase radiologist engagement in peer review quality assurance. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved.

Does Peer Review of Radiation Plans Affect Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature

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

Brunskill, Kelsey; Nguyen, Timothy K.; Boldt, R. Gabriel

Purpose: Peer review is a recommended component of quality assurance in radiation oncology; however, it is resource-intensive and its effect on patient care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the published data to assess the reported clinical impact of peer review on radiation treatment plans. Methods and Materials: A systematic review of published English studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and abstracts published from major radiation oncology scientific meeting proceedings. For inclusion, the studies were required to report the effect of peer review on ≥1 element ofmore » treatment planning (eg, target volume or organ-at-risk delineation, dose prescription or dosimetry). Results: The initial search strategy identified 882 potentially eligible studies, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text review and final analysis. Across a total of 11,491 patient cases, peer review programs led to modifications in a weighted mean of 10.8% of radiation treatment plans. Five studies differentiated between major and minor changes and reported weighted mean rates of change of 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The most common changes were related to target volume delineation (45.2% of changed plans), dose prescription or written directives (24.4%), and non-target volume delineation or normal tissue sparing (7.5%). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that peer review leads to changes in clinical care in approximately 1 of every 9 cases overall. This is similar to the reported rates of change in peer review studies from other oncology-related specialties, such as radiology and pathology.« less

Does Peer Review of Radiation Plans Affect Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

PubMed

Brunskill, Kelsey; Nguyen, Timothy K; Boldt, R Gabriel; Louie, Alexander V; Warner, Andrew; Marks, Lawrence B; Palma, David A

2017-01-01

Peer review is a recommended component of quality assurance in radiation oncology; however, it is resource-intensive and its effect on patient care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the published data to assess the reported clinical impact of peer review on radiation treatment plans. A systematic review of published English studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and abstracts published from major radiation oncology scientific meeting proceedings. For inclusion, the studies were required to report the effect of peer review on ≥1 element of treatment planning (eg, target volume or organ-at-risk delineation, dose prescription or dosimetry). The initial search strategy identified 882 potentially eligible studies, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text review and final analysis. Across a total of 11,491 patient cases, peer review programs led to modifications in a weighted mean of 10.8% of radiation treatment plans. Five studies differentiated between major and minor changes and reported weighted mean rates of change of 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The most common changes were related to target volume delineation (45.2% of changed plans), dose prescription or written directives (24.4%), and non-target volume delineation or normal tissue sparing (7.5%). Our findings suggest that peer review leads to changes in clinical care in approximately 1 of every 9 cases overall. This is similar to the reported rates of change in peer review studies from other oncology-related specialties, such as radiology and pathology. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Challenges in the Ethical Review of Peer Support Interventions

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

Turnitin and Peer Review in ESL Academic Writing Classrooms

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Li, Jinrong; Li, Mimi

2018-01-01

Despite the benefits of peer review, there are still challenges that need to be addressed to make it more effective for L2 students. With the development of technology, computer-mediated peer review has captured increasing attention from L2 writing researchers and instructors. While Turnitin is known for its use in detecting plagiarism, its newly…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Grainger, Peter; Bridgstock, Martin; Houston, Todd; Drew, Steve

2015-01-01

Peer review of teaching has become an accepted educational procedure in Australia to quality assure the quality of teaching practices. The institutional implementation of the peer review process can be viewed as genuine desire to improve teaching quality or an imposition from above as a measure of accountability and performativity. One approach is…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Stigmar, Martin

2016-01-01

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

Blog Comments vs. Peer Review: Which Way Makes a Book Better?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Young, Jeffrey R.

2008-01-01

What if scholarly books were peer reviewed by anonymous blog comments rather than by traditional, selected peer reviewers? This is the question posed by an unusual experiment that was started recently by Noah Wardrip-Fruin, an an assistant professor of communication at the University of California at San Diego. His experiment was started after his…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Tribe, Lorena; Cooper, Evan L.

2008-01-01

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

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

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

Satypal, S.

2011-09-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

White, Barbara Jo; Cruz, Laura; Ellern, Jill; Ford, George; Moss, Hollye

2012-01-01

Peer review is by no means a routine process for traditional, or basic, research. Even so, peer review is even less routinized for other forms of scholarship. In 1990, Ernest Boyer called for a reconsideration of scholarship and extended the definition to be inclusive of non-traditional modes of scholarly production and delivery. However, peer…

Peer Review Improves the Quality of MCQ Examinations

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Malau-Aduli, Bunmi S.; Zimitat, Craig

2012-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Roberts, Thomas J.; Shambrook, Jennifer

2012-01-01

Academic peer review is widely viewed as fair, equitable, and essential to academic quality. Successfully completing the process through publication or award is widely deemed as one of the most rigorous and prestigious forms of scholarly accomplishment. Despite this sentiment the academic peer review process is not without fault. It is criticized…

Doing Peer Review and Receiving Feedback: Impact on Scientific Literacy and Writing Skills

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Geithner, Christina A.; Pollastro, Alexandria N.

2016-01-01

Doing peer review has been effectively implemented to help students develop critical reading and writing skills; however, its application in Human Physiology programs is limited. The purpose of the present study was to determine the impact of peer review on Human Physiology majors' perceptions of their scientific literacy and writing skills.…

Student Peer Review: Enhancing Formative Feedback with a Rebuttal

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Harland, Tony; Wald, Navé; Randhawa, Haseeb

2017-01-01

This study examines the use of peer review in an undergraduate ecology programme, in which students write a research proposal as a grant application, prior to carrying out the research project. Using a theoretical feedback model, we compared teacher and student peer reviews in a double blind exercise, and show how students responded to feedback…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2015-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Knight, Carolyn

2013-01-01

Social workers from one state chapter of the National Association of Social Workers were surveyed to assess their use of and attitudes toward the peer-reviewed literature and their engagement in evidence-based practice. Results reveal that, in general, the practitioners in this study did not read the peer-reviewed literature, particularly articles…

Potential Benefits of Incorporating Peer-to-Peer Interactions Into Digital Interventions for Psychotic Disorders: A Systematic Review.

PubMed

Biagianti, Bruno; Quraishi, Sophia H; Schlosser, Danielle A

2018-04-01

Peer-to-peer interactions and support groups mitigate experiences of social isolation and loneliness often reported by individuals with psychotic disorders. Online peer-to-peer communication can promote broader use of this form of social support. Peer-to-peer interactions occur naturally on social media platforms, but they can negatively affect mental health. Recent digital interventions for persons with psychotic disorders have harnessed the principles of social media to incorporate peer-to-peer communication. This review examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of recent digital interventions in order to identify strategies to maximize benefits of online peer-to-peer communication for persons with psychotic disorders. An electronic database search of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database was conducted in February 2017 and yielded a total of 1,015 results. Eight publications that reported data from six independent trials and five interventions were reviewed. The technology supporting peer-to-peer communication varied greatly across studies, from online forums to embedded social networking. When peer-to-peer interactions were moderated by facilitators, retention, engagement, acceptability, and efficacy were higher than for interventions with no facilitators. Individuals with psychotic disorders were actively engaged with moderated peer-to-peer communication and showed improvements in perceived social support. Studies involving service users in intervention design showed higher rates of acceptability. Individuals with psychotic disorders value and benefit from digital interventions that include moderated peer-to-peer interactions. Incorporating peer-to-peer communication into digital interventions for this population may increase compliance with other evidence-based therapies by producing more acceptable and engaging online environments.

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

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

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.

A randomized trial of peer review: the UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project: three-year evaluation.

PubMed

Roberts, Christopher M; Stone, Robert A; Buckingham, Rhona J; Pursey, Nancy A; Lowe, Derek; Potter, Jonathan M

2012-06-01

Peer review has been widely used within the National Health Service to facilitate health quality improvement but evaluation has been limited particularly over the longer-term. Change within the National Health Service (NHS) can take a prolonged period--1-2 years--to occur. We report here a 3-year evaluation of the largest randomized trial of peer review ever conducted in the UK. To evaluate whether targeted mutual peer review of respiratory units brings about improvements in services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) over 3 years. The peer review intervention was a reciprocal supportive exercise that included clinicians, hospital management, commissioners and patients, which focused on the quality of the provision of four specific evidence-based aspects of COPD care. Follow-up at 36 months demonstrated limited significant quantitative differences in the quality of services offered in the two groups but a strong trend in favour of intervention sites. Qualitative data suggested many benefits of peer review in most but not all intervention units and some control teams. The data identify factors that promote and obstruct change. The findings demonstrate significant change in service provision over 3 years in both control and intervention sites with great variability in both groups. The combined quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that targeted mutual peer review is associated with improved quality of care, improvements in service delivery and with changes within departments that promote and are precursors to quality improvement. The generic findings of this study have potential implications for the application of peer review throughout the NHS. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On June 26, 2012, the draft Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes and the draft charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and W...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On November 3, 2009, the Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White Hous...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On June 2, 2010, the Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White House Offices...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Biphenyl (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On September 30, 2011, the draft Toxicological Review of Biphenyl and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White House...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Acrylonitrile (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On June 30, 2011, the draft Toxicological Review of Acrylonitrile and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White House...

The effect of peer influence and selection processes on adolescent alcohol use: a systematic review of longitudinal studies.

PubMed

Leung, Rachel K; Toumbourou, John W; Hemphill, Sheryl A

2014-01-01

Adolescent alcohol use remains an important public health concern. One of the most salient and consistent predictors for drinking behaviour among young people is peer influence. A systematic review of longitudinal studies that examined the effect of peer influence on adolescent alcohol use between January 1997 and February 2011 is presented. Twenty-two studies fulfilled inclusion criteria and were reviewed. All but one study confirmed affiliation with alcohol-using or deviant peers as prospective predictors for the development of adolescent alcohol use. Findings revealed that existing longitudinal studies that have used multivariate analytic techniques to segregate peer influence (whereby adolescents start drinking after exposure to alcohol-using friends) and peer selection (whereby adolescents that start drinking without alcohol-using friends subsequently seek out drinking peers) effects consistently report significant peer influence effects. However, studies are unable to elucidate the relative contribution and developmental sequence of peer influence and selection. Existing research is synthesised to model the developmental influence of peer processes on adolescent alcohol use. Future research directions are recommended to inform better designed investigations that can lead to more effective endeavours to address peer processes in prevention efforts.

First CytoJournal Peer-Reviewer's Retreat in 2006 – Open access, peer-review, and impact factor

PubMed Central

Shidham, Vinod B; Sandweiss, Lynn; Atkinson, Barbara F

2006-01-01

CytoJournal organized its first Peer-Reviewer's Retreat of 2006 during the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology Annual Meeting at Atlanta on Feb 12, 2006. The major topics discussed were open access, peer review, and impact factors. Representative participants volunteered to join the task force to prepare an instructional guide for peer-reviewing cytopathology manuscripts. Concern about the impact factor for CytoJournal was discussed. A feedback to its readers and authors was recommended. Impact factor calculation needs at least three years of journal statistics. It is only possible after two years from the time a journal is first accepted by Thomson-ISI for citation tracking. CytoJournal is still too new for an impact factor to be calculated. However, general progress of CytoJournal suggests an encouraging pattern for high impact factor. PMID:16566816

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

48 CFR 201.170 - Peer Reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... Section 201.170 Federal Acquisition Regulations System DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT... Peer Reviews, the military departments, defense agencies, and DoD field activities shall provide a... departments, defense agencies, and DoD field activities shall establish procedures for— (1) Pre-award Peer...

48 CFR 201.170 - Peer Reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... Section 201.170 Federal Acquisition Regulations System DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT... Peer Reviews, the military departments, defense agencies, and DoD field activities shall provide a... departments, defense agencies, and DoD field activities shall establish procedures for— (1) Pre-award Peer...

Expanding Capacity and Promoting Inclusion in Introductory Computer Science: A Focus on Near-Peer Mentor Preparation and Code Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Pon-Barry, Heather; Packard, Becky Wai-Ling; St. John, Audrey

2017-01-01

A dilemma within computer science departments is developing sustainable ways to expand capacity within introductory computer science courses while remaining committed to inclusive practices. Training near-peer mentors for peer code review is one solution. This paper describes the preparation of near-peer mentors for their role, with a focus on…

Types of Feedback in Peer Review and the Effect on Student Motivation and Writing Quality

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sloan, Christopher Colgan

2017-01-01

In writing classrooms, peer review has been shown to have numerous practical and cognitive benefits. However, little research has been done that examines how different types of peer feedback motivate adolescent students and the effects that different types of feedback have on writing quality. While the literature has indicated that peers give each…

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

The Influence of Peers on Diet and Exercise Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

PubMed

Chung, Sophia Jihey; Ersig, Anne L; McCarthy, Ann Marie

Adolescents' diet and exercise are modifiable factors contributing to high rates of adolescent obesity. Diverse contextual factors, including family, social environment, and peers, affect adolescents' diet and exercise behaviors. Because peer influence increases during adolescence, peers' contributions to adolescents' diet and exercise behaviors should be examined as potential targets for intervention to reduce the prevalence of adolescent obesity. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify research examining the contribution of peers to diet and exercise of adolescents. The electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS were searched. A total of 24 unique articles were included: seven examined diet only, fourteen studied exercise only, and three explored diet and exercise. This review provided evidence that diet and exercise of adolescents were significantly associated with those of their peers. However, these associations differed depending on gender, the type of diet and exercise, and closeness of friends. Findings from this review suggest that peers could be possible targets for interventions to promote healthier diet and exercise among adolescents; however, more studies are needed to identify specific peer influences and develop tailored interventions. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Exploration and practice of methods and processes of evidence-based rapid review on peer review of WHO EML application.

PubMed

Li, Youping; Yu, Jiajie; Du, Liang; Sun, Xin; Kwong, Joey S W; Wu, Bin; Hu, Zhiqiang; Lu, Jing; Xu, Ting; Zhang, Lingli

2015-11-01

After 38 years of development, the procedure of selection and evaluation of the World Health Organization Essential Medicine List (WHO EML) is increasingly scientific and formal. However, peer review for the applications of World Health Organization Essential Medicine List is always required in a short period. It is necessary to build up a set of methods and processes for rapid review. We identified the process of evidenced-based rapid review on WHO EML application for peer reviews according to 11 items which were required during reporting of the peer review results of the proposals. The most important items for the rapid review of World Health Organization Essential Medicine List peer reviewers are (1) to confirm the requirements and identify the purposes; (2) to establish the research questions and translate the questions into the 'Participants, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Study design' (PICOS) format; (3) to search and screen available evidence, for which high-level evidence is preferred, such as systematic reviews or meta-analyses, health technology assessment, clinical guidelines; (4) to extract data, where we extract primary information based on the purposes; (5) to synthesize data by qualitative methods, assess the quality of evidence, and compare the results; (6) to provide the answers to the applications, quality of evidences and strength of recommendations. Our study established a set of methods and processes for the rapid review of World Health Organization Essential Medicine List peer review, and our findings were used to guide the reviewers to fulfill the 19(th) World Health Organization Essential Medicine List peer review. The methods and processes were feasible and met the necessary requirements in terms of time and quality. Continuous improvement and evaluation in practice are warranted. © 2015 Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Validity of peer grading using Calibrated Peer Review in a guided-inquiry, conceptual physics course

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Price, Edward; Goldberg, Fred; Robinson, Steve; McKean, Michael

2016-12-01

Constructing and evaluating explanations are important science practices, but in large classes it can be difficult to effectively engage students in these practices and provide feedback. Peer review and grading are scalable instructional approaches that address these concerns, but which raise questions about the validity of the peer grading process. Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) is a web-based system that scaffolds peer evaluation through a "calibration" process where students evaluate sample responses and receive feedback on their evaluations before evaluating their peers. Guided by an activity theory framework, we developed, implemented, and evaluated CPR-based tasks in guided-inquiry, conceptual physics courses for future teachers and general education students. The tasks were developed through iterative testing and revision. Effective tasks had specific and directed prompts and evaluation instructions. Using these tasks, over 350 students at three universities constructed explanations or analyzed physical phenomena, and evaluated their peers' work. By independently assessing students' responses, we evaluated the CPR calibration process and compared students' peer reviews with expert evaluations. On the tasks analyzed, peer scores were equivalent to our independent evaluations. On a written explanation item included on the final exam, students in the courses using CPR outperformed students in similar courses using traditional writing assignments without a peer evaluation element. Our research demonstrates that CPR can be an effective way to explicitly include the science practices of constructing and evaluating explanations into large classes without placing a significant burden on the instructor.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On March 31, 2010, the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) external review draft document and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for public review and comment. The draft document and the charge to external peer reviewers were r...

IRIS TOXICOLOGICAL REVIEW OF HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (INTERAGENCY SCIENCE CONSULTATION DRAFT)

EPA Science Inventory

On Septemeber 30, 2010, the draft Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agenc...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On August 25, 2011, the draft Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies an...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Urea (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On September 28, 2010, the Toxicological Review of Urea and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White House Of...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Ammonia (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On June 1, 2012, the draft Toxicological Review of Ammonia and the draft charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White House ...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Vanadium Pentoxide (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On September 30, 2011, the draft Toxicological Review of Vanadium Pentoxide and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and W...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Tert-Butyl Alcohol (Tert-Butanol) ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

The IRIS Toxicological Review of tert-Butyl Alcohol (tert-Butanol) was released for external peer review in June 2017. EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) will conduct a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the tert-butanol assessment and release a final report of their review. Information regarding the peer review can be found on the SAB website. EPA is conducting an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) health assessment for tert-butanol. The outcome of this project is a Toxicological Review and IRIS Summary for tert-butanol that will be entered into the IRIS database.

Beyond Homophily: A Decade of Advances in Understanding Peer Influence Processes.

PubMed

Brechwald, Whitney A; Prinstein, Mitchell J

2011-03-01

This article reviews empirical and theoretical contributions to a multidisciplinary understanding of peer influence processes in adolescence over the past decade. Five themes of peer influence research from this decade were identified, including a broadening of the range of behaviors for which peer influence occurs, distinguishing the sources of influence, probing the conditions under which influence is amplified/attenuated (moderators), testing theoretically based models of peer influence processes (mechanisms), and preliminary exploration of behavioral neuroscience perspectives on peer influence. This review highlights advances in each of these areas, underscores gaps in current knowledge of peer influence processes, and outlines important challenges for future research.

Beyond Homophily: A Decade of Advances in Understanding Peer Influence Processes

PubMed Central

Brechwald, Whitney A.; Prinstein, Mitchell J.

2013-01-01

This article reviews empirical and theoretical contributions to a multidisciplinary understanding of peer influence processes in adolescence over the past decade. Five themes of peer influence research from this decade were identified, including a broadening of the range of behaviors for which peer influence occurs, distinguishing the sources of influence, probing the conditions under which influence is amplified/attenuated (moderators), testing theoretically based models of peer influence processes (mechanisms), and preliminary exploration of behavioral neuroscience perspectives on peer influence. This review highlights advances in each of these areas, underscores gaps in current knowledge of peer influence processes, and outlines important challenges for future research. PMID:23730122

Assessing Postgraduate Student Perceptions and Measures of Learning in a Peer Review Feedback Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Simpson, Genevieve; Clifton, Julian

2016-01-01

Peer review feedback, developed to assist students with increasing the quality of group reports and developing peer review skills, was added to a master's level Climate Change Policy and Planning unit. A pre- and post-survey was conducted to determine whether students found the process a valuable learning opportunity: 87% of students responding to…

Is Peer Review an Appropriate Form of Assessment in a MOOC? Student Participation and Performance in Formative Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Meek, Sarah E. M.; Blakemore, Louise; Marks, Leah

2017-01-01

Many aspects of higher education must be reconceptualised for massive open online courses (MOOCs). Formative and summative assessment of qualitative work in particular requires novel approaches to cope with the numbers involved. Peer review has been proposed as one solution, and has been widely adopted by major MOOC providers, but there is…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2015-01-01

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

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…

Adding Value to the Learning Process by Online Peer Review Activities: Towards the Elaboration of a Methodology to Promote Critical Thinking in Future Engineers

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Dominguez, Caroline; Nascimento, Maria M.; Payan-Carreira, Rita; Cruz, Gonçalo; Silva, Helena; Lopes, José; Morais, Maria da Felicidade A.; Morais, Eva

2015-01-01

Considering the results of research on the benefits and difficulties of peer review, this paper describes how teaching faculty, interested in endorsing the acquisition of communication and critical thinking (CT) skills among engineering students, has been implementing a learning methodology throughout online peer review activities. While…

Accelerating Educational Innovation in the MPH Degree Program: What Is the Role of Peer Review of Teaching?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Vian, Taryn; Ashigbie, Paul G.

2015-01-01

Purpose: The environment of public health practice is rapidly changing, creating the need to adapt graduate education and accelerate educational innovation. Formative peer review is a strategy designed to promote critical reflection on teaching and to develop faculty as teachers. Through case study methods, we explore how peer review of teaching…

Issues in Peer Review of the Scientific Basis for Regulatory Decisions.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.

This document is intended to provide a discussion of the issues that need to be addressed in the development of peer review guidelines, the options for addressing the issues, and a range of views about such options. The document focuses on peer review with regard to regulatory decisions and contains major sections which deal with: (1) what should…

Investigating Peer Review as an Intentional Learning Strategy to Foster Collaborative Knowledge-Building in Students of Instructional Design

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brill, Jennifer M.; Hodges, Charles B.

2011-01-01

Peer review has been advocated for as an intentional strategy to support the knowledge and skill attainment of adult learners preparing for professional practice, including those students preparing for instructional design and technology practice. The purposes of this article are to discuss the practical application of peer review as an…

Peer Review and the Dilemmas of Quality Control in Programme Accreditation in South African Higher Education: Challenges and Possibilities

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cross, Michael; Naidoo, Devika

2011-01-01

The paper scrutinises the dynamics and the nature of peer review in the programme evaluation and accreditation process within the context of diverse individual and institutional legacies in South Africa. It analyses the peer review process and highlights the contestation at political, policy and epistemological levels. The paper argues that,…

The Multiple Faces of Peer Review in Higher Education. Five Learning Scenarios Developed for Digital Business

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Herzog, Michael A.; Katzlinger, Elisabeth

2017-01-01

Peer review, as an e-assessment tool incorporates the human factor to treat complexity for rating and grading students. It could address the qualitative more than quantitative aspects with flexible human feedback that leads up to metacognitive knowledge aspects, which e-assessment usually is not able to achieve. Peer review is an internationally…

Bristol Bay Assessment – Supplemental Peer Review Reports ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

These reports represent the results of independent peer reviews of several technical reports submitted to the public docket for the May 2012 draft of the Bristol Bay Assessment, An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska. Background In May 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) released the draft assessment entitled An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska, or the Bristol Bay Assessment. The purpose of the assessment is to provide a characterization of the biological and mineral resources of the Bristol Bay watershed, increase understanding of the potential impacts of large-scale mining on the region’s fish resources, and inform future governmental decisions. During the public comment period for the May 2012 draft, numerous technical reports were submitted to the public docket. The USEPA identified several of these reports as providing information about issues raised by the peer reviewers, but the reports did not show evidence of prior peer review. The USEPA made arrangements for a contractor to conduct independent peer reviews of seven such reports. The reports and the results of these supplemental peer reviews are provided here to document that the reports are of

Learning from peer support schemes--can prison listeners support offenders who self-injure in custody?

PubMed

Griffiths, Louise; Bailey, Di

2015-01-01

The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the current evidence for peer support in prisons, in particular its contribution to working with prisoners who self-injure and the extent to which the success of peer support schemes such as the prison listeners, hinges upon staff's willingness to engage with the initiative. The review was constructed by using primary and secondary terms to search the literature. The studies focused on peer support in custody with reference to mental health and self-injury. Searches identified papers on the prison listener scheme and staff perspectives on prison peer support, as these formed a central focus of the review. Studies were excluded from the review if the participants' behaviours was explicitly linked to suicidal intent, as the review focused on self-injury as a coping strategy. A total of 24 studies were selected according to specific inclusion criteria (six were grey literature, 18 academic literature). Of the 24 studies ten studies focused on peer support and self-injury. Of the 24 studies the listener scheme was the focus of 16 studies, of these 16 studies self-injury and the listener scheme was a focus of eight studies. Evidence from the review suggests that prison peer support could be considered on a continuum depending on the different degrees of peer involvement.

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.

IRIS Toxicological Review of cis- & trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (Interagency Science Consultation Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

On September 24, 2009, the Toxicological Review of cis- and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene and the charge to external peer reviewers were released for external peer review and public comment. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal ag...

7 CFR 3400.14 - Proposal review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.14 Proposal review. (a... review will be made for responsiveness to the request for proposals (e.g., relationship of application to... peer review group, and ad hoc reviewers, as required. Written comments will be solicited from ad hoc...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Mirex (2003 External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

EPA is providing for public information a draft Toxicological Review, draft IRIS Summary, and charge to external peer reviewers for EPA's Health Assessment of Mirex. These documents are provided for public viewing during an external scientific peer review period. While EPA is not...

Guidance: The practical management of the gastrointestinal symptoms of pelvic radiation disease

PubMed Central

Andreyev, H Jervoise N; Muls, Ann C; Norton, Christine; Ralph, Charlotte; Watson, Lorraine; Shaw, Clare; Lindsay, James O

2015-01-01

Background A recent randomised trial suggested that an algorithmic approach to investigating and managing gastrointestinal symptoms of pelvic radiation disease (PRD) is beneficial and that specially trained nurses can manage patients as effectively as a gastroenterologist. Aims The aim of the development and peer review of the guide was to make the algorithm used in the trial accessible to all levels of clinician. Methods Experts who manage patients with PRD were asked to review the guide, rating each section for agreement with the recommended measures and suggesting amendments if necessary. Specific comments were discussed and incorporated as appropriate, and this process was repeated for a second round of review. Results 34 gastroenterologists, 10 nurses, 9 dietitians, 7 surgeons and 5 clinical oncologists participated in round one. Consensus (defined prospectively as 60% or more panellists selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’) was reached for 27 of the original 28 sections in the guide, with a median of 75% of panellists agreeing with each section. 86% of panellists agreed that the guide was acceptable for publication or acceptable with minor revisions. 55 of the original 65 panellists participated in round two. 89% agreed it was acceptable for publication after the first revision. Further minor amendments were made in response to round two. Conclusions Development of the guide in response to feedback included ▸ improvement of occasional algorithmic steps ▸ a more user-friendly layout ▸ clearer timeframes for referral to other teams ▸ expansion of reference list ▸ addition of procedures to the appendix. PMID:25580207

A Multiple Use MF/HF Radio Array for Radio Research, Development, and Education

DTIC Science & Technology

2016-04-27

reviewed journals: Number of Papers published in non peer-reviewed journals: Final Report: A Multiple Use MF/HF Radio Array for Radio Research , Development...inspiring high school and university- level student projects. (a) Papers published in peer-reviewed journals (N/A for none) Enter List of papers ...references, in the following categories: (b) Papers published in non-peer-reviewed journals (N/A for none) An MF/HF antenna array for radio and radar imaging

Assessing the Academic, Social, and Language Production Outcomes of English Language Learners Engaged in Peer Tutoring: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bowman-Perrott, Lisa; deMarín, Sharon; Mahadevan, Lakshmi; Etchells, Matthew

2016-01-01

Peer tutoring is an instructional strategy that allows students to help one another learn content material through the repetition of key concepts. In more than 40 years of published studies, literature reviews, and meta-analyses of peer tutoring, this quantitative synthesis of the literature is the first to examine the impact of peer tutoring on…

On the Effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction: A Systematic Review of Supplemental Instruction and Peer-Assisted Study Sessions Literature between 2001 and 2010

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Dawson, Phillip; van der Meer, Jacques; Skalicky, Jane; Cowley, Kym

2014-01-01

Supplemental instruction (SI)--variously known as peer-assisted learning, peer-assisted study sessions, and other names--is a type of academic support intervention popular in higher education. In SI sessions, a senior student facilitates peer learning between undergraduates studying a high-risk course. This article presents a systematic review of…

42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... 67.103 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS, INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of Contracts for Health Services Research, Evaluation, Demonstration, and Dissemination Projects § 67.103 Peer...

An Analysis of Factors Predicting Successful Transition From Pancreatology Abstracts to Full Publications.

PubMed

Grunwald, Douglas; Feuerstein, Joseph D; Maier, Irena Maria; Sheth, Sunil G

2017-01-01

Historically, less than half of peer-reviewed abstracts are published. We set out to determine how many pancreas-related abstracts are published within 5 years of presentation at gastroenterology conferences and to determine a model that predicts successful transition from abstract to journal publication. We collected data on study design from all pancreas-related abstracts at the 2010 Digestive Disease Week (DDW), American College of Gastroenterology, and American Pancreatic Association conferences. We then determined whether an abstract was published by October 2015 using a standardized search algorithm. Of 412 abstracts, 39.8% were published. Studies that were of basic science or translational design (P = 0.02, 0.01, respectively); had more listed authors (P = 0.05); employed randomized, prospective, and multicenter methodology (P = 0.02); and were accepted to DDW (P = 0.02) were more likely to be published. After regression, basic/translational studies (P = 0.002, 0.02, respectively) and DDW-accepted abstracts (P = 0.004) continued to predict successful publication. It is not clear why only 40% of the pancreas abstracts from 2010 were published 5 years later. Some abstracts may go unpublished because of methodological flaws that escape detection during abstract peer review. Therefore, physicians should use caution when applying abstract data to their clinical decision making.

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.

Argument-Driven Inquiry: Using the Laboratory to Improve Undergraduates' Science Writing Skills through Meaningful Science Writing, Peer-Review, and Revision

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Walker, Joi Phelps; Sampson, Victor

2013-01-01

This paper presents preliminary evidence supporting the use of peer review in undergraduate science as a means to improve student writing and to alleviate barriers, such as lost class time, by incorporation of the peer-review process into the laboratory component of the course. The study was conducted in a single section of an undergraduate…

A Case Study of Peer Review Practices of Four Adolescent English Language Learners in Face-to-Face and Online Contexts

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Vorobel, Oksana

2013-01-01

Peer review is a complex collaborative activity, which may engage English language learners in reading, writing, listening, and speaking and carry many potential benefits for their language learning (Hu, 2005). While many research studies focused on peer review practices of adult language learners in academic settings in the USA or abroad in…

Most Courses Are Not Born Digital: An Overview of the Quality Matters Peer Review Process for Online Course Design

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Varonis, Evageline Marlos

2014-01-01

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to discuss benefits of and barriers to online learning and describe utilization of the Quality Matters (QM) peer review process as a method to assure the quality of online courses. It outlines the QM higher education rubric, explains how the collaborative QM peer review process facilitates online course design…

IRIS Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene (External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

The IRIS Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene was released for external peer review in September 2014. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) conducted a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the benzo[a]pyrene assessmen...

7 CFR 3400.14 - Proposal review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.14 Proposal review. (a... review will be made for responsiveness to the request for proposals (e.g., relationship of application to... carefully reviewed by the Director, qualified officers or employees of the Department, the respective peer...

7 CFR 3400.14 - Proposal review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.14 Proposal review. (a... review will be made for responsiveness to the request for proposals (e.g., relationship of application to... carefully reviewed by the Director, qualified officers or employees of the Department, the respective peer...

7 CFR 3400.14 - Proposal review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.14 Proposal review. (a... review will be made for responsiveness to the request for proposals (e.g., relationship of application to... carefully reviewed by the Director, qualified officers or employees of the Department, the respective peer...

2013 Building Technologies Office Program Peer Review Report

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

none,

2013-11-01

The 2013 Building Technologies Office Program Peer Review Report summarizes the results of the 2013 Building Technologies Office (BTO) peer review, which was held in Washington, D.C., on April 2–4, 2013. The review was attended by over 300 participants and included presentations on 59 BTO-funded projects: 29 from BTO’s Emerging Technologies Program, 20 from the Commercial Buildings Integration Program, 6 from the Residential Buildings Integration Program, and 4 from the Building Energy Codes Program. This report summarizes the scores and comments provided by the independent reviewers for each project.

Distributed Peer-to-Peer Target Tracking in Wireless Sensor Networks

PubMed Central

Wang, Xue; Wang, Sheng; Bi, Dao-Wei; Ma, Jun-Jie

2007-01-01

Target tracking is usually a challenging application for wireless sensor networks (WSNs) because it is always computation-intensive and requires real-time processing. This paper proposes a practical target tracking system based on the auto regressive moving average (ARMA) model in a distributed peer-to-peer (P2P) signal processing framework. In the proposed framework, wireless sensor nodes act as peers that perform target detection, feature extraction, classification and tracking, whereas target localization requires the collaboration between wireless sensor nodes for improving the accuracy and robustness. For carrying out target tracking under the constraints imposed by the limited capabilities of the wireless sensor nodes, some practically feasible algorithms, such as the ARMA model and the 2-D integer lifting wavelet transform, are adopted in single wireless sensor nodes due to their outstanding performance and light computational burden. Furthermore, a progressive multi-view localization algorithm is proposed in distributed P2P signal processing framework considering the tradeoff between the accuracy and energy consumption. Finally, a real world target tracking experiment is illustrated. Results from experimental implementations have demonstrated that the proposed target tracking system based on a distributed P2P signal processing framework can make efficient use of scarce energy and communication resources and achieve target tracking successfully.

Old boy network?

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Friebele, Elaine

Ideally, peer review is an objective process. In reality, scientists who are male or have a connection to the reviewer receive higher peer review scores than their counterparts with equal qualifications. These findings were published in the May 22 issue of Nature, by Swedish researchers Christine Wennerås and Agnes Wold, who obtained access to peer-reviewers'scores for postdoctoral fellowship applications to the Swedish Medical Research Council in 1995. Using six independent, objective criteria of “scientific productivity,”Wennerås and Wold, of the University of Goteborg, Sweden, found that women systematically scored significantly lower in the peer review process than men for the same level of scientific productivity. Applicants who were associated with reviewers also scored consistently better than those who were not. Scores were not significantly affected by the education, nationality, field of research, or postdoctoral experience of the applicant.

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

PubMed

Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A; Dobránszki, Judit

2015-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups. 3415.10 Section 3415.10 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (Etbe) ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

The IRIS Toxicological Review of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) was released for external peer review in June 2017. EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) will conduct a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the ETBE assessment and release a final report of their review. Information regarding the peer review can be found on the SAB website. EPA is conducting an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) health assessment for Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE). The outcome of this project is a Toxicological Review and IRIS Summary for ETBE that will be entered into the IRIS database.

The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.

PubMed

Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth; Haynes, Abby; Chapman, Simon; Hall, Wayne D

2011-04-06

Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to correspond with the assessment of peers. This paper evaluates the relationship between researchers' influence as evaluated by their peers and various citation metrics representing different aspects of research output in 6 fields of public health in Australia. For four fields, the results showed a modest positive correlation between different research metrics and peer assessments of research influence. However, for two fields, tobacco and injury, negative or no correlations were found. This suggests a peer understanding of research influence within these fields differed from visibility in the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature. This research therefore recommends the use of both peer review and metrics in a combined approach in assessing research influence. Future research evaluation frameworks intent on incorporating metrics should first analyse each field closely to determine what measures of research influence are valued highly by members of that research community. This will aid the development of comprehensive and relevant frameworks with which to fairly and transparently distribute research funds or approve promotion applications.

Peers and adolescent smoking.

PubMed

Kobus, Kimberly

2003-05-01

There is a considerable body of empirical research that has identified adolescent peer relationships as a primary factor involved in adolescent cigarette smoking. Despite this large research base, many questions remain unanswered about the mechanisms by which peers affect youths' smoking behavior. Understanding these processes of influence is key to the development of prevention and intervention programs designed to address adolescent smoking as a significant public health concern. In this paper, theoretical frameworks and empirical findings are reviewed critically which inform the current state of knowledge regarding peer influences on teenage smoking. Specifically, social learning theory, primary socialization theory, social identity theory and social network theory are discussed. Empirical findings regarding peer influence and selection, as well as multiple reference points in adolescent friendships, including best friendships, romantic relationships, peer groups and social crowds, are also reviewed. Review of this work reveals the contribution that peers have in adolescents' use of tobacco, in some cases promoting use, and in other cases deterring it. This review also suggests that peer influences on smoking are more subtle than commonly thought and need to be examined more carefully, including consideration of larger social contexts, e.g. the family, neighborhood, and media. Recommendations for future investigations are made, as well as suggestions for specific methodological approaches that offer promise for advancing our knowledge of the contribution of peers on adolescent tobacco use.

The Association between Four Citation Metrics and Peer Rankings of Research Influence of Australian Researchers in Six Fields of Public Health

PubMed Central

Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth; Haynes, Abby; Chapman, Simon; Hall, Wayne D.

2011-01-01

Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to correspond with the assessment of peers. This paper evaluates the relationship between researchers' influence as evaluated by their peers and various citation metrics representing different aspects of research output in 6 fields of public health in Australia. For four fields, the results showed a modest positive correlation between different research metrics and peer assessments of research influence. However, for two fields, tobacco and injury, negative or no correlations were found. This suggests a peer understanding of research influence within these fields differed from visibility in the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature. This research therefore recommends the use of both peer review and metrics in a combined approach in assessing research influence. Future research evaluation frameworks intent on incorporating metrics should first analyse each field closely to determine what measures of research influence are valued highly by members of that research community. This will aid the development of comprehensive and relevant frameworks with which to fairly and transparently distribute research funds or approve promotion applications. PMID:21494691

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

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

Milliken, J.

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

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

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

Chalk, S. G.

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

DOE Hydrogen Program: 2007 Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Report

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

Milliken, J.

This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the FY 2007 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 14-18, 2007, in Washington, D.C. The projects evaluated support the Department of Energy and President Bush's Hydrogen Initiative. The results of this merit review and peer evaluation are major inputs used by DOE to make funding decisions. Project areas include hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; technology validation; safety, codes and standards; education; and systems analysis.

BitPredator: A Discovery Algorithm for BitTorrent Initial Seeders and Peers

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

Borges, Raymond; Patton, Robert M; Kettani, Houssain

2011-01-01

There is a large amount of illegal content being replicated through peer-to-peer (P2P) networks where BitTorrent is dominant; therefore, a framework to profile and police it is needed. The goal of this work is to explore the behavior of initial seeds and highly active peers to develop techniques to correctly identify them. We intend to establish a new methodology and software framework for profiling BitTorrent peers. This involves three steps: crawling torrent indexers for keywords in recently added torrents using Really Simple Syndication protocol (RSS), querying torrent trackers for peer list data and verifying Internet Protocol (IP) addresses from peermore » lists. We verify IPs using active monitoring methods. Peer behavior is evaluated and modeled using bitfield message responses. We also design a tool to profile worldwide file distribution by mapping IP-to-geolocation and linking to WHOIS server information in Google Earth.« less

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. One major limitation of peer review has proved to be its inability to deal with conflicts of interest, especially in a 'big science' context when prestigious scientists may have similar biases, and conflicts of interest are widely shared among peer reviewers. When applied medical science has been later checked against the slower but more valid processes of peer usage, it seems that reliance on peer review may allow damaging distortions to become 'locked-in' to clinical practice and health policy for considerable periods. Scientific progress is generally underpinned by increasing specialization. Medical journals should specialize in the communication of scientific information, and they have neither the resources nor the motivation to investigate and measure conflicts of interest. Effectively dealing with the problem of conflicts of interest in applied medical science firstly requires a more explicit demarcation between the communications media of pure medical science and applied medical science. Greater specialization of these activities would then allow distinctive aims and evaluation systems to evolve with the expectation of improved performance in both pure and applied systems. In future, applied medical science should operate with an assumption of bias, with the onus of proof on applied medical scientists to facilitate the 'data transparency' necessary to validate their research. Journals of applied medical science will probably require more rigorous processes of peer review than at present, since their publications are intended to be ready for implementation. But since peer review does not adequately filter-out conflicts of interest in applied medical science, there is a need for the evolution of specialist post-publication institutional mechanisms. The suggested solution is to encourage the establishment of independent 'CoI consultancy' services, whose role would be to evaluate conflicts of interest and other biases in published applied medical science prior to their implementation. Such services would be paid-for by the groups who intend to implement applied medical research.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Tert-Butyl Alcohol (Tert-Butanol) (External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

The IRIS Toxicological Review of tert-Butyl Alcohol (tert-Butanol) was released for external peer review in June 2017. EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) will conduct a peer review of the scientific basis supporting ...

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

EPA Science Inventory

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