EPA's Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity and ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is releasing the draft report, EPA's Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity and Response to NAS Comments (Volume 1), that was distributed to Federal agencies and White House Offices for comment during the Science Discussion step of the IRIS Assessment Development Process. Comments received from other Federal agencies and White House Offices are provided below with external peer review panel comments. The objective of this report is to respond to the NAS coments on dose-response modeling conducted in the EPA Reassessment of the health effects associated with dioxin exposure.

78 FR 43066 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; National Standard 2-Scientific Information

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-07-19

... situations where simpler tools and assessment methods are warranted, scientific advice should be accompanied... higher data category and improve assessment methods.'' One commenter also suggested adding... consistent with appropriate scientific methods, undergo scientific review, and peer review, which may include...

CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT DIOXIN REASSESSMENT, JULY 2000

EPA Science Inventory

This report was prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor, as a general record of discussion for the peer review meeting. This report captures the main points of scheduled presentations and highlights discussions among the reviewers. This report does not c...

Medicare program; description of the Health Care Financing Administration's evaluation methodology for the Peer Review Organization 5th Scope of Work contracts--HCFA. General notice with comment period.

PubMed

1997-07-02

This notice describes how HCFA intends to evaluate the Peer Review Organizations (PROs) for quality improvement activities, under their 5th Scope of Work (SOW) contracts, for efficiency and effectiveness in accordance with the Social Security Act. In accordance with the provisions of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the 5th SOW contracts with the PROs are performance-based contracts.

Analysis of Atmospheric Aerosol Data Sets and Application of Radiative Transfer Models to Compute Aerosol Effects

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Schmid, Beat; Bergstrom, Robert W.; Redemann, Jens

2002-01-01

This report is the final report for "Analysis of Atmospheric Aerosol Data Sets and Application of Radiative Transfer Models to Compute Aerosol Effects". It is a bibliographic compilation of 29 peer-reviewed publications (published, in press or submitted) produced under this Cooperative Agreement and 30 first-authored conference presentations. The tasks outlined in the various proposals are listed below with a brief comment as to the research performed. Copies of title/abstract pages of peer-reviewed publications are attached.

Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (First External Review Draft, 2013)

EPA Science Inventory

EPA is announcing the availability of the First External Review Draft of the Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria for public comment and independent peer review. This draft document provides EPA’s evaluation and synthesis of the most polic...

Response to Bittencourt et al (On xylem hydraulic efficiencies, wood space-use and the safety-efficiency tradeoff)

USDA-ARS?s Scientific Manuscript database

This letter is a peer-reviewed response to an article that was submitted to New Phytologist (Bettencourt et al), commenting on paper that we published earlier this year in the same journal. The comments were are largely positive, and thus, the purpose of our response here is to point out particular...

Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

In December 2016, EPA finalized its Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide. EPA’s evaluation was reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White House Offices in October 2016, before public release. Consistent with the May 2009 IRIS assessment development process, all written comments on IRIS assessments submitted by other federal agencies and White House Offices are made publicly available. Accordingly, interagency comments and the interagency science discussion materials provided to other agencies, including interagency review drafts of the EPA’s Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide, are posted on this site. Note: No major science comments were received on the Interagency Science Discussion Draft. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White House Offices before public release. Consistent with the May 2009 IRIS assessment development process, all written comments on IRIS assessments submitted by other federal agencies and White House Offices are made publicly available. Accordingly, interagency comments and the interagency science consultation materials provided to other agencies, including interagency review drafts of the IRIS Toxicological Review of Ammonia and the charge to external peer reviewers, are posted on this site.

77 FR 28395 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Worker Training

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-05-14

... the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Proposed Collection: Title... delivering high-quality, peer-reviewed safety and health curricula to target populations of hazardous waste... information in hard copy as well as enter information into the WETP Grantee Data Management System. The...

Metabolically-Derived Human Ventilation Rates: A Revised Approach Based Upon Oxygen Consumption Rates (External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

EPA has released a draft report entitled, Metabolically-Derived Human Ventilation Rates: A Revised Approach Based Upon Oxygen Consumption Rates, for independent external peer review and public comment. NCEA published the Exposure Factors Handbook in 1997. This comprehens...

Preface for "Agricultural and environmental applications of biochar: Advances and barriers"

USDA-ARS?s Scientific Manuscript database

This book involved tremendous efforts from a team of authors, reviewers, and editors. We would like to express our sincere thanks to all the authors for composing the enlightening chapters. All the chapters were peer-reviewed twice or more by anonymous professionals. The constructive comments from t...

Development of a Relative Potency Factor (Rpf) Approach for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Mixtures (External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

EPA is conducting a peer review and public comment of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures that when finalized will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. ...

Unearthing a Genre

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Fink, Leon

2007-01-01

Much of academic publishing depends on peer review, a literary form that never sees the light of day and only rarely reveals its author's name to the intended reader. While a negative judgment can be upsetting, the serious review, no matter what the ultimate verdict on publication, normally contains probing comments and suggestions that will keep…

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

none,

This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2013 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 13-17, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; market transformation; and systems analysis.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Dichloromethane (Methylene ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is conducting a peer review and public comment of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of Dichloromethane that when finalized will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. The draft Toxicological Review of Dichloromethane provides scientific support and rationale for the hazard and dose-response assessment pertaining to chronic exposure to dichloromethane.

75 FR 23664 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-05-04

... Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997. This law established a new Veterinary... questions that will need to be answered before the nomination can be submitted to the peer panelists for...

Erratum to: Minimization of extracellular space as a driving force in prokaryote association and the origin of eukaryotes.

PubMed

Hooper, Scott L; Burstein, Helaine J

2015-03-28

Following the publication of this article [1] it was noticed that, due to an error on the part of the publisher, the 2nd round of comments submitted by Reviewer 1, Dr. López-García, were unintentionally omitted during the peer review process. As a consequence of this error, the authors were unable to reply to Dr. López-García's comments and subsequently revise their manuscript accordingly (where appropriate).In fairness to both the authors and reviewer, Dr. López-García's (Reviewer 1) 2nd round of comments are now included below and Scott L Hooper and Helaine J Burstein (author) were given the opportunity to reply. Any consequent amendments to the research article [1] are outlined in the author's replies.

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

Ethics of reviewing scientific publications.

PubMed

Napolitani, Federica; Petrini, Carlo; Garattini, Silvio

2017-05-01

The approval or rejection of scientific publications can have important consequences for scientific knowledge, so considerable responsibility lies on those who have to assess or review them. Today it seems that the peer review process, far from being considered an outdated system to be abandoned, is experiencing a new upturn. This article proposes criteria for the conduct of reviewers and of those who select them. While commenting on new emerging models, it provides practical recommendations for improving the peer-review system, like strengthening the role of guidelines and training and supporting reviewers. The process of peer review is changing, it is getting more open and collaborative, but those same ethical principles which guided it from its very origin should remain untouched and be firmly consolidated. The paper highlights how the ethics of reviewing scientific publications is needed now more than ever, in particular with regard to competence, conflict of interest, willingness to discuss decisions, complete transparency and integrity. Copyright © 2016 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

The rites of writing papers: steps to successful publishing for psychiatrists.

PubMed

Brakoulias, Vlasios; Macfarlane, Matthew D; Looi, Jeffrey C

2015-02-01

To encourage psychiatrists to publish high-quality articles in peer-reviewed journals by demystifying the publishing process. This paper will describe the publishing process and outline key factors that ensure that publishing is an achievable goal for psychiatrists. The publishing process can be long and often this is related to delays associated with obtaining reviewers and their comments. Negative reviewer comments often relate to grammatical and typographical errors, an insufficient literature review, failure to adequately discuss limitations and conclusions that are not adequately supported by the results. Authors who systematically respond to their paper's reviewer comments are usually successful in having their papers accepted. Success in publishing is usually determined by a topic that appeals to the readership of a journal, a credible methodology and a paper that is well-written. Publishing is achievable for all psychiatrists providing they can write a paper that delivers a clear and concise message, are willing to address reviewer comments and that their paper is tailored to the readership of the journal. © The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 2014.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Urea (External Review Draft) ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA conducted a peer review and public comment of the scientific basis of a draft report supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of Urea that when finalized will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. The draft Toxicological Review of Urea provides scientific support and rationale for the hazard and dose-response assessment pertaining to chronic exposure to Urea.

77 FR 43367 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; YouthBuild...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-07-24

... school diploma or general educational development certificate, and teaching them construction skills... chance'' programs for youth who have dropped out of high school. Compared to peers who remain in school...

Evaluation of the Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide (2006 ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA conducted a peer review and public comment of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of ethylene oxide (cancer) that when finalized will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. EPA is announcing a 30-day public comment period for this document. The release of this draft document is solely for the purpose of seeking public comment and for review by the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) via a meeting to be held later in 2006. The time and place of the SAB meeting will be announced in a separate Federal Register notice. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA and does not represent, and should not be construed to represent, any Agency policy or determination. EPA will consider any public comments submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in the Notice of Public Comment Period when revising this draft document.

IRIS Toxicological Review of 2-Hexanone (Interagency ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

On September 25, 2009, the IRIS Summary and Toxicological Review of 2-hexanone was finalized and loaded onto the IRIS database. The Toxicological Review of 2-hexanone was reviewed internally by EPA, by other federal agencies and White House Offices, by expert external peer reviewers, and by the public. 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 draft of the 2-hexanone IRIS assessment are posted on this site. The draft Toxicological Review of 2-hexanone provides scientific support and rationale for the hazard identification and dose-response assessment pertaining to chronic exposure to 2-hexanone.

IRIS Toxicological Review of 1,2,3-trichloropropane ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

On September 30, 2009, the IRIS Summary and Toxicological Review of 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) was finalized and loaded onto the IRIS database. The Toxicological Review of TCP was reviewed internally by EPA, by other federal agencies and White House Offices, by expert external peer reviewers, and by the public. 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 draft of the TCP IRIS assessment are posted on this site. This Tox Review provides scientific support and rationale for the hazard and dose-response assessment pertaining to chronic exposure to 1,2,3-trichloropropane.

76 FR 36534 - Toxicological Review of Methanol (Non-Cancer): In Support of Summary Information on the...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-06-22

...) within the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD). EPA is releasing the draft addendum solely for... Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review, will convene an... draft assessment title. Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov , by e...

An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska (Second External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

[UPDATE] In March 2014, EPA released a response to public comments on the second draft document, "An Assessment of the Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska" (see downloads). In Jan 2014, EPA released a response to peer review comme...

Blog-Based Peer Response for L2 Writing Revision

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Pham, Vu Phi Ho; Usaha, Siriluck

2016-01-01

Few studies have been conducted to see how blog-based peer response helps students to improve their writing revisions. The present study investigates peer comments made through blogs, the nature of the comments and their areas of focus, and the ratios of students incorporating suggestions made through blog-based comments into revisions of their…

Response to External Peer Review comments regarding the C ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

This report documents the external peer review of the C-PORT Tool. C-PORT is intended to provide users with the capability to estimate changes in the concentration of air pollutants in the community resulting from changes in emissions from traffic and port activities. C-PORT is an EPA web-based, easy-to-use modeling system, that allows users to visualize and evaluate different planning scenarios under consideration, helping them identify the best alternatives for making long-term decisions that protect community health and sustainability. In addition, C-PORT is designed to identify local hotspots, focus on specific populations and locations, and inform citizen science and data collection activities. The model is not intended to support or replace any regulatory models or programs. Peer Review report to be posted on Community Modeling and Analysis System (CMAS) along with C-PORT model

IRIS Toxicological Review of Tetrahydrofuran (THF) ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is releasing the draft report, Toxicological Review of Tetrahydrofuran, that was distributed to Federal agencies and White House Offices for comment during the Science Discussion step of the IRIS Assessment Development Process. Comments received from other Federal agencies and White House Offices are provided below with external peer review panel comments. EPA is undertaking an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) health assessment for tetrahydrofuran. IRIS is an EPA database containing Agency scientific positions on potential adverse human health effects that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure to chemicals in the environment. IRIS contains chemical-specific summaries of qualitative and quantitative health information in support of two steps of the risk assessment paradigm, i.e., hazard identification and dose-response evaluation. IRIS assessments are used in combination with specific situational exposure assessment information to evaluate potential public health risk associated with environmental contaminants.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Trichloroacetic Acid (TCA) ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is conducting a peer review and public comment of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of Trichloroacetic acid (TCA) that when finalized will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. The draft Toxicological Review of trichloroacetic acid provides scientific support and rationale for the hazard and dose-response assessment pertaining to chronic exposure to trichloroacetic acid.

Fraud and Australian Academics.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Martin, Brian

1989-01-01

A series of highly publicized cases of alleged fraud in the Australian academic community are described. Each case reveals an apparent failure of peer review. The right to pursue investigations and make comments that may offend powerful figures within the scholarly community is precarious. (MLW)

75 FR 44809 - Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-07-29

... Management and Budget published the Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review on December 15, 2004... submission of the following public information collection requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and... estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do...

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.

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

76 FR 13340 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-WIC Breastfeeding...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-03-11

... Loving Support peer counseling services; a treatment group of 900 will be offered Loving Support peer...: Proposed Collection; Comment Request--WIC Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Study AGENCY: Food and Nutrition... for the second phase of the WIC Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Study. The first phase of this study...

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

In September 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) released the draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE). Consistent with the 2013 IRIS Enhancements, draft IRIS assessments are released prior to external peer review for a 60-day public comment period and discussed at an upcoming public science meeting. Accordingly, the toxicological review, supplementary information, and other materials pertaining to this draft assessment are posted on this site. This material is being released for public viewing and comment prior to a public meeting, providing an opportunity for the IRIS Program to engage in early discussions with stakeholders and the public on data that may be used to identify adverse health effects and characterize exposure-response relationships.

Improving Scientific Writing in Undergraduate Geosciences Degrees Through Peer Review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2016-12-01

In the British educational system, students specialise early. Often geoscience undergraduates have not taken a class that requires extended writing since they were sixteen years old. This can make it difficult for students to develop the written skills necessary for a geoscience degree, which often has assessments in the form of essays and reports. To improve both the writing and editing skills of our undergraduates we have introduced a peer review system, in which seniors review the work of first year students. At Imperial College London we set written coursework in every year of the degree. Communication is taught and assessed in many courses. There are two major modules with substantial written components that bookend the undergraduate degree at Imperial; the freshmen all write an assessed essay, while all seniors take 'Science Communication', a course that aims to prepare them for a range of possible careers. In the 2015-16 academic year we linked these courses by introducing a modified form of peer marking and instruction. Seniors had to complete reviews of draft first year essays for credit in Science Communication. These reviews are completed for the department 'journal' and introduce the first and fourth years to the nature of peer review. Seniors learn how to critically, but kindly, evaluate the work of other students, and are also prepared for potentially submitting their senior theses to journals. Reviews were managed by volunteer seniors, who acted as associate editors. They allocated anonymous reviewers and wrote decision letters, which were sent to the freshmen before their final assessed essay submission. Ultimately the fourth year reviews were formally assessed and graded by members of staff, as were the revised and resubmitted first year essays. Feedback for both courses has improved since the introduction of student reviews of essays. The markers of the freshman essay have also commented on the improvement in the standard of the writing and a decrease in errors. We are continuing to include this exercise in 2016-17, utilising technology to make the logistics easier for both the students and the course leaders. Here, we present our experiences with including peer review in the Imperial College degree. We also comment on how it can be incorporated into undergraduate and graduate programs at other institutions.

Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching.

PubMed

Gusic, Maryellen; Hageman, Heather; Zenni, Elisa

2013-10-01

The system used by academic health centres to evaluate teaching must be valued by the large number of faculty staff that teach in clinical settings. Peer review can be used to evaluate and enhance clinical teaching. The objective of this study was to determine the perceptions of clinical faculty about the effects of participating in peer review. Faculty members were observed teaching in a clinical setting by trained peer observers. Feedback was provided using a checklist of behaviours and descriptive comments. Afterwards, semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess the faculty member's perception about the process. Notes from the interviews were analysed using a grounded theory approach. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of all the institutions involved. Three themes emerged from the interviews with faculty members: (1) they found the process to be valuable - they received information that affirmed "good" teaching behaviours, and were prompted to be more focused on their teaching; (2) they were motivated to enhance their teaching by being more deliberate, interactive and learner-centred; and (3) they were inspired to explore other opportunities to improve their teaching skills. Peer review is a process that promotes the open discussion and exchange of ideas. This conversation advances clinical teaching skills and allows high-quality teaching behaviours to be strengthened. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Communicating the rigor behind science results

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Jackson, R.; Callery, S.

2015-12-01

Communicating the rigor behind science resultsNASA's Global Climate Change website and companion Facebook page have an exceptionally large reach. Moderating the vast quantity of questions, feedback and comments from these public platforms has provided a unique perspective on the way the public views science, the scientific method and how science is funded. Email feedback and social media interactions reveal widespread misperceptions about how science is carried out: There is considerable criticism and suspicion surrounding methods of funding, and the difficulty of obtaining grants is underestimated. There appears to be limited public awareness of the peer review process. This talk will highlight the need for better communication not only of science results, but the process of science--from proposal writing and getting funded to peer-review and fundamental science terminology. As a community of science communicators, we also need to highlight the inaccuracies sometimes introduced by media reports of peer-reviewed science papers.

Process modeling and bottleneck mining in online peer-review systems.

PubMed

Premchaiswadi, Wichian; Porouhan, Parham

2015-01-01

This paper is divided into three main parts. In the first part of the study, we captured, collected and formatted an event log describing the handling of reviews for proceedings of an international conference in Thailand. In the second part, we used several process mining techniques in order to discover process models, social, organizational, and hierarchical structures from the proceeding's event log. In the third part, we detected the deviations and bottlenecks of the peer review process by comparing the observed events (i.e., authentic dataset) with a pre-defined model (i.e., master map). Finally, we investigated the performance information as well as the total waiting time in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the online submission and peer review system for the prospective conferences and seminars. Consequently, the main goals of the study were as follows: (1) to convert the collected event log into the appropriate format supported by process mining analysis tools, (2) to discover process models and to construct social networks based on the collected event log, and (3) to find deviations, discrepancies and bottlenecks between the collected event log and the master pre-defined model. The results showed that although each paper was initially sent to three different reviewers; it was not always possible to make a decision after the first round of reviewing; therefore, additional reviewers were invited. In total, all the accepted and rejected manuscripts were reviewed by an average of 3.9 and 3.2 expert reviewers, respectively. Moreover, obvious violations of the rules and regulations relating to careless or inappropriate peer review of a manuscript-committed by the editorial board and other staff-were identified. Nine blocks of activity in the authentic dataset were not completely compatible with the activities defined in the master model. Also, five of the activity traces were not correctly enabled, and seven activities were missed within the online submission system. On the other hand, dealing with the feedback (comments) received from the first and the third reviewers; the conference committee members and the organizers did not attend to those feedback/comments in a timely manner.

Observer Comments Provided at the Peer Consultation Workshop (Appendix E)

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

The peer consultation workshop included three observer comment periods, one on the first day of the workshop and two on the second day of the workshop. This appendix includes verbatim transcripts (to the extent that specific remarks were audible from recordings) of the observer comments, in the order the comments were given.

Occupational exposure to ethylene oxide--OSHA. Final rule: supplemental statement of reasons.

PubMed

1985-01-02

On June 22, 1984, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a final standard for ethylene oxide (EtO) that established a permissible exposure limit of 1 part EtO per million parts of air determined as an 8-hour time--weighted average (TWA) concentration (29 CFR 1910.1047, 49 FR 25734). The standard also includes provisions for methods of exposure control, personal protective equipment, measurement of employee exposure, training, signs, and labels, medical surveillance, regulated areas, emergencies and recordkeeping. The basis for this action was a determination by OSHA, based on human and animal data, that exposure to EtO presents a carcinogenic, mutagenic, genotoxic, reproductive, neurologic, and sensitization hazard to workers. During the rulemaking proceedings that led to the establishment of the 1 ppm TWA, the issue of whether there was a need for a short-term exposure limit (STEL) for workers protection from EtO was raised. OSHA reserved decision on the adoption of a STEL at the conclusion of the rulemaking in order to permit peer review of the available evidence and to review more fully the arguments and pertinent data regarding the STEL issue. Upon receipt of the analyses from most of the peer reviewers, OSHA published a notice to that effect on September 19, 1984 (49 FR 36659) and invited public comment on the pertinent issues addressed in the peer reviews. Based on the entire rulemaking record, including the peer reviews and public comments received since June 22, the Assistant Secretary has determined that adoption of a STEL for EtO is not warranted by the available health evidence, and that a STEL is not reasonably necessary or appropriate for inclusion in the final EtO standard. OSHA has also asked that NIOSH fund certain additional studies related to whether a dose-rate relationship can be established for EtO, and OSHA will review the results of those studies when they become available.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Cerium Oxide and Cerium ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

On September 29, 2009, the IRIS Summary and Toxicological Review of Cerium Oxide and Cerium Compounds was finalized and loaded onto the IRIS database. The Toxicological Review of Cerium Oxide and Cerium Compounds was reviewed internally by EPA, by other federal agencies and White House Offices, by expert external peer reviewers, and by the public. 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 draft of the Cerium Oxide and Cerium Compounds IRIS assessment are posted on this site. The draft Toxicological Review of Cerium Oxide and Cerium Compounds provides scientific support and rationale for the hazard identification and dose-response assessment pertaining to chronic exposure to cerium oxide and cerium compounds.

Pedagogical Merit Review of Animal Use for Education in Canada

PubMed Central

Griffin, Gilly

2016-01-01

There are two components to the review of animal based protocols in Canada: review for the merit of the study itself, and review of the ethical acceptability of the work. Despite the perceived importance for the quality assurance these reviews provide; there are few studies of the peer-based merit review system for animal-based protocols for research and education. Institutional animal care committees (ACC)s generally rely on the external peer review of scientific merit for animal-based research. In contrast, peer review for animal based teaching/training is dependent on the review of pedagogical merit carried out by the ACC itself or another committee within the institution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the views of ACC members about current practices and policies as well as alternate policies for the review of animal based teaching/training. We conducted a national web-based survey of ACC members with both quantitative and qualitative response options. Responses from 167 ACC members indicated broad concerns about administrative burden despite strong support for both the current and alternate policies. Participants’ comments focused mostly on the merit review process (54%) relative to the efficiency (21%), impact (13%), and other (12%) aspects of evaluation. Approximately half (49%) of the comments were classified into emergent themes that focused on some type of burden: burden from additional pedagogical merit review (16%), a limited need for the review (12%), and a lack of resources (expertise 11%; people/money 10%). Participants indicated that the current system for pedagogical merit review is effective (60%); but most also indicated that there was at least some challenge (86%) with the current peer review process. There was broad support for additional guidance on the justification, criteria, types of animal use, and objectives of pedagogical merit review. Participants also supported the ethical review and application of the Three Rs in the review process. A clear priority from participants in the survey was updating guidance to better facilitate the merit review process of animal-based protocols for education. Balancing the need for improved guidance with the reality of limited resources at local institutions will be essential to do this successfully; a familiar dilemma to both scientists and policy makers alike. PMID:27352243

Pedagogical Merit Review of Animal Use for Education in Canada.

PubMed

Avey, Marc T; Griffin, Gilly

2016-01-01

There are two components to the review of animal based protocols in Canada: review for the merit of the study itself, and review of the ethical acceptability of the work. Despite the perceived importance for the quality assurance these reviews provide; there are few studies of the peer-based merit review system for animal-based protocols for research and education. Institutional animal care committees (ACC)s generally rely on the external peer review of scientific merit for animal-based research. In contrast, peer review for animal based teaching/training is dependent on the review of pedagogical merit carried out by the ACC itself or another committee within the institution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the views of ACC members about current practices and policies as well as alternate policies for the review of animal based teaching/training. We conducted a national web-based survey of ACC members with both quantitative and qualitative response options. Responses from 167 ACC members indicated broad concerns about administrative burden despite strong support for both the current and alternate policies. Participants' comments focused mostly on the merit review process (54%) relative to the efficiency (21%), impact (13%), and other (12%) aspects of evaluation. Approximately half (49%) of the comments were classified into emergent themes that focused on some type of burden: burden from additional pedagogical merit review (16%), a limited need for the review (12%), and a lack of resources (expertise 11%; people/money 10%). Participants indicated that the current system for pedagogical merit review is effective (60%); but most also indicated that there was at least some challenge (86%) with the current peer review process. There was broad support for additional guidance on the justification, criteria, types of animal use, and objectives of pedagogical merit review. Participants also supported the ethical review and application of the Three Rs in the review process. A clear priority from participants in the survey was updating guidance to better facilitate the merit review process of animal-based protocols for education. Balancing the need for improved guidance with the reality of limited resources at local institutions will be essential to do this successfully; a familiar dilemma to both scientists and policy makers alike.

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

On April 29, 2016, the Toxicological Review of tert-Butyl Alcohol (tert-Butanol) (Public Comment Draft) was released for public comment. The draft Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and the Executive Office of the President during Step 3 (Interagency Science Consultation) before public release. As part of the IRIS process, all written interagency comments on IRIS assessments will be made publicly available. Accordingly, interagency comments with EPA's response and the interagency science consultation drafts of the IRIS Toxicological Review of tert-Butanol and charge to external peer reviewers are posted on this site. EPA is undertaking a new health assessment for t-butyl alcohol (tert-butanol) for the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The outcome of this project will be a Toxicological Review and IRIS and IRIS Summary of TBA that will be entered on the IRIS database. IRIS is an EPA database containing Agency scientific positions on potential adverse human health effects that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure to chemicals in the environment. IRIS contains chemical-specific summaries of qualitative and quantitative health information to evaluate potential public health risks associated with environmental contaminants. The IRIS database is relied on for the development of risk assessments, site-specific environmental decisions, and rule making.

75 FR 77847 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-12-14

... Corporation's web- based grants management system, eGrants. Current Action The Corporation seeks to renew the... Summary to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the peer review process. The information collection...: Corporation for National and Community Service, Senior Corps, Attention: Mr. Zach Rhein, Program Officer, Room...

Discussion Paper for CASAC Diesel Health Assessment Issues

EPA Science Inventory

In October 1998, the U.S. EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) provided peer review comments on a draft Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions (EPA/600/8-90/057C, February 1998). The U.S. EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment requested a con...

77 FR 48995 - Draft National Toxicology Program (NTP) Monograph on Developmental Effects and Pregnancy Outcomes...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-08-15

... Program (NTP) Monograph on Developmental Effects and Pregnancy Outcomes Associated With Cancer Chemotherapy Use During Pregnancy; Request for Comments; Peer Review Panel Meeting AGENCY: Division of the... Monograph on Developmental Effects and Pregnancy Outcomes Associated with Cancer Chemotherapy Use during...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Beryllium and Compounds (2008 ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is conducting a peer review and public comment of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of Beryllium that when finalized will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. An IRIS Toxicological Review of Beryllium and Compounds was published in 1988 and reassessed in 1998. The current draft (2007) only focuses on the cancer assessment and does not re-evaluate posted reference doses or reference concentrations.

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2001-05-01

The Journal of Earth System Science Education is a new interdisciplinary electronic journal aiming to foster the study of the Earth as a system and promote the development and exchange of interdisciplinary learning resources for formal and informal education. JESSE will serve educators and students by publishing and providing ready electronic access to Earth system and global change science learning resources for the classroom and will provide authors and creators with professional recognition through publication in a peer reviewed journal. JESSE resources foster a world perspective by emphasizing interdisciplinary studies and bridging disciplines in the context of the Earth system. The Journal will publish a wide ranging variety of electronic content, with minimal constraints on format, targeting undergraduate educators and students as the principal readership, expanding to a middle and high school audience as the journal matures. JESSE aims for rapid review and turn-around of resources to be published, with a goal of 12 weeks from submission to publication for resources requiring few changes. Initial publication will be on a quarterly basis until a flow of resource submissions is established to warrant continuous electronic publication. JESSE employs an open peer review process in which authors and reviewers discuss directly the acceptability of a resource for publication using a software tool called the Digital Document Discourse Environment. Reviewer comments and attribution will be available with the resource upon acceptance for publication. JESSE will also implement a moderated peer commentary capability where readers can comment on the use of a resource or make suggestions. In the development phase, JESSE will also conduct a parallel anonymous review of content to validate and ensure credibility of the open review approach. Copyright of materials submitted remains with the author, granting JESSE the non-exclusive right to maintain a copy of the resource published on the JESSE web server, ensuring long term access to the resource as reviewed. JESSE is collaborating with the Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE) as a federated partner. Initial release is planned for Summer, 2001.

"Defining "peerness" in peer-delivered health and wellness interventions for serious mental illness": Response to letter to the editor.

PubMed

Silver, Jody; Nemec, Patricia B

2017-03-01

Replies to comments by Muralidharan et al (see record 2017-13255-009) on the original article by Silver and Nemec (see record 2016-43088-001). The original authors thank the commentators for raising additional questions regarding "peerness." They were honored that their paper prompted this thought and effort to submit comments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Watershed Modeling to Assess the Sensitivity of Streamflow, Nutrient, and Sediment Loads to Potential Climate Change and Urban Development in 20 U.S. Watersheds (External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

EPA has released for independent external peer review and public comment a draft report titled, Watershed Modeling to Assess the Sensitivity of Streamflow, Nutrient, and Sediment Loads to Potential Climate Change and Urban Development in 20 U.S. Watersheds. This is a draft...

IRIS Toxicological Review of 1,4-Dioxane (with Inhalation ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is conducting a peer review and public comment of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of 1,4-Dioxane (with inhalation update) that when finalized will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. 1,4-Dioxane is commonly used as a solvent, cleaning agent, chemical stabilizer, surface coating, adhesive agent, and an ingredient in chemical manufacture.

The effects of peer influence on adolescent pedestrian road-crossing decisions.

PubMed

Pfeffer, K; Hunter, E

2013-01-01

Adolescence is a high-risk period for pedestrian injury. It is also a time of heightened susceptibility to peer influence. The aim of this research was to examine the effects of peer influence on the pedestrian road-crossing decisions of adolescents. Using 10 videos of road-crossing sites, 80 16- to 18-year-olds were asked to make pedestrian road-crossing decisions. Participants were assigned to one of 4 experimental conditions: negative peer (influencing unsafe decisions), positive peer (influencing cautious decisions), silent peer (who observed but did not comment), and no peer (the participant completed the task alone). Peers from the adolescent's own friendship group were recruited to influence either an unsafe or a cautious decision. Statistically significant differences were found between peer conditions. Participants least often identified safe road-crossing sites when accompanied by a negative peer and more frequently identified dangerous road-crossing sites when accompanied by a positive peer. Both cautious and unsafe comments from a peer influenced adolescent pedestrians' decisions. These findings showed that road-crossing decisions of adolescents were influenced by both unsafe and cautious comments from their peers. The discussion highlighted the role that peers can play in both increasing and reducing adolescent risk-taking.

78 FR 67141 - Antimony Trioxide (ATO) TSCA Chemical Risk Assessment; Notice of Public Meetings and Opportunity...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-11-08

... Chemical Risk Assessment; Notice of Public Meetings and Opportunity To Comment AGENCY: Environmental... Barone, Jr., Risk Assessment Division (7403M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental.... List of Subjects Environmental protection, ATO, Chemicals, Flame retardant synergist. Peer review, Risk...

The Use of MERLOT in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cooper, Scott

2005-01-01

The referatory, Multimedia Educational Resources for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT), contains links to 1300 electronic teaching resources in biology and chemistry. Approximately 20% have been peer reviewed, and most have user comments or assignments attached. In addition to being a source of educational resources, the MERLOT project seeks…

ABSORBANCE, ABSORPTION COEFFICIENT, AND APPARENT QUANTUM YIELD: A COMMENT ON AMBIGUITY IN THE USE OF THESE OPTICAL CONCEPTS

EPA Science Inventory

Several important optical terms such as "absorbance" and "absorption coefficient" are frequently used ambiguously in the current peer-reviewed literature. Since they are important terms that are required to derive other quantities such as the "apparent quantum yield" of photoprod...

Investigating the Impact of Peer Feedback in Foreign Language Writing

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Levi Altstaedter, Laura

2018-01-01

The present quasi-experimental study aimed at investigating the impact of trained and untrained peer feedback on students' written comment types and writing quality. Significant differences were found in terms of comment types provided: trained students provided a significantly higher number of comments focused on organization and content (global…

Peer video review and feedback improve performance in basic surgical skills.

PubMed

Vaughn, Carolyn J; Kim, Edward; O'Sullivan, Patricia; Huang, Emily; Lin, Matthew Y C; Wyles, Susannah; Palmer, Barnard J A; Pierce, Jonathan L; Chern, Hueylan

2016-02-01

Incorporation of home-video assessments allows flexibility in feedback but requires faculty time. Peer feedback (PF) may provide additional benefits while avoiding these constraints. Twenty-four surgical interns completed a 12-week skills curriculum with home-video assignments focused on knot tying and suturing. Interns were randomized into 2 groups: PF or faculty feedback (FF). Peers and faculty provided feedback on home videos with checklists, global rating, and comments. Learners' skills were assessed at baseline, during, and at the conclusion of the curriculum. Performance of the 2 groups as rated by experts was compared. FF and PF were compared. Both groups improved from baseline, and the highest rated scores were seen on their home-video assessments. The PF group performed better at the final assessment than the FF group (effect size, .84). When using a checklist, there was no significant difference between scores given by peers and faculty. The PF group performed better at the final assessment, suggesting reviewing and analyzing another's performance may improve one's own performance. With checklists as guidance, peers can serve as raters comparable to faculty. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA has finalized its Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide. This assessment addresses the potential carcinogenicity from long-term inhalation exposure to ethylene oxide. Now final, this assessment updates the carcinogenicity information in EPA’s 1985 Health Assessment Document. EPA’s program and regional offices may use this assessment to inform decisions to protect human health. The Toxicological Review and charge were reviewed internally by EPA and by other federal agencies and White House Offices before public release. Consistent with the May 2009 IRIS assessment development process, all written comments on IRIS assessments submitted by other federal agencies and White House Offices are made publicly available. Accordingly, interagency comments and the interagency science consultation materials provided to other agencies, including interagency review drafts of the IRIS Toxicological Review of Ammonia and the charge to external peer reviewers, are posted on this site.

"Defining 'peerness' in peer-delivered health and wellness interventions for serious mental illness": Correction to Muralidharan et al. (2017).

PubMed

2017-06-01

Reports an error in "Defining "peerness" in peer-delivered health and wellness interventions for serious mental illness": Response to letter to the editor" by Jody Silver and Patricia B. Nemec ( Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal , 2017[Mar], Vol 40[1], 116). The article was mislabeled as Editorial and should be a Comment. The Response to Letter to the Editor section should be a Reply and now has its own http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ h0101580. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2017-13876-001.) Replies to comments by Muralidharan et al (see record 2017-13255-009) on the original article by Silver and Nemec (see record 2016-43088-001). The original authors thank the commentators for raising additional questions regarding "peerness." They were honored that their paper prompted this thought and effort to submit comments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

76 FR 67439 - External Peer Review Meeting for Draft Microbial Risk Assessment Guideline: Pathogenic...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-11-01

... Draft Microbial Risk Assessment Guideline: Pathogenic Microorganisms With Focus on Food and Water AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agency is announcing that Eastern Research... Water. EPA previously announced the release of the draft guidance for a 60 day comment period (76 FR...

76 FR 50051 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-08-11

... final rule. In some cases, it has been indicated in the citations by ``personal communication'' (pers. comm.), which could indicate either an e-mail or telephone conversation; while in other cases, the... of different plants throughout the season. (2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that grouse...

78 FR 38331 - Media Bureau Invites Comments on Study Submitted by the Minority Media and Telecommunications...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-06-26

... questions than responses from the other group of stations.\\5\\ \\5\\ In the survey research literature this... appreciative of the survey design and evaluation guidance received from MMTC's volunteer peer reviewers--Dr... McGannon Communication Research Center; and Allen Hammond, Esq., Associate Dean for Faculty Development...

IRIS Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene (TCE) ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is conducting a peer review and public comment of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of Trichloroethylene (TCE) that when finalized will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. The purpose of this Toxicological Review is to provide scientific support and rationale for the hazard and dose-response assessment in IRIS pertaining to chronic exposure to trichloroethylene. It is not intended to be a comprehensive treatise on the chemical or toxicological nature of trichloroethylene.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene (Public ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is developing an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of benzo[a]pyrene and has released the draft assessment for public comment and external peer review. When final, the assessment will appear on the IRIS database. EPA is undertaking an update of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) health assessment for benzo[a]pyrene (BaP). The outcome of this project is an updated Toxicological Review and IRIS Summary for BaP that will be entered into the IRIS database.

Developing young adults' representational competence through infographic-based science news reporting

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Gebre, Engida H.; Polman, Joseph L.

2016-12-01

This study presents descriptive analysis of young adults' use of multiple representations in the context of science news reporting. Across one semester, 71 high school students, in a socioeconomically diverse suburban secondary school in Midwestern United States, participated in activities of researching science topics of their choice and producing infographic-based science news for possible online publication. An external editor reviewed their draft infographics and provided comments for subsequent revision. Students also provided peer feedback to the draft version of infographics using an online commentary tool. We analysed the nature of representations students used as well as the comments from peer and the editor feedback. Results showed both students' capabilities and challenges in learning with representations in this context. Students frequently rely on using certain kinds of representations that are depictive in nature, and supporting their progress towards using more abstract representations requires special attention and identifying learning gaps. Results also showed that students were able to determine representational adequacy in the context of providing peer feedback. The study has implication for research and instruction using infographics as expressive tools to support learning.

Lessons Learned from the Frenchman Flat Flow and Transport Modeling External Peer Review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Becker, N. M.; Crowe, B. M.; Ruskauff, G.; Kwicklis, E. M.; Wilborn, B.

2011-12-01

The objective of the U.S. Department of Energy's Underground Test Area Program program is to forecast, using computer modeling, the contaminant boundary of radionuclide transport in groundwater at the Nevada National Security Site that exceeds the Safe Drinking Water Act after 1000 yrs. This objective is defined within the Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order between the Department of Energy, Department of Defense and State of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection . At one of the Corrective Action Units, Frenchman Flat, a Phase I flow and transport model underwent peer review in 1999 to determine if the model approach, assumptions and results adequate to be used as a decision tool as a basis to negotiate a compliance boundary with Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The external peer review decision was that the model was not fully tested under a full suite of possible conceptual models, including boundary conditions, flow mechanisms, other transport processes, hydrological framework models, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis, etc. The program went back to collect more data, expand modeling to consider other alternatives that were not adequately tested, and conduct sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. A second external peer review was held in August 2010. Their conclusion that the new Frenchman Flat flow and transport modeling analysis were adequate as a decision tool and that the model was ready to advance to the next step in the Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order strategy. We will discuss the processes to changing the modeling that occurred between the first and second peer reviews, and then present the second peer review general comments. Finally, we present the lessons learned from the total model acceptance process required for federal regulatory compliance.

Report of the Peer Review Panel on the early site suitability evaluation of the Potential Repository Site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project

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

NONE

1992-01-01

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Yucca mountain Site Characterization Project Office (YMPO) assigned Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), the Technical and Management Support Services (T&MSS) contractor to the YmPo, the task of conducting an Early Site Suitability Evaluation (ESSE) of the Yucca mountain site as a potential site for a high-level radioactive waste repository. First, the assignment called for the development of a method to evaluate a single site against the DOE General Guidelines for Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories, 10 CFR Part 960. Then, using this method, an evaluation team, the ESSE Core Team, of seniormore » YMP scientists, engineers, and technical experts, evaluated new information obtained about the site since publication of the final Environmental Assessment (DOE, 1986) to determine if new suitability/unsuitability findings could be recommended. Finally, the Core Team identified further information and analyses needed to make final determinations for each of the guidelines. As part of the task, an independent peer review of the ESSE report has been conducted. Expertise was solicited that covered the entire spectrum of siting guidelines in 10 CFR Part 960 in order to provide a complete, in-depth critical review of the data evaluated and cited in the ESSE report, the methods used to evaluate the data, and the conclusions and recommendations offered by the report. Fourteen nationally recognized technical experts (Table 2) served on the Peer Review Panel. The comments from the Panel and the responses prepared by the ESSE Core Team, documented on formal Comment Response Forms, constitute the body of this document.« less

77 FR 2254 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Mississippi...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-01-17

...-0024; 4500030114] RIN 1018-AW89 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical... breeding ponds and upland habitats. However, in that revised proposed rule, we stated we used the mean... provide specific data on breeding pond or upland habitat use. Based on the peer review comments we...

75 FR 8937 - Development of a Relative Potency Factor (RPF) Approach for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-02-26

... public comment period and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) peer review meeting, which will be... listening session is a step in EPA's revised IRIS process, announced on May 21, 2009, for developing human... audio-visual aid (e.g., laptop computer and slide projector). In general, each presentation should be no...

Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics.

PubMed

Bornmann, Lutz; Daniel, Hans-Dieter

2010-10-14

Ratings in journal peer review can be affected by sources of bias. The bias variable investigated here was the information on whether authors had suggested a possible reviewer for their manuscript, and whether the editor had taken up that suggestion or had chosen a reviewer that had not been suggested by the authors. Studies have shown that author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers do. Reviewers' ratings on three evaluation criteria and the reviewers' final publication recommendations were available for 552 manuscripts (in total 1145 reviews) that were submitted to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, an interactive open access journal using public peer review (authors' and reviewers' comments are publicly exchanged). Public peer review is supposed to bring a new openness to the reviewing process that will enhance its objectivity. In the statistical analysis the quality of a manuscript was controlled for to prevent favorable reviewers' ratings from being attributable to quality instead of to the bias variable. Our results agree with those from other studies that editor-suggested reviewers rated manuscripts between 30% and 42% less favorably than author-suggested reviewers. Against this backdrop journal editors should consider either doing without the use of author-suggested reviewers or, if they are used, bringing in more than one editor-suggested reviewer for the review process (so that the review by author-suggested reviewers can be put in perspective).

Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

PubMed Central

Bornmann, Lutz; Daniel, Hans-Dieter

2010-01-01

Background Ratings in journal peer review can be affected by sources of bias. The bias variable investigated here was the information on whether authors had suggested a possible reviewer for their manuscript, and whether the editor had taken up that suggestion or had chosen a reviewer that had not been suggested by the authors. Studies have shown that author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers do. Methodology/Principal Findings Reviewers' ratings on three evaluation criteria and the reviewers' final publication recommendations were available for 552 manuscripts (in total 1145 reviews) that were submitted to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, an interactive open access journal using public peer review (authors' and reviewers' comments are publicly exchanged). Public peer review is supposed to bring a new openness to the reviewing process that will enhance its objectivity. In the statistical analysis the quality of a manuscript was controlled for to prevent favorable reviewers' ratings from being attributable to quality instead of to the bias variable. Conclusions/Significance Our results agree with those from other studies that editor-suggested reviewers rated manuscripts between 30% and 42% less favorably than author-suggested reviewers. Against this backdrop journal editors should consider either doing without the use of author-suggested reviewers or, if they are used, bringing in more than one editor-suggested reviewer for the review process (so that the review by author-suggested reviewers can be put in perspective). PMID:20976226

The Use of Online Posts to Identify Barriers to and Facilitators of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Comparison to a Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature.

PubMed

Hannaford, Alisse; Lipshie-Williams, Madeleine; Starrels, Joanna L; Arnsten, Julia H; Rizzuto, Jessica; Cohen, Phillip; Jacobs, Damon; Patel, Viraj V

2018-04-01

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) remains an under-utilized HIV prevention tool among men who have sex with men (MSM). To more comprehensively elucidate barriers and facilitators to PrEP use among US MSM, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed published articles and content analysis of online posts about PrEP. We searched peer-reviewed databases (Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar) using MESH headings and keywords about PrEP and/or HIV prevention from 2005 to 2015. We included original studies among MSM in the US that reported on barriers, facilitators, or other factors related to PrEP use. We also searched online posts and associated comments (news articles, opinion pieces, blogs and other social media posts) in diverse venues (Facebook, Slate Outward, Huffington Post Gay Voices, Queerty, and My PrEP Experience blog) to identify posts about PrEP. We used content analysis to identify themes and compare potential differences between the peer-reviewed literature and online posts. We identified 25 peer-reviewed articles and 28 online posts meeting inclusion criteria. We identified 48 unique barriers and 46 facilitators to using PrEP. These 94 themes fit into six overarching categories: (1) access (n = 14), (2) attitudes/beliefs (n = 24), (3) attributes of PrEP (n = 13), (4) behaviors (n = 11), (5) sociodemographic characteristics (n = 8), and (6) social network (n = 6). In all categories, analysis of online posts resulted in identification of a greater number of unique themes. Thirty-eight themes were identified in the online posts that were not identified in the peer-reviewed literature. We identified barriers and facilitators to PrEP in online posts that were not identified in a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. By incorporating data both from a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles and from online posts, we have identified salient and novel information about barriers to and facilitators of PrEP use. Traditional research approaches may not comprehensively capture current factors important for designing and implementing PrEP related interventions.

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is developing an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of tert-butyl Alcohol (tert-butanol) and has released the public comment draft assessment for public comment and external peer review. When final, the assessment will appear on the IRIS database. This draft report is being released for public viewing and comment prior to a public meeting, providing an opportunity for the IRIS Program to engage in early discussions with stakeholders and the public on data that may be used to identify adverse health effects and characterize exposure-response relationships. EPA welcomes all comments on the draft literature search, preliminary evidence tables, and preliminary exposure-response arrays, such as remarks on the following: • the clarity and transparency of the materials; • the approach for identifying pertinent studies; • the selection of studies for data extraction to preliminary evidence tables and exposure-response arrays; • any methodological considerations that could affect the interpretation of or confidence in study results; and • any additional studies published or nearing publication that may provide data for the evaluation of human health hazard or dose-response relationships.

77 FR 46157 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revising the Special Rule for the Utah Prairie Dog

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-08-02

... prairie dogs or track actual take. (19) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that we require any shot... 4(d) rule. In those cases, the species-specific 4(d) regulation replaces the blanket regulation... finding back to us for further consideration (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, Case 1:08-cv-01596-CKK (D.D...

Effects of hydropower operations on spawning habitat, rearing habitat, and standing/entrapment mortality of fall Chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River

USGS Publications Warehouse

Anglin, Donald R.; Haeseker, Steven L.; Skalicky, Joseph J.; Schaller, Howard; Tiffan, Kenneth F.; Hatten, James R.; Hoffarth, Paul; Nugent, John; Benner, David; Yoshinaka, Marv

2006-01-01

This report describes research conducted primarily in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate the effects of upstream dam operations on spawning and rearing conditions for fall Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Results from habitat modeling tasks which continued in 2005 and 2006 are also included in this report. This study is focused on the effects of streamflows and streamflow fluctuations on 1) entrapment and entrapment mortality of juveniles, 2) adult spawning habitat, and 3) juvenile rearing habitat. An independent peer review was conducted on the draft version of this report utilizing three reviewers, each with different areas of expertise and different levels of knowledge regarding hydrodynamic modeling, fall Chinook biology, life history, and habitat requirements, and fishery issues relating to hydropower development and operations. Peer review comments have been incorporated into this final version.

The third-year medical student "grapevine": managing transitions between third-year clerkships using peer-to-peer handoffs.

PubMed

Masters, Dylan E; O'Brien, Bridget C; Chou, Calvin L

2013-10-01

As third-year medical students rotate between clerkships, they experience multiple transitions across workplace cultures and shifting learning expectations. The authors explored clerkship transitions from the students' perspective by examining the advice they passed on to their peers in preparation for new clerkships. Seventy-one students from three Veterans Affairs-based clerkship rotations at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine participated in a peer-to-peer handoff session from 2008 to 2011. In the handoff session, they gave tips for optimizing performance to students starting the clerkship they had just completed. The authors transcribed student comments from four handoff sessions and used qualitative content analysis to identify and compare advice across clerkships. Students shared advice about workplace culture, content learning, logistics, and work-life balance. Common themes included expectations of the rotation, workplace norms, specific tasks, learning opportunities, and learning strategies. Comments about patient care and work-life balance were rare. Students emphasized different themes for each clerkship; for example, for some clerkships, students commented heavily on tasks and content learning, while in another students focused on workplace culture and exam preparation. These findings characterize the transitions that third-year students undergo as they rotate into new clinical training environments. Students emphasized different aspects of each clerkship in the advice they passed to their peers, and their comments often describe informal norms or opportunities that official clerkship orientations may not address. Peer-to-peer handoffs may help ease transitions between clerkships with dissimilar cultures and expectations.

Utilizing Whole Slide Images for Pathology Peer Review and Working Groups.

PubMed

Malarkey, David E; Willson, Gabrielle A; Willson, Cynthia J; Adams, E Terence; Olson, Greg R; Witt, William M; Elmore, Susan A; Hardisty, Jerry F; Boyle, Michael C; Crabbs, Torrie A; Miller, Rodney A

2015-12-01

This article describes the results of comparisons of digitally scanned whole slide images (WSIs) and glass microscope slides for diagnosis of tissues under peer review by the National Toxicology Program. Findings in this article were developed as a result of the data collected from 6 pathology working groups (PWGs), 1 pathology peer review, and survey comments from over 25 participating pathologists. For each PWG, 6-14 pathologists examined 10-143 tissues per study from 6- and 9-month perinatal studies and 2-year carcinogenicity studies. Overall it was found that evaluation of WSIs is generally equivalent to using glass slides. Concordance of PWG consensus diagnoses based upon review of WSIs versus glass slides ranged from 74% to 100% (median 86%). The intra- and interobserver diagnostic variation did not appear to influence the conclusions of any study. Based upon user opinions collected from surveys, WSIs may be less optimal than glass slides for evaluation of subtle lesions, large complex lesions, small lesions in a large section of tissue, and foci of altered hepatocytes. These results indicate that, although there may be some limitations, the use of WSIs can effectively accomplish the objectives of a conventional glass slide review and definitely serves as a useful adjunct to the conduct of PWGs. © 2015 by The Author(s).

Negotiated media effects. Peer feedback modifies effects of media's thin-body ideal on adolescent girls.

PubMed

Veldhuis, Jolanda; Konijn, Elly A; Seidell, Jacob C

2014-02-01

The present study introduces a theoretical framework on negotiated media effects. Specifically, we argue that feedback of peers on thin-body ideal media images and individual dispositions guide effects on adolescent girls' psychosocial responses to media exposure. Therefore, we examined the thin-body ideal as portrayed in media and peers' feedback on such thin-ideal images in their combined effects on adolescent girls' body dissatisfaction, objectified body consciousness, and social comparison with media models. Hence, media models and peer comments were systematically combined as incorporated entities in YouTube-formats. Hypotheses were tested in a 3 (media models: extremely thin vs. thin vs. normal weight)×3 (peer comments: 6kg-underweight vs. 3kg-underweight vs. normal-weight)×2 (appearance schematicity: lower vs. higher) between-subjects design (N=216). Results showed that peer comments indicating that a media model was 'only 3kg-underweight' exerted most negative responses, particularly in girls who strongly process appearance relevant information. Peer feedback interacts with media models in guiding perceptions of what is considered an 'ideal' body shape. Results highlight the important role of peers as well as individual predispositions in view of understanding how thin-ideal media images may impact adolescent girls' body image concerns. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers.

PubMed

Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Deppe, Arvid; Schmidt, Birgit

2017-01-01

Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016, that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR. The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority (60.3%) of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice (although attitudes to individual traits varied, and open identities peer review was not generally favoured). Respondents were also in favour of other areas of Open Science, like Open Access (88.2%) and Open Data (80.3%). Among respondents we observed high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor. There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse. Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR's prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a "one-size fits all" solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts. OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes.

Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers

PubMed Central

Deppe, Arvid; Schmidt, Birgit

2017-01-01

Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016, that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR. The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority (60.3%) of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice (although attitudes to individual traits varied, and open identities peer review was not generally favoured). Respondents were also in favour of other areas of Open Science, like Open Access (88.2%) and Open Data (80.3%). Among respondents we observed high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor. There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse. Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR’s prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a “one-size fits all” solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts. OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes. PMID:29236721

Nanomaterial Case Study: A Comparison of Multiwalled ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

This Independent Peer Review Draft document presents a case study of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs); it focuses on the specific example of MWCNTs as used in flame-retardant coatings applied to upholstery textiles. This case study is organized around the comprehensive environmental assessment (CEA) framework, which structures available information pertaining to the product life cycle, environmental transport and fate, exposure-dose in receptors (i.e., humans, ecological populations, and the environment), and potential impacts in these receptors. The document does not draw conclusions about potential risks, or present an exhaustive review of the literature. Rather, it was used in an independent peer review to provide feedback on revisions that EPA made to the external review draft of the document based on public comments and the CEA process to identify research gaps for MWCNTs. This document seeks to identify what is known and unknown related to assessing the health and environmental implications of a nanomaterial; in this case multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) used in flame-retardant coatings applied to textiles.

EPA scientific integrity policy draft

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Showstack, Randy

2011-08-01

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its draft scientific integrity policy on 5 August. The draft policy addresses scientific ethical standards, communications with the public, the use of advisory committees and peer review, and professional development. The draft policy was developed by an ad hoc group of EPA senior staff and scientists in response to a December 2010 memorandum on scientific integrity from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The agency is accepting public comments on the draft through 6 September; comments should be sent to osa.staff@epa.gov. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/stpc/pdfs/draft-scientific-integrity-policy-aug2011.pdf.

Health Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust (Revised ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

This External Review Draft version of this assessment updates three earlier drafts (1999, 1998 and 1994) that were reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of the Agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The assessment characterizes the possible human health hazards and related exposure-response aspects of those hazards related to environmental exposure to diesel exhaust. The final assessment will incorporate peer review comments provided by the CASAC in 2000 and will take acount of public comments received during the public review period. This is a health hazard assessment. The purpose of the assessment is to identify the key health hazards associated with environmental exposure to diesel exhaust. Information from earlier draft versions of this assessment were used to support EPA regulatory decision making about emission controls for On Road Heavy Duty Diesel Engines and Off Road Diesel Engine Emissions. Also information from the assessment contributes to a nationwide analysis of air toxics to determine the highest public health priorities for future air pollution control programs.

Adolescents' Internalizing Symptoms as Predictors of the Content of Their Facebook Communication and Responses Received from Peers.

PubMed

Ehrenreich, Samuel E; Underwood, Marion K

2016-09-01

This research examined how adolescents' internalizing symptoms, such as depression, anxiety, and loneliness, relate to the content of their Facebook communication and the responses they receive from peers on Facebook. Participants ( n = 125, 56 female, age 18) reported on their internalizing symptoms in the summer following 12 th grade, and downloaded an application to their Facebook account that stored the content of all of their Facebook communication to secure, online archive. Two months of participants' status updates and comments and peers' comments were coded for content. Relations between internalizing symptoms and Facebook communication differed for girls and boys. For girls, internalizing symptoms predicted several types of Facebook content: negative affect, somatic complaints and eliciting support. In contrast, internalizing symptoms were not related to boys' Facebook posts. Relations between internalizing symptoms and peers' responses on Facebook also differed by gender. For girls, internalizing symptoms positively predicted receiving more peer comments expressing negative affect, and peer responses offering support. For boys, internalizing symptoms did not predict any of the measured peer responses. These findings suggest that girls prone to internalizing symptoms use Facebook in ways that appear similar to co-rumination, by expressing problems to friends and receive possibly reinforcing feedback in return.

An innovative Near-Peer Mentoring Model for Undergraduate and Secondary Students: STEM Focus

DTIC Science & Technology

2014-03-14

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments...568 Doughten Drive,Fort Detrick,MD,21702-5010 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER N /A 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES...applications, research background, experience with youth, and interviews. They ranged in age from 18 to 25 (M = 21) and were either undergraduate ( n = 7

77 FR 5913 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Listing Determinations for Two Distinct...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-02-06

...We, NMFS, issue a final determination to list the Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments (DPSs) of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. We have reviewed the status of the species and conservation efforts being made to protect the species, considered public and peer review comments, and we have made our determination that the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs are in danger of extinction throughout their ranges, and should be listed as endangered, based on the best available scientific and commercial data.

A Peer-Assessment Mobile Kung Fu Education Approach to Improving Students' Affective Performances

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kuo, Fon-Chu; Chen, Jun-Ming; Chu, Hui-Chun; Yang, Kai-Hsiang; Chen, Yi-Hsuan

2017-01-01

Peer-assessment and video comment-sharing are effective learning strategies for students to receive feedback on their learning. Researchers have emphasized the need for well-designed peer involvement in order to improve students' abilities in the cognitive and affective domains. Although student perceptions of peer-assessment have been studied…

Improving Geoscience Learning and Increasing Student Engagement Using Online Interactive Writing Assignments with Calibrated Peer Review.

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Harbor, Jon

2014-05-01

Peer review is a hallmark of the publication process for scientific research, yet it is rarely used as a pedagogical approach in university geoscience courses. Learning outcomes for university geoscience courses include content knowledge and critical thinking and analysis skills, and often include written communication of scientific issues or concepts. Because lecture and memorization is not the most effective learning approach for many students, instructors are increasingly exploring teaching approaches that involve active engagement. In this context, writing assignments that engage students in using content, constructing arguments, and critiquing other students' work are highly desirable. However, many of us struggle with extensive writing requirements in our courses because the workload associated with having the instructor provide detailed comments on writing is daunting, especially in large-enrollment courses, and organizing effective peer review by students is very challenging. Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) is a web-based program that involves students in writing and in reviewing each other's writing. It is designed to allow for more involved writing and feedback experiences with much less instructor time. Here we report on the results of a qualitative-methods analysis of narrative survey responses from students using CPR in an introductory geoscience class. In addition to an impact on the students' writing and their understanding of what goes in to effective writing, the results indicate that CPR acted as reinforcement for content learning, and an impetus for gaining a deeper understanding of content material. It allowed students to see how other students explained and analyzed content, and to check their understanding of a topic in relation to other students in the class. Not surprisingly, the instructor reported that students performed far better on exam questions that tested knowledge covered by CPR assignments.

The Effects of Digital Marketing of Unhealthy Commodities on Young People: A Systematic Review

PubMed Central

Buchanan, Limin; Kelly, Bridget; Kariippanon, Kishan

2018-01-01

The marketing of unhealthy commodities through traditional media is known to impact consumers’ product attitudes and behaviors. Less is known about the impacts of digital marketing (online promotional activities), especially among young people who have a strong online presence. This review systematically assesses the relationship between digital marketing and young people’s attitudes and behaviors towards unhealthy commodities. Literature was identified in June 2017 by searches in six electronic databases. Primary studies (both qualitative and quantitative) that examined the effect of digital marketing of unhealthy food or beverages, alcohol and tobacco products on young people’s (12 to 30 years) attitudes, intended and actual consumption were reviewed. 28 relevant studies were identified. Significant detrimental effects of digital marketing on the intended use and actual consumption of unhealthy commodities were revealed in the majority of the included studies. Findings from the qualitative studies were summarized and these findings provided insights on how digital marketing exerts effects on young people. One of the key findings was that marketers used peer-to-peer transmission of messages on social networking sites (e.g., friends’ likes and comments on Facebook) to blur the boundary between marketing contents and online peer activities. Digital marketing of unhealthy commodities is associated with young people’s use and beliefs of these products. The effects of digital marketing varied between product types and peer endorsed marketing (earned media) may exert greater negative impacts than owned or paid media marketing. PMID:29382140

The Effects of Digital Marketing of Unhealthy Commodities on Young People: A Systematic Review.

PubMed

Buchanan, Limin; Kelly, Bridget; Yeatman, Heather; Kariippanon, Kishan

2018-01-29

The marketing of unhealthy commodities through traditional media is known to impact consumers' product attitudes and behaviors. Less is known about the impacts of digital marketing (online promotional activities), especially among young people who have a strong online presence. This review systematically assesses the relationship between digital marketing and young people's attitudes and behaviors towards unhealthy commodities. Literature was identified in June 2017 by searches in six electronic databases. Primary studies (both qualitative and quantitative) that examined the effect of digital marketing of unhealthy food or beverages, alcohol and tobacco products on young people's (12 to 30 years) attitudes, intended and actual consumption were reviewed. 28 relevant studies were identified. Significant detrimental effects of digital marketing on the intended use and actual consumption of unhealthy commodities were revealed in the majority of the included studies. Findings from the qualitative studies were summarized and these findings provided insights on how digital marketing exerts effects on young people. One of the key findings was that marketers used peer-to-peer transmission of messages on social networking sites (e.g., friends' likes and comments on Facebook) to blur the boundary between marketing contents and online peer activities. Digital marketing of unhealthy commodities is associated with young people's use and beliefs of these products. The effects of digital marketing varied between product types and peer endorsed marketing (earned media) may exert greater negative impacts than owned or paid media marketing.

Comments by the Editors

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Fleetwood, Dan M.; Brown, Dennis; Girard, Sylvain; Gerardin, Simone; Quinn, Heather; Kobayashi, Daisuke; Esqueda, Ivan Sanchez; Robinson, William; Moss, Steven

2017-08-01

The August 2017 special issue of the IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science contains more than 40 selected, peer-reviewed, journal articles that were prepared on the basis of presentations made at the 2016 Conference on Radiation and Its Effects on Components and Systems (RADECS) held on September 19-23, 2016, in Bremen, Germany. A few additional papers may appear in subsequent issues of the Transactions. A full conference record of RADECS 2016 will also be available in the IEEE Xplore.

Peer Assessment: Judging the Quality of Students' Work by Comments Rather than Marks

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Davies, Phil

2006-01-01

This paper reports the results of a study into the quality of peer feedback provided by students within a computerised peer-assessment environment. The study looks at the creation of a "feedback index" that represents the quality of an essay based upon the feedback provided during a peer-marking process and identifies a significant…

Evidentiary Support in Public Comments to the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products.

PubMed

Hemmerich, Natalie; Klein, Elizabeth G; Berman, Micah

2017-08-01

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) were introduced into the US market in 2007, and until recently these devices were unregulated at the federal level. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asserting its intention to regulate ENDS and requesting public comments on numerous related issues, including potential limits on the sale of flavored ENDS. This article analyzes key comments submitted to the FDA on the issue of flavor regulation in ENDS and examines the weight and credibility of the evidence presented by both supporters and opponents of regulation. It also describes the final deeming rule, published in May 2016, and the FDA's response to the evidence submitted. This is the first study to examine public comments submitted to the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, and it concludes that opponents of regulation were more likely to rely on sources that were not peer reviewed and that were affected by conflicts of interest. In light of these findings, the FDA and the research community should develop processes to carefully and critically analyze public comments submitted to the FDA on issues of tobacco regulation. Copyright © 2017 by Duke University Press.

Adolescents’ Internalizing Symptoms as Predictors of the Content of Their Facebook Communication and Responses Received from Peers

PubMed Central

Ehrenreich, Samuel E.; Underwood, Marion K.

2016-01-01

This research examined how adolescents’ internalizing symptoms, such as depression, anxiety, and loneliness, relate to the content of their Facebook communication and the responses they receive from peers on Facebook. Participants (n = 125, 56 female, age 18) reported on their internalizing symptoms in the summer following 12th grade, and downloaded an application to their Facebook account that stored the content of all of their Facebook communication to secure, online archive. Two months of participants’ status updates and comments and peers’ comments were coded for content. Relations between internalizing symptoms and Facebook communication differed for girls and boys. For girls, internalizing symptoms predicted several types of Facebook content: negative affect, somatic complaints and eliciting support. In contrast, internalizing symptoms were not related to boys’ Facebook posts. Relations between internalizing symptoms and peers’ responses on Facebook also differed by gender. For girls, internalizing symptoms positively predicted receiving more peer comments expressing negative affect, and peer responses offering support. For boys, internalizing symptoms did not predict any of the measured peer responses. These findings suggest that girls prone to internalizing symptoms use Facebook in ways that appear similar to co-rumination, by expressing problems to friends and receive possibly reinforcing feedback in return. PMID:28083544

Systematic and Open Identification of Researchers and Authors: Focus on Open Researcher and Contributor ID

PubMed Central

Akazhanov, Nurbek A.; Voronov, Alexander A.; Kitas, George D.

2014-01-01

Unique identifiers of researchers and authors can help all stakeholders of scientific communications improve their workflows. There have been several attempts to establish professional networks of scholars and list their scholarly achievements on digital platforms. Some of these platforms such as Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge and PubMed are searched to pick relevant peer reviewers, assess authors' publication history or choose suitable candidates for research and academic projects. However, each of these hubs has its specific applications, limiting the universal use for permanent tagging of researcher profiles. The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) initiative, launched in 2012, is aimed at registering scholarly contributors and averting the persistent ambiguity of recorded author names. The ORCID registry is growing fast and integrating with other ID-generating platforms, thereby increasing the functionality of the integrated systems. ORCID identifiers are increasingly used for selecting peer reviewers and acknowledging various scholarly contributions (e.g., published articles, reviewer comments, conference presentations). The initiative offers unique opportunities for transparent disclosures of author contributions and competing interests and improving ethical standards of research, editing, and publishing. PMID:25408574

Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID.

PubMed

Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Akazhanov, Nurbek A; Voronov, Alexander A; Kitas, George D

2014-11-01

Unique identifiers of researchers and authors can help all stakeholders of scientific communications improve their workflows. There have been several attempts to establish professional networks of scholars and list their scholarly achievements on digital platforms. Some of these platforms such as Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge and PubMed are searched to pick relevant peer reviewers, assess authors' publication history or choose suitable candidates for research and academic projects. However, each of these hubs has its specific applications, limiting the universal use for permanent tagging of researcher profiles. The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) initiative, launched in 2012, is aimed at registering scholarly contributors and averting the persistent ambiguity of recorded author names. The ORCID registry is growing fast and integrating with other ID-generating platforms, thereby increasing the functionality of the integrated systems. ORCID identifiers are increasingly used for selecting peer reviewers and acknowledging various scholarly contributions (e.g., published articles, reviewer comments, conference presentations). The initiative offers unique opportunities for transparent disclosures of author contributions and competing interests and improving ethical standards of research, editing, and publishing.

Validity and reliability assessment of a peer evaluation method in team-based learning classes.

PubMed

Yoon, Hyun Bae; Park, Wan Beom; Myung, Sun-Jung; Moon, Sang Hui; Park, Jun-Bean

2018-03-01

Team-based learning (TBL) is increasingly employed in medical education because of its potential to promote active group learning. In TBL, learners are usually asked to assess the contributions of peers within their group to ensure accountability. The purpose of this study is to assess the validity and reliability of a peer evaluation instrument that was used in TBL classes in a single medical school. A total of 141 students were divided into 18 groups in 11 TBL classes. The students were asked to evaluate their peers in the group based on evaluation criteria that were provided to them. We analyzed the comments that were written for the highest and lowest achievers to assess the validity of the peer evaluation instrument. The reliability of the instrument was assessed by examining the agreement among peer ratings within each group of students via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. Most of the students provided reasonable and understandable comments for the high and low achievers within their group, and most of those comments were compatible with the evaluation criteria. The average ICC of each group ranged from 0.390 to 0.863, and the overall average was 0.659. There was no significant difference in inter-rater reliability according to the number of members in the group or the timing of the evaluation within the course. The peer evaluation instrument that was used in the TBL classes was valid and reliable. Providing evaluation criteria and rules seemed to improve the validity and reliability of the instrument.

Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

The Environmental Protection Agency – through the independent Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) - is soliciting public comment on a new draft science report titled: Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters. A public docket has been opened to receive comments and those comments received by November 6, 2013, will be provided to the SAB Panel for its consideration in advance of their December 16- 18, 2013 meeting. Comments received after November 6, 2013, will be marked late and cannot be guaranteed to be provided to the Panel in advance of their meeting. This draft science report presents a review and synthesis of relevant peer reviewed scientific literature that will inform an upcoming joint USEPA/ Army Corps of Engineers rulemaking to enhance protection of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our nation’s waters by clarifying Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction. Recent decisions of the Supreme Court have underscored the need for EPA and the public to better understand the connectivity or isolation of streams and wetlands relative to larger water bodies such as rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans, and to use that understanding to underpin regulatory actions and increase certainty among various CWA stakeholders. This report, when finalized, will provide the scientific basis needed to clarify CWA jurisdiction, including a description of the factors that influence connectivity and the mechanisms by which connecte

EPA's Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity and ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is releasing for external peer review and public comment an important draft document reviewing the literature on the health effects of dioxin and related compounds (also referred to as 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin). At the request of Administrator Jackson, EPA is in the process of re-assessing the science on the effects of dioxin, a toxic chemical that is emitted by multiple sources, on the public’s health. This draft dioxin report is EPA’s response to key comments and recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences on the Agency’s draft dioxin reassessment. This assessment has been in progress for many years and raises health issues of broad interest to scientists and policymakers across the federal family. The Agency’s draft report includes significant new analyses on potential cancer and non-cancer human health effects that may result from exposures to dioxins and includes an oral reference dose for what is considered to be the most toxic of the dioxin-like compounds. EPA’s Science

The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators.

PubMed

Pendlebury, David A

2009-01-01

This article reviews the nature and use of the journal impact factor and other common bibliometric measures for assessing research in the sciences and social sciences based on data compiled by Thomson Reuters. Journal impact factors are frequently misused to assess the influence of individual papers and authors, but such uses were never intended. Thomson Reuters also employs other measures of journal influence, which are contrasted with the impact factor. Finally, the author comments on the proper use of citation data in general, often as a supplement to peer review. This review may help government policymakers, university administrators, and individual researchers become better acquainted with the potential benefits and limitations of bibliometrics in the evaluation of research.

Using Multimodal Presentation Software and Peer Group Discussion in Learning English as a Second Language

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Wang, Mei-jung

2011-01-01

This paper reports an application of multimedia in a blended learning environment in which students engaged in multimodal presentations and peer group discussion. Students' presentation files were commented upon by their peers on the discussion board and scored by the researcher, based on questions developed by Levy and Kimber (2009) to apply…

Research misconduct identified by the US Food and Drug Administration: out of sight, out of mind, out of the peer-reviewed literature.

PubMed

Seife, Charles

2015-04-01

Every year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects several hundred clinical sites performing biomedical research on human participants and occasionally finds evidence of substantial departures from good clinical practice and research misconduct. However, the FDA has no systematic method of communicating these findings to the scientific community, leaving open the possibility that research misconduct detected by a government agency goes unremarked in the peer-reviewed literature. To identify published clinical trials in which an FDA inspection found significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices, to describe violations, and to determine whether the violations are mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature. Cross-sectional analysis of publicly available documents, dated from January 1, 1998, to September 30, 2013, describing FDA inspections of clinical trial sites in which significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices was found. For each inspection document that could be linked to a specific published clinical trial, the main measure was a yes/no determination of whether there was mention in the peer-reviewed literature of problems the FDA had identified. Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%). Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published. When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.

Use of materials derived from cattle in human food and cosmetics; reopening of the comment period. Interim final rule; reopening of the comment period.

PubMed

2013-03-04

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or ``we'') is reopening the comment period for the interim final rule entitled "Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics'' that published in the Federal Register of July 14, 2004 (69 FR 42256). The interim final rule prohibited the use of certain cattle material to address the potential risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in human food, including dietary supplements, and cosmetics. In the Federal Register of September 7, 2005 (70 FR 53063), we amended the interim final rule to make changes, including providing that the small intestine of cattle, formerly prohibited cattle material, could be used in human food and cosmetics if the distal ileum was removed by a specified procedure or one that the establishment could demonstrate is equally effective in ensuring complete removal of the distal ileum. Since 2005, peer-reviewed studies have been published showing the presence of infectivity in the proximal ileum, jejunum, ileocecal junction, and colon of cattle with BSE. Therefore, we are reopening the comment period for the interim final rule to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the new studies concerning infectivity in parts of the small intestine other than the distal ileum.

HST Peer Review, Where We've Been, Where We Are Now and Possibly Where the Future Lies

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Blacker, Brett S.; Macchetto, Duccio; Meylan, Georges; Stanghellini, Letizia; van der Marel, Roeland P.

2002-12-01

In some eyes, the Phase I proposal selection process is the most important activity handled by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). Proposing for HST and other missions consists of requesting observing time and/or archival research funding. This step is called Phase I, where the scientific merit of a proposal is considered by a community based peer-review process. Accepted proposals then proceed thru Phase II, where the observations are specified in sufficient detail to enable scheduling on the telescope. Each cycle the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Telescope Allocation Committee (TAC) reviews proposals and awards observing time that is valued at $0.5B, when the total expenditures for HST over its lifetime are figured on an annual basis. This is in fact a very important endeavor that we continue to fine-tune and tweak. This process is open to the science community and we constantly receive comments and praise for this process. Several cycles ago we instituted several significant changes to the process to address concerns such as: Fewer, broader panels, with redundancy to avoid conflicts of interest; Redefinition of the TAC role, to focus on Larger programs; and incentives for the panels to award time to medium sized proposals. In the last cycle, we offered new initiatives to try to enhance the scientific output of the telescope. Some of these initiatives were: Hubble Treasury Program; AR Legacy Program; and the AR Theory Program. This paper will outline the current HST Peer review process. We will discuss why we made changes and how we made changes from our original system. We will also discuss some ideas as to where we may go in the future to generate a stronger science program for HST and to reduce the burden on the science community. This paper is an update of the status of the HST Peer Review Process that was described in the published paper "Evolution of the HST Proposal Selection Process".

Evaluation of a 2 to 1 peer placement supervision model by physiotherapy students and their educators.

PubMed

Alpine, Lucy M; Caldas, Francieli Tanji; Barrett, Emer M

2018-04-02

The objective of the study was to investigate student and practice educator evaluations of practice placements using a structured 2 to 1 supervision and implementation model. Cross-sectional pilot study set in clinical sites providing placements for physiotherapy students in Ireland. Students and practice educators completing a 2.1 peer placement between 2013 and 2015 participated. A self-reported questionnaire which measured indicators linked to quality assured placements was used. Three open-ended questions captured comments on the benefits and challenges associated with the 2 to 1 model. Ten students (10/20; 50% response rate) and 10 practice educators (10/10; 100% response rate) responded to the questionnaire. Student responses included four pairs of students and one student from a further two pairs. There was generally positive agreement with the questionnaire indicating that placements using the 2 to 1 model were positively evaluated by participants. There were no significant differences between students and practice educators. The main benefits of the 2 to 1 model were shared learning experiences, a peer supported environment, and the development of peer evaluation and feedback skills by students. A key component of the model was the peer scripting process which provided time for reflection, self-evaluation, and peer review. 2 to 1 placements were positively evaluated by students and educators when supported by a structured supervision model. Clear guidance to students on the provision of peer feedback and support for educators providing feedback to two different students is recommended.

A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA has released this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. EPA will consider any public comments submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document. The report is a screening level analysis intended to determine the scope and magnitude of global change impacts rather than a detailed assessment of specific impacts and adaptation measures.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde (Inhalation) ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

UPDATE EPA is currently revising its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of formaldehyde to address the 2011 NAS peer review recommendations. This assessment addresses both noncancer and cancer human health effects that are relevant to assessing the risks from chronic inhalation exposure to formaldehyde. To facilitate discussion of several scientific issues pertinent to the assessment, EPA convened a state-of-the-science workshop on April 30 and May 1, 2014. This workshop focused on the following three themes: Evidence pertaining to the influence of formaldehyde that is produced endogenously (by the body during normal biological processes) on the toxicity of inhaled formaldehyde, and implications for the health assessment; Mechanistic evidence relevant to formaldehyde inhalation exposure and lymphohematopoietic cancers (leukemia and lymphomas); and Epidemiological research examining the potential association between formaldehyde exposure and lymphohematopoietic cancers (leukemia and lymphomas). June 2010: EPA is conducting an independent expert peer review by the National Academy of Sciences and public comment of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of Formaldehyde-Inhalation that when finalized will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. This draft IRIS health assessment addresses both noncancer and cancer human health effects that may result from chronic inhal

The Effect of Online Peer Feedback on the Academic Writing Ability of Iranian EFL Learners

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Moradi, Mohammad Reza; Karimpour, Zahra

2012-01-01

This paper reports an exploratory study of 60 English as a foreign language (EFL) student's experiences of online peer feedback in an essay writing course at Islamic Azad University, Dezful Branch. They were required to comment on their peers' writing essays using the checklist to whom had been made available, but in different ways. The groups…

How operational issues impact science peer review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Blacker, Brett S.; Golombek, Daniel; Macchetto, Duccio

2006-06-01

In some eyes, the Phase I proposal selection process is the most important activity handled by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). Proposing for HST and other missions consists of requesting observing time and/or archival research funding. This step is called Phase I, where the scientific merit of a proposal is considered by a community based peer-review process. Accepted proposals then proceed thru Phase II, where the observations are specified in sufficient detail to enable scheduling on the telescope. Each cycle the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Telescope Allocation Committee (TAC) reviews proposals and awards observing time that is valued at $0.5B, when the total expenditures for HST over its lifetime are figured on an annual basis. This is in fact a very important endeavor that we continue to fine-tune and tweak. This process is open to the science community and we constantly receive comments and praise for this process. In this last year we have had to deal with the loss of the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) and move from 3-gyro operations to 2-gyro operations. This paper will outline how operational issues impact the HST science peer review process. We will discuss the process that was used to recover from the loss of the STIS instrument and how we dealt with the loss of 1/3 of the current science observations. We will also discuss the issues relating to 3-gyro vs. 2-gyro operations and how that changes impacted Proposers, our in-house processing and the TAC.

[Publications on hypertension in the last year].

PubMed

Vinyoles, E

2017-01-01

We review and comment original articles published in the main peer reviewed journals between September 2015 and September 2016 on hypertension, with relevance and potential impact in clinical practice. The selection of the original papers has been necessarily limited and subjective, given the extremely high volume of publications over the period. Some large clinical trials such as SPRINT, HOPE3 or PATHWAY-2, epidemiological studies, cohort studies or studies about ambulatory blood pressure evaluation are discussed. Aspects of the target blood pressure level and treatment are also discussed. In all cases, we present the new evidences on the diagnosis, evaluation and therapeutic management of hypertension published in the last year. Our goal is to motivate thorough reading of the originals that can only be commented briefy here. © 2017 SEHLELHA. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2017 Sociedad Española de Hipertension-Liga Española para la Lucha de la Hipertensión Arterial (SEH-LELHA). Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

NASA Product Peer Review Process

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Jenks, Ken

2009-01-01

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

Naturally occurring peer support through social media: the experiences of individuals with severe mental illness using YouTube.

PubMed

Naslund, John A; Grande, Stuart W; Aschbrenner, Kelly A; Elwyn, Glyn

2014-01-01

Increasingly, people with diverse health conditions turn to social media to share their illness experiences or seek advice from others with similar health concerns. This unstructured medium may represent a platform on which individuals with severe mental illness naturally provide and receive peer support. Peer support includes a system of mutual giving and receiving where individuals with severe mental illness can offer hope, companionship, and encouragement to others facing similar challenges. In this study we explore the phenomenon of individuals with severe mental illness uploading videos to YouTube, and posting and responding to comments as a form of naturally occurring peer support. We also consider the potential risks and benefits of self-disclosure and interacting with others on YouTube. To address these questions, we used qualitative inquiry informed by emerging techniques in online ethnography. We analyzed n = 3,044 comments posted to 19 videos uploaded by individuals who self-identified as having schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder. We found peer support across four themes: minimizing a sense of isolation and providing hope; finding support through peer exchange and reciprocity; sharing strategies for coping with day-to-day challenges of severe mental illness; and learning from shared experiences of medication use and seeking mental health care. These broad themes are consistent with accepted notions of peer support in severe mental illness as a voluntary process aimed at inclusion and mutual advancement through shared experience and developing a sense of community. Our data suggest that the lack of anonymity and associated risks of being identified as an individual with severe mental illness on YouTube seem to be overlooked by those who posted comments or uploaded videos. Whether or not this platform can provide benefits for a wider community of individuals with severe mental illness remains uncertain.

Naturally Occurring Peer Support through Social Media: The Experiences of Individuals with Severe Mental Illness Using YouTube

PubMed Central

Naslund, John A.; Grande, Stuart W.; Aschbrenner, Kelly A.; Elwyn, Glyn

2014-01-01

Increasingly, people with diverse health conditions turn to social media to share their illness experiences or seek advice from others with similar health concerns. This unstructured medium may represent a platform on which individuals with severe mental illness naturally provide and receive peer support. Peer support includes a system of mutual giving and receiving where individuals with severe mental illness can offer hope, companionship, and encouragement to others facing similar challenges. In this study we explore the phenomenon of individuals with severe mental illness uploading videos to YouTube, and posting and responding to comments as a form of naturally occurring peer support. We also consider the potential risks and benefits of self-disclosure and interacting with others on YouTube. To address these questions, we used qualitative inquiry informed by emerging techniques in online ethnography. We analyzed n = 3,044 comments posted to 19 videos uploaded by individuals who self-identified as having schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder. We found peer support across four themes: minimizing a sense of isolation and providing hope; finding support through peer exchange and reciprocity; sharing strategies for coping with day-to-day challenges of severe mental illness; and learning from shared experiences of medication use and seeking mental health care. These broad themes are consistent with accepted notions of peer support in severe mental illness as a voluntary process aimed at inclusion and mutual advancement through shared experience and developing a sense of community. Our data suggest that the lack of anonymity and associated risks of being identified as an individual with severe mental illness on YouTube seem to be overlooked by those who posted comments or uploaded videos. Whether or not this platform can provide benefits for a wider community of individuals with severe mental illness remains uncertain. PMID:25333470

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

PubMed

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

2016-06-10

The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals.

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

Carbon dioxide storage in unconventional reservoirs workshop: summary of recommendations

USGS Publications Warehouse

Jones, Kevin B.; Blondes, Madalyn S.

2015-01-01

The storage capacity for all unconventional reservoirs may be modeled using a volumetric equation starting with the extent of the rock unit and adjusted using these key factors and reaction terms. The ideas that were developed during this workshop can be used by USGS scientists to develop a methodology to assess the CO2 storage resource in unconventional reservoirs. This methodology could then be released for public comment and peer review. After completing this development process, the USGS could then use the methodology to assess the CO2 storage resource in unconventional reservoirs.

Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur Oxides ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA announced the availability of the external review draft of the Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides– Health Criteria for public comment and independent peer review in a November 24, 2015 Federal Register Notice. This draft document provides EPA’s evaluation and synthesis of the most policy-relevant science related to the health effects of sulfur oxides. When final, it will provide a critical part of the scientific foundation for EPA’s decision regarding the adequacy of the current primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide. The Integrated Plan for Review of the Primary NAAQS for SOx U.S. 2: EPA (2007) identifies key policy-relevant questions that provide a framework for this review of the scientific evidence. These questions frame the entire review of the NAAQS, and thus are informed by both science and policy considerations. The ISA organizes and presents the scientific evidence such that, when considered along with findings from risk analyses and policy considerations, will help the EPA address these questions in completing the NAAQS review.

Peer reviewing e-learning: opportunities, challenges, and solutions.

PubMed

Ruiz, Jorge G; Candler, Chris; Teasdale, Thomas A

2007-05-01

Peer review is the foundation of academic publication and a necessary step in the scrutiny of any scholarly work. Simply defined, peer review is the attentive, unbiased assessment of any scholarly work that is submitted for formal scrutiny. Although medical school faculty increasingly use technology in clinical teaching, e-learning materials are often not subjected to a rigorous peer review process. The authors contrast peer review of e-learning materials with that of print materials, describe peer review issues regarding e-learning materials, propose approaches to address the challenges of peer review of e-learning materials, and outline directions for refinement of the e-learning peer review process. At its core, the peer review of e-learning materials should not differ substantially from that of traditional manuscripts. However, e-learning introduces new demands that impel reviewers to consider aspects that are unique to educational technology, including pedagogy, format, usability, navigation, interactivity, delivery, ease of updating, distribution, and access. Four approaches are offered to ease the burden and improve the quality of e-learning peer review: develop peer review training, embrace multidisciplinary peer review, develop guidelines, and provide incentives and compensation. The authors conclude with suggestions about peer review research.

Can Japanese students embrace learner-centered methods for teaching medical interviewing skills? Focus groups.

PubMed

Saiki, Takuya; Mukohara, Kei; Otani, Takashi; Ban, Nobutaro

2011-01-01

Students' perceptions of learner-centered methods for teaching medical interviewing skills have not been fully explored. To explore Japanese students' perceptions of learner-centered methods for teaching medical interviewing skills such as role play with student-created scenarios, peer-assisted video reviews, and student-led small group debriefing. We conducted three focus groups with a total of 15 students who participated in the learner-centered seminars on medical interviewing skills at the Nagoya University School of Medicine. The transcripts were analyzed by two authors independently. Keywords and concepts were identified and a thematic framework was developed. Overall, students valued the experience of writing their own scenarios for role play, but some questioned their realism. Many students commented that peer-assisted video reviews provided them with more objective perspectives on their performance. However, some students expressed concerns about competitiveness during the video reviews. While students appreciated teachers' minimum involvement in the group debriefing, some criticized that teachers did not explain the objectives of the seminar clearly. Many students had difficulties in exchanging constructive feedback. We were able to gain new insights into positive and negative perceptions of students about learner-centered methods for teaching medical interviewing skills at one medical school in Japan.

Lessons learned from a rigorous peer-review process for building the Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness (CLEAN) collection of high-quality digital teaching materials

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Gold, A. U.; Ledley, T. S.; McCaffrey, M. S.; Buhr, S. M.; Manduca, C. A.; Niepold, F.; Fox, S.; Howell, C. D.; Lynds, S. E.

2010-12-01

The topic of climate change permeates all aspects of our society: the news, household debates, scientific conferences, etc. To provide students with accurate information about climate science and energy awareness, educators require scientifically and pedagogically robust teaching materials. To address this need, the NSF-funded Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN) Pathway has assembled a new peer-reviewed digital collection as part of the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) featuring teaching materials centered on climate and energy science for grades 6 through 16. The scope and framework of the collection is defined by the Essential Principles of Climate Science (CCSP 2009) and a set of energy awareness principles developed in the project. The collection provides trustworthy teaching materials on these socially relevant topics and prepares students to become responsible decision-makers. While a peer-review process is desirable for curriculum developer as well as collection builder to ensure quality, its implementation is non-trivial. We have designed a rigorous and transparent peer-review process for the CLEAN collection, and our experiences provide general guidelines that can be used to judge the quality of digital teaching materials across disciplines. Our multi-stage review process ensures that only resources with teaching goals relevant to developing climate literacy and energy awareness are considered. Each relevant resource is reviewed by two individuals to assess the i) scientific accuracy, ii) pedagogic effectiveness, and iii) usability/technical quality. A science review by an expert ensures the scientific quality and accuracy. Resources that pass all review steps are forwarded to a review panel of educators and scientists who make a final decision regarding inclusion of the materials in the CLEAN collection. Results from the first panel review show that about 20% (~100) of the resources that were initially considered for inclusion passed final review. Reviewer comments are recorded as annotations to enhance the resources in the collection and help educators with the implementation in their curriculum. CLEAN launched the first collection of digital educational resources about climate science and energy awareness in November 2010. The final CLEAN collection will include ≥500 resources and will also provide the alignment with the Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the NAAEE Excellence in Environmental Education Guidelines for Learning through the interactive NSDL strandmaps. We will present the first user feedback to this new collection.

28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

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.

IRIS Toxicological Review of Tetrahydrofuran (THF) (External ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA is conducting a peer review and public comment of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of tetrahydrofuran (THF) that when finalized will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. EPA is undertaking an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) health assessment for tetrahydrofuran. IRIS is an EPA database containing Agency scientific positions on potential adverse human health effects that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure to chemicals in the environment. IRIS contains chemical-specific summaries of qualitative and quantitative health information in support of two steps of the risk assessment paradigm, i.e., hazard identification and dose-response evaluation. IRIS assessments are used in combination with specific situational exposure assessment information to evaluate potential public health risk associated with environmental contaminants.

Editorial

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Goh, Gregory K. L.

2014-06-01

This special issue of the Journal of Solid State Chemistry is a peer-reviewed collection of papers presented at the 7th International Conference on Materials for Advanced Technologies (ICMAT2013), Symposium Q - Innovative processing of inorganic films and nanostructures of functional materials, organised by the Materials Research Society, Singapore and held at the Singapore International Convention & Exhibition Centre, Singapore, from 30 June to 5 July 2013. The symposium focused mainly on films, porous networks and nanostructures formed by innovative processing routes that reduce energy consumption, use new mediums, combine techniques or even innovative synthesis approaches. The understanding of film and nanostructure growth mechanisms and crystal shape control were also discussed. We acknowledge the invaluable contributions of all invited, oral and poster presenters. I also take this opportunity to thank reviewers from all over the world who kindly helped in reviewing the manuscripts and provided valuable comments, making the publication of this high quality issue possible.

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.

Computer-Supported Peer Commenting: A Promising Instructional Method to Promote Skill Development in Vocational Education

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gavota, Monica Cristiana; Cattaneo, Alberto; Arn, Christoph; Boldrini, Elena; Motta, Elisa; Schneider, Daniel; Betrancourt, Mireille

2010-01-01

In vocational education, a challenging issue is to help apprentices build integrated knowledge from workplace training and school teaching. The present research proposes a learning design in which apprentices are required to write with a reciprocal peer-tutoring approach about situations they encountered in the workplace in order to help in…

Technology-Supported Peer Feedback in ESL/EFL Writing Classes: A Research Synthesis

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Chen, Tsuiping

2016-01-01

Some studies on technology-supported peer feedback in the writing classroom claim that it reduces the threatening atmosphere caused by face-to-face interaction and that the discourse patterns and language use in the electronic feedback are more flexible than in spoken discourse. Others present a negative view that the comments generated from…

Children with Autism and Peer Group Support: "Using Circles of Friends".

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Whitaker, Philip; Barratt, Penny; Joy, Helen; Potter, Mo; Thomas, George

1998-01-01

Explains the "circle of friends approach" as one strategy aimed at using peer group support to promote the inclusion of children with autism into mainstream schools. It describes use of the approach with six autistic children in years 3 to 10 of British mainstream schools. Evaluation comments by the circle leaders, circle members, and…

Predictive Effects of Online Peer Feedback Types on Performance Quality

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Yu, Fu-Yun; Wu, Chun-Ping

2013-01-01

This study examined the individual and combined predictive effects of two types of feedback (i.e., quantitative ratings and descriptive comments) in online peer-assessment learning systems on the quality of produced work. A total of 233 students participated in the study for six weeks. An online learning system that allows students to contribute…

Increasing play-based commenting in children with autism spectrum disorder using a novel script-frame procedure.

PubMed

Groskreutz, Mark P; Peters, Amy; Groskreutz, Nicole C; Higbee, Thomas S

2015-01-01

Children with developmental disabilities may engage in less frequent and more repetitious language than peers with typical development. Scripts have been used to increase communication by teaching one or more specific statements and then fading the scripts. In the current study, preschoolers with developmental disabilities experienced a novel script-frame protocol and learned to make play-related comments about toys. After the script-frame protocol, commenting occurred in the absence of scripts, with untrained play activities, and included untrained comments. © Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.

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.

Using Technological Advances to Improve Surgery Curriculum: Experience With a Mobile Application.

PubMed

Green, Courtney A; Kim, Edward H; O'Sullivan, Patricia S; Chern, Hueylan

2018-01-31

Our previous home-video basic surgical skills curriculum required substantial faculty time and resources, and was limited by delayed feedback and technical difficulties. Consequently, we integrated that curriculum with a mobile application platform. Our purpose is to describe this application and learner satisfaction. The mobile platform incorporates a patented pedagogical design based on Ericsson's deliberate practice and Bandura's social learning theory. Instructors built step-wise skills modules. During the challenge phase, learners watched a video of surgical tasks completed by experts and uploaded a video of themselves performing the same task. In the Peer Review phase, they used a grading rubric to provide feedback. In the Recap stage, learners received individual feedback and could review their own videos. Two groups of learners, graduating medical students and matriculating surgical residents, participated in this independent learning platform, along with 2 to 4 laboratory sessions, and completed a survey about their experience. Survey responses were summarized descriptively and comments analyzed using content analysis. Fifty learners submitted videos of assigned tasks and completed peer reviews. Learners reported positive experiences specifically for the Peer Review Stage, structured home practice, ease of mobile access to submit and review videos, and ongoing immediate feedback. Over half of the learners reported spending at least 10 to 30 minute practicing skills before recording their videos and over 80% rerecorded at least 2 times before submission. Content analysis revealed learners engaged with the educational concepts designed into the platform. Learners easily used and were satisfied with a mobile-technology teaching platform that maintained the fundamental content, educational theories, and organizational structure of our previously effective surgical skills curriculum. Prior challenges were directly addressed through the mobile application's ease of use, support of deliberate practice, and improved timeliness of feedback. Copyright © 2018 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

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...

Statistical and data reporting guidelines for the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and the Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery.

PubMed

Hickey, Graeme L; Dunning, Joel; Seifert, Burkhardt; Sodeck, Gottfried; Carr, Matthew J; Burger, Hans Ulrich; Beyersdorf, Friedhelm

2015-08-01

As part of the peer review process for the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EJCTS) and the Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery (ICVTS), a statistician reviews any manuscript that includes a statistical analysis. To facilitate authors considering submitting a manuscript and to make it clearer about the expectations of the statistical reviewers, we present up-to-date guidelines for authors on statistical and data reporting specifically in these journals. The number of statistical methods used in the cardiothoracic literature is vast, as are the ways in which data are presented. Therefore, we narrow the scope of these guidelines to cover the most common applications submitted to the EJCTS and ICVTS, focusing in particular on those that the statistical reviewers most frequently comment on. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Pre-Service Teachers' Views of Inquiry Teaching and Their Responses to Teacher Educators' Feedback on Teaching Practice

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Yoon, Hye-Gyoung; Kim, Mijung; Kim, Byoung Sug; Joung, Yong Jae; Park, Young-Shin

2013-01-01

This study attempted to explore 15 Korean elementary pre-service teachers' views of inquiry teaching. During a science teaching methods course, pre-service teachers implemented a peer teaching lesson, had a group discussion to reflect on five teacher educators' comments on their first peer teaching practice, and revised and re-taught the lesson as…

The Influence of Online Comments on Perceptions of Antimarijuana Public Service Announcements on YouTube

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Walther, Joseph B.; DeAndrea, David; Kim, Jinsuk; Anthony, James C.

2010-01-01

Web-based media often present multiple sources of influence, such as mass media and peers, within one interface. When individuals identify with peers who are visually anonymous and with whom they do not directly interact, they should be susceptible to social influence from that group. This study examined the interplay among antimarijuana public…

Case Report: 16-Year-Old Male with Autistic Disorder with Preoccupation with Female Feet

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Early, Maureen C.; Erickson, Craig A.; Wink, Logan K.; McDougle, Christopher J.; Scott, Eric L.

2012-01-01

This paper highlights clinical challenges faced when diagnosing and then treating an individual presenting to a child and adolescent psychiatry clinic because of unwelcome comments he made to female peers about their feet. Novel use of exposure therapy helped him effectively decrease his comments from 1 to 2 times per month to once every 6 months.…

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.

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…

New Careers in Nursing Scholar Alumni Toolkit: Development of an Innovative Resource for Transition to Practice.

PubMed

Mauro, Ann Marie P; Escallier, Lori A; Rosario-Sim, Maria G

2016-01-01

The transition from student to professional nurse is challenging and may be more difficult for underrepresented minority nurses. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation New Careers in Nursing (NCIN) program supported development of a toolkit that would serve as a transition-to-practice resource to promote retention of NCIN alumni and other new nurses. Thirteen recent NCIN alumni (54% male, 23% Hispanic/Latino, 23% African Americans) from 3 schools gave preliminary content feedback. An e-mail survey was sent to a convenience sample of 29 recent NCIN alumni who evaluated the draft toolkit using a Likert scale (poor = 1; excellent = 5). Twenty NCIN alumni draft toolkit reviewers (response rate 69%) were primarily female (80%) and Hispanic/Latino (40%). Individual chapters' mean overall rating of 4.67 demonstrated strong validation. Mean scores for overall toolkit content (4.57), usability (4.5), relevance (4.79), and quality (4.71) were also excellent. Qualitative comments were analyzed using thematic content analysis and supported the toolkit's relevance and utility. A multilevel peer review process was also conducted. Peer reviewer feedback resulted in a 6-chapter document that offers resources for successful transition to practice and lays the groundwork for continued professional growth. Future research is needed to determine the ideal time to introduce this resource. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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...

The 2009 schizophrenia PORT psychosocial treatment recommendations and summary statements.

PubMed

Dixon, Lisa B; Dickerson, Faith; Bellack, Alan S; Bennett, Melanie; Dickinson, Dwight; Goldberg, Richard W; Lehman, Anthony; Tenhula, Wendy N; Calmes, Christine; Pasillas, Rebecca M; Peer, Jason; Kreyenbuhl, Julie

2010-01-01

The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) psychosocial treatment recommendations provide a comprehensive summary of current evidence-based psychosocial treatment interventions for persons with schizophrenia. There have been 2 previous sets of psychosocial treatment recommendations (Lehman AF, Steinwachs DM. Translating research into practice: the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) treatment recommendations. Schizophr Bull. 1998;24:1-10 and Lehman AF, Kreyenbuhl J, Buchanan RW, et al. The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT): updated treatment recommendations 2003. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30:193-217). This article reports the third set of PORT recommendations that includes updated reviews in 7 areas as well as adding 5 new areas of review. Members of the psychosocial Evidence Review Group conducted reviews of the literature in each intervention area and drafted the recommendation or summary statement with supporting discussion. A Psychosocial Advisory Committee was consulted in all aspects of the review, and an expert panel commented on draft recommendations and summary statements. Our review process produced 8 treatment recommendations in the following areas: assertive community treatment, supported employment, cognitive behavioral therapy, family-based services, token economy, skills training, psychosocial interventions for alcohol and substance use disorders, and psychosocial interventions for weight management. Reviews of treatments focused on medication adherence, cognitive remediation, psychosocial treatments for recent onset schizophrenia, and peer support and peer-delivered services indicated that none of these treatment areas yet have enough evidence to merit a treatment recommendation, though each is an emerging area of interest. This update of PORT psychosocial treatment recommendations underscores both the expansion of knowledge regarding psychosocial treatments for persons with schizophrenia at the same time as the limitations in their implementation in clinical practice settings.

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?

The outcast-lash-out effect in youth: alienation increases aggression following peer rejection.

PubMed

Reijntjes, Albert; Thomaes, Sander; Bushman, Brad J; Boelen, Paul A; de Castro, Bram Orobio; Telch, Michael J

2010-10-01

Although there are good theoretical reasons to believe that youth who are high in alienation (i.e., estranged from society, significant others, and themselves) are prone to behave aggressively, empirical evidence is lacking. The present experiment tested whether alienation moderates the effects of acute peer rejection on aggression in youth. Participants (N = 121; mean age = 11.5 years) completed a personal profile (e.g., "How do you describe yourself?") that was allegedly evaluated online by a panel of peer judges. After randomly receiving negative or positive feedback from peer judges, participants were given the opportunity to aggress against them (i.e., by reducing their monetary reward and by posting negative comments about them online). As predicted, alienation increased participants' aggression against peers who had rejected them, but not against peers who had praised them, even after controlling for peer-nominated chronic rejection and peer-nominated aggression. Thus, alienated youth are more aggressive than others when they experience acute peer rejection.

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…

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

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.

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…

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…

Loaded Questions: Internet Commenters’ Opinions on Physician-Patient Firearm Safety Conversations

PubMed Central

Knoepke, Christopher E.; Allen, Amanda; Ranney, Megan L.; Wintemute, Garen J.; Matlock, Daniel D.; Betz, Marian E.

2017-01-01

Introduction Medical and public health societies advocate that healthcare providers (HCPs) counsel at-risk patients to reduce firearm injury risk. Anonymous online media comments often contain extreme viewpoints and may therefore help in understanding challenges of firearm safety counseling. To help inform injury prevention efforts, we sought to examine commenters’ stated opinions regarding firearm safety counseling HCPs. Methods Qualitative descriptive analysis of online comments posted following news items (in May–June, 2016) about a peer-reviewed publication addressing when and how HCPs should counsel patients regarding firearms. Results Among 871 comments posted by 522 individuals, most (57%) were generally negative toward firearm discussions, 17% were positive, and 26% were neutral/unclear. Two major categories and multiple themes emerged. “Areas of agreement” included that discussions may be valuable (1) when addressing risk of harm to self or others, (2) in pediatric injury prevention, and (3) as general safety education (without direct questioning), and that (4) HCPs lack gun safety and cultural knowledge. “Areas of tension” included whether (1) firearms are a public health issue, (2) counseling is effective prevention practice, (3) suicide could/should be prevented, and (4) firearm safety counseling is within HCPs’ purview. Conclusion Among this set of commenters with likely extreme viewpoints, opinions were generally negative toward firearm safety conversations, but with some support in specific situations. Providing education, counseling, or materials without asking about firearm ownership was encouraged. Engaging firearm advocates when developing materials may enhance the acceptability of prevention activities. PMID:28874943

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…

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

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.

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…

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…

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.

Framing Space: UK Newspaper Reporting of the Beagle 2 and Cassini-Huygens Space Missions

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Jergovic, B.; Miller, S.

2008-05-01

Relatively little scholarly work has been done on looking at the portrayal of astronomy and space science in the media. This short article examines the UK press coverage of two space missions: the Beagle 2 mission to Mars and the Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn and its moon Titan. In both cases, the leading scientists exerted a strong influence on what journalists reported, to the extent that some journalists appeared to be almost "embedded" in the mission. For the most part the coverage is positive in tone and the loss of the Beagle 2 spacecraft does not reflect badly on the (later) Cassini-Huygens coverage. Most journalists only covered the actual mission events and, in the case of Huygens, did not follow up to cover the peer-reviewed scientific articles that appeared later. Off-the-cuff comments made by scientists at the time of the missions were widely reported. There appears to be an appreciation by journalists and (by inference) their readership that this was science in the making, and that allowances should be made if these comments later turned out to be inaccurate.

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.

[Guideline for the assessment of clinical research proposals. Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social].

PubMed

Mejía-Aranguré, Juan Manuel; Grijalva-Otero, Israel; Majluf-Cruz, Abraham; Cruz-López, Miguel; Núñez-Enríquez, Juan Carlos; Salamanca-Gómez, Fabio Abdiel

2013-01-01

Medical research is a fundamental tool to achieve the advancement of science, through the improvement of strategies aimed to protect, promote and restore an individual's and society's health. Three characteristics are required to obtain approval of the research proposal: scientific relevance, technical quality and the accomplishment of ethical issues. The present review aimed at the determination of the specific criteria to perform a critical review of research proposals. A research was carried out in the PubMed, Medline, Ovid and Google Scholar databases, using the terms: peer review, research proposals, review and protocols, and reviewers. A total of 3546 related articles were reviewed, without finding a guide to critically assess research proposals. The guides to assess research articles consider that the quality criteria of the study should have been present since the study's conception; many of the issues described to review articles are incorporated in the review of the research proposals. The specific criteria were integrated to allow the reviewer to critically assess research proposals of different areas with scientific basis. The reviewer of research proposals should be considered as a professional that contributes to the promotion of knowledge advancement through his/her comments, which allow researchers to improve the quality of research proposals.

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…

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...

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

Peer assisted learning: teaching dental skills and enhancing graduate attributes.

PubMed

Cameron, D A; Binnie, V I; Sherriff, A; Bissell, V

2015-09-25

This study describes a pilot project in which peer assisted learning (PAL) is used to teach dental clinical skills. A cluster randomised controlled trial compared opinions of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) students from peer-led groups versus staff-led groups in a clinical (impression taking) and a pre-clinical (handpiece skills) task. BDS5 (peer tutors) in their final year delivered teaching to BDS1 (tutees) for each task. Quantitative data from tutees and the peer tutors was gathered from questionnaires, along with open written comments. PAL was well received by both tutees and peer tutors. BDS1 tutees rated BDS5 peer tutors highly for delivery of information, and level of feedback. The tutees considered peer tutors more approachable and less intimidating than staff. Peer tutors reported their own knowledge had increased as a result of teaching. In a summative OSCE (objective structured clinical examination) four months following the teaching, no statistical significant difference between the performance of peer-led and staff-led groups was found at stations related to the subject matter in question. It is argued that PAL, as well as being a useful method of delivering subject-specific teaching, is able to contribute to the development of graduate attributes.

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

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.

Why Public Comments Matter: The Case of the National Institutes of Health Policy on Single Institutional Review Board Review of Multicenter Studies.

PubMed

Ervin, Ann-Margret; Taylor, Holly A; Ehrhardt, Stephan; Meinert, Curtis L

2018-03-06

In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) requested public comments on a draft policy requiring NIH-funded, U.S.-based investigators to use a single institutional review board (sIRB) for ethical review of multicenter studies. The authors conducted a directed content analysis and qualitative summary of the comments and discuss how they shaped the final policy. Two reviewers independently assessed support for the policy from a review of comments responding to the draft policy in 2016. A reviewer conducted an open text review to identify prespecified and additional comment themes. A second researcher reviewed 20% of the comments; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The NIH received 167 comments: 65% (108/167) supportive of the policy, 23% (38/167) not supportive, and 12% (21/167) not indicating support. Clarifications or changes to the policy were suggested in 102/167 comments (61%). Criteria for selecting sIRBs were addressed in 32/102 comments (31%). Also addressed were IRB responsibilities (39/102; 38%), cost (27/102; 26%), the role of local IRBs (14/102; 14%), and allowable policy exceptions (19/102; 19%). The NIH further clarified or provided additional guidance for selection criteria, IRB responsibilities, and cost in the final policy (June 2016). Local IRB reviews and exemptions guidance were unchanged. In this case study, public comments were effective in shaping policy as the NIH modified provisions or planned supplemental guidance in response to comments. Yet critical knowledge gaps remain and empirical data are necessary. The NIH is considering mechanisms to support the establishment of best practices for sIRB implementation.

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.

Summary of EPA’s Review of Comments on the National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v.5.15

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

This document summarizes EPA’s review of comments on inputs to the IPM, including the National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) database. and highlights common comment types and how EPA generally reviewed and acted on those comments.

Understanding student concerns about peer physical examination using an activity theory framework.

PubMed

Wearn, Andy M; Rees, Charlotte E; Bradley, Paul; Vnuk, Anna K

2008-12-01

Peer physical examination (PPE) has been employed for several decades as part of the formal curriculum for learning clinical skills. Most of the existing studies exploring students' attitudes towards PPE are single-site and use quantitative methods. Currently, there is a lack of theoretical underpinning to PPE as a learning method. Using an adaptation of the Examining Fellow Students questionnaire, we captured qualitative data from Year 1 medical students about their views and concerns around learning using PPE. The study was set in six schools across five countries (the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Hong Kong). Students provided free text comments that were later transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. A total of 617 students provided comments for analysis. This paper focuses on several related themes about the complexities of students' relationships within the context of PPE and their reflections on peer examination in comparison with genuine patient examination. Students drew parallels and differences between the peer examiner-examinee relationship and the doctor-patient relationship. They explained how these two types of relationship differed in nature and in terms of their levels of interaction. Our findings illuminate the interactional and complex nature of PPE, drawing out concerns and ambiguities around relationships, community and rules. We discuss our results in light of Engeström's model of activity theory (AT) and provide recommendations for educational practice and further research based on the principles of AT.

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.

Peer-led small groups: Are we on the right track?

PubMed

Moore, Fraser

2017-10-01

Peer tutor-led small group sessions are a valuable learning strategy but students may lack confidence in the absence of a content expert. This study examined whether faculty reinforcement of peer tutor-led small group content was beneficial. Two peer tutor-led small group sessions were compared with one faculty-led small group session using questionnaires sent to student participants and interviews with the peer tutors. One peer tutor-led session was followed by a lecture with revision of the small group content; after the second, students submitted a group report which was corrected and returned to them with comments. Student participants and peer tutors identified increased discussion and opportunity for personal reflection as major benefits of the peer tutor-led small group sessions, but students did express uncertainty about gaps in their learning following these sessions. Both methods of subsequent faculty reinforcement were perceived as valuable by student participants and peer tutors. Knowing in advance that the group report would be corrected reduced discussion in some groups, potentially negating one of the major benefits of the peer tutor-led sessions. Faculty reinforcement of peer-tutor led small group content benefits students but close attention should be paid to the method of reinforcement.

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

Situated peer coaching and unfolding cases in the fundamentals skills laboratory.

PubMed

Himes, Deborah O; Ravert, Patricia K

2012-09-03

Using unfolding case studies and situated peer coaching for the Fundamentals Skills Laboratory provides students with individualized feedback and creates a realistic clinical learning experience. A quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-intervention data was used to evaluate changes in student ratings of the course. An instrument was used to examine students' self-ratings and student comments about each lab. We found that students' ratings of the lab remained high with the new method and self-evaluations of their performance were higher as the semester progressed. Students appreciated the personalized feedback associated with peer coaching and demonstrated strong motivation and self-regulation in learning. By participating in unfolding case studies with situated peer coaching, students focus on safety issues, practice collaborative communication, and critical thinking in addition to performing psychomotor skills.

78 FR 52116 - Request for Public Comment on a Review Level Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-08-22

... OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 2200 Request for Public Comment on a Review Level Alternative Dispute Resolution Program AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. ACTION: Request for comment. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission...

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

Using Blogs to Promote Alternative Perspective to Volcanic Eruptions

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Hamane, A.

2011-12-01

Distance learning is becoming more common in many higher education institutions making asynchronous online tools an essential component to promote positive student outcomes. California State University Los Angeles's online Natural Disasters course implements blogs as a collaborative constructive tool to allow students to build knowledge with their peers rather than to receive a body of facts in isolation. Blogs allow participants to post a chronological series of entries that give insight to thoughts and feelings about a specific event to a broader audience. In this course, students adopt an alternate identity and create a first-person commentary or diary entry as if they witnessed a historical volcanic event. Peers are instructed to post comments to blogs by offering sympathy, advice, solutions, or encouragement. Roleplaying between participants provides the opportunity for students to be engaged through multiple perspectives - a powerful means to understand societal impacts and to gain valuable insights. The blogging activity is devised so that novice students can complete the task on their own, yet read blog posts and comments from more capable peers. Anecdotal evidence suggests students have a greater appreciation and a deeper understanding of the impacts that volcanic eruptions have on society and the environment.

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.

Suicidality Disclosed Online: Using a Simulated Facebook Task to Identify Predictors of Support Giving to Friends at Risk of Self-harm.

PubMed

Corbitt-Hall, Darcy J; Gauthier, Jami M; Troop-Gordon, Wendy

2018-03-31

Although peer support in response to online disclosures of suicidality may be imperative for suicide prevention efforts, little is known as to how often support is provided or what predicts giving support. This study addresses this issue by investigating the odds of providing peer support in response to simulated online disclosures of suicidality. While interacting with a simulated Facebook newsfeed, participants (N = 690, M age  = 20.24, 527 female) were given the opportunity to leave comments on two posts disclosing low, moderate, or severe risk for suicide. Participants also completed questionnaires on their symptoms of depression and anxiety, experience with a loved one's suicidality, and Facebook use strategies. Only 33.6% of participants left a positive, supportive comment on at least one of the two suicide posts. Content severity, experience with a loved one's suicide attempts, and use of Facebook to meet people were predictive of providing positive comments. These findings suggest that young adults vary in their propensity to provide support after encountering a suicide disclosure online and that giving support is driven by a combination of contextual and intrapersonal factors. © 2018 The American Association of Suicidology.

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...

77 FR 76474 - Extension of Public Review and Comment Period for the Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-12-28

... Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Web site at: http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/nepa . Comments on the... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Extension of Public Review and Comment Period for the Draft Programmatic...: Department of Energy. ACTION: Extension of public review and comment period. SUMMARY: On December 12, 2012...

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 .

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.

77 FR 4054 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Customer Comment Card

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-01-26

... Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Customer Comment Card AGENCY: Transportation Security...). TSA uses a customer comment card to collect passenger comments at airports, including complaints... other forms of information technology. Information Collection Requirement Title: TSA Customer Comment...

Applications of the Schur Basis to Quantum Algorithms

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-01-10

superpolynomial speedups based on quantum circuits. (a) Papers published in peer -reviewed journals (N/A for none) 1. D.A.Bacon, I.L. Chuang, A.W...reporting period. List the papers, including journal references, in the following categories: (b) Papers published in non- peer -reviewed journals or in...MIT, Department of EECS, 2008 7.00Number of Papers published in peer -reviewed journals: Number of Papers published in non peer -reviewed journals: (c

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.

76 FR 52945 - Chlorpyrifos Registration Review; Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment; Extension of Comment...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-08-24

... Review; Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental... chlorpyrifos registration review; preliminary human health risk assessment. This document extends the comment... review, preliminary human health risk assessment, established in the Federal Register of Wednesday, July...

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.

Supreme Court Potpourri.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Update on Law-Related Education, 1989

1989-01-01

Examines several recent Supreme Court decisions and comments on the implications of those decisions. Looks at powers of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the picketing of private homes, involuntary servitude, alcoholism, displaying of adult literature, attorney advertisements, confronting one's accuser, physician peer review…

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…

77 FR 27669 - Request for Public Comment on Settlement Part Program

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-05-11

... OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 2200 Request for Public Comment on Settlement Part Program AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. ACTION: Request for comment. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Review Commission) invites the public to...

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.

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.

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

Looney, B; Dawn S. Kaback, D; Eugene L. LeBoeuf, E

Beginning in 2006, the US Department of Energy (DOE) supported nine applied research projects to improve the protection of the Columbia River and mitigate the impacts of Hanford Site groundwater. These projects were funded through a supplemental Congressional budget allocation, and are now in various stages of completion in accordance with the research plans. The DOE Office of Environmental Management Groundwater and Soil Cleanup Technologies (EM-22) sponsored a technical peer review meeting for these projects in Richland WA, July 28-31, 2008. The overall objective of the peer review is to provide information to support DOE decisions about the status andmore » potential future application of the various technologies. The charge for the peer review panel was to develop recommendations for each of the nine 'technologies'. Team members for the July 2008 review were Brian Looney, Gene LeBoeuf, Dawn Kaback, Karen Skubal, Joe Rossabi, Paul Deutsch, and David Cocke. Previous project reviews were held in May 2007 and March-May of 2006. The team used the following four rating categories for projects: (a) Incorporate the technology/strategy in ongoing and future EM activities; (b) Finish existing scope of applied research and determine potential for EM activities when research program is finished; (c) Discontinue current development activities and do not incorporate technology/strategy into ongoing and future EM activities unless a significant and compelling change in potential viability is documented; and (d) Supplement original funded work to obtain the data needed to support a DOE decision to incorporate the technology into ongoing and future EM activities. The supplemental funding portfolio included two projects that addressed strontium, five projects that addressed chromium, one project that addressed uranium and one project that addressed carbon tetrachloride. The projects ranged from in situ treatment methods for immobilizing contaminants using chemical-based methods such as phosphate addition, to innovative surface treatment technologies such as electrocoagulation. Total funding for the nine projects was $9,900,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2006 and $2,000,000 in FY 2007. At the Richland meeting, the peer reviewers provided a generally neutral assessment of the projects and overall progress, and a generally positive assessment with regard to the principal investigators meeting their stated research objectives and performing the planned laboratory research and limited field work. Only one project, the Electrocoagulation Treatability Test, received a rating of 'discontinue' from the team because the project goals had not been met. Because this particular project has already ended, no action with respect to funding withdrawal is necessary. All other projects were recommended to be finished and/or incorporated into field efforts at Hanford. Specific technical comments and recommendations were provided by the team for each project.« less

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...

78 FR 2653 - Comment Deadline Extended for Updated Information and Comment on Review of Hearing Aid...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-01-14

... Extended for Updated Information and Comment on Review of Hearing Aid Compatibility Regulations AGENCY... document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) extends the time within which to file comments on... provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, DA 13-6. The Comment Deadline Extended for...

Student and Instructor Use of Comments on Business Communication Papers.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Winter, Janet K.; Neal, Joan C.; Waner, Karen K.

1996-01-01

Surveys college students regarding their use of instructor comments written on their papers. Finds all students tend to use comments; no significant correlations exist between students' ability levels and their propensity to review, understand, and use comments; students were likely to review comments if they had to rewrite assignments; and…

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…