Policy Statements and Position Papers.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Journal of Dental Education, 1983

1983-01-01

Policy statements and position papers are presented that are intended as recommendations and guidelines for member institutions. They cover education, research, delivery of care, peer review, freedoms and responsibilities of individuals and institutions, national health programs, interdisciplinary education, radiation, and due process. (MLW)

Appendix A. Policy Statement and Position Papers.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Journal of Dental Education, 1982

1982-01-01

Policy statements and position papers adopted by the American Association of Dental Schools address dental education at all levels, government relations, peer review, individual and institutional freedoms and responsibilities, national health programs, a definition of interdisciplinary education, use of ionizing radiation in dental education…

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

PubMed

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

2016-08-17

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

Appendix A: Policy Statements and Position Papers.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Journal of Dental Education, 1988

1988-01-01

Policy statements and position papers adopted by the American Association of Dental Schools, intended as recommendations and guidelines for member institutions, are presented. They cover education, research, delivery of care, health concerns, peer review, national health programs, interdisciplinary education, use of radiation, and due process.…

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Ledley, Tamara S.; Sundquist, Eric; Schwartz, Stephen; Hall, Dorothy K.; Fellows, Jack; Killeen, Timothy

1999-01-01

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), as a scientific organization devoted to research on the Earth and space sciences, provides current scientific information to the public on issues pertinent to geophysics. The Council of the AGU approved a position statement on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases in December 1998. The statement, together with a short summary of the procedures that were followed in its preparation, review, and adoption were published in the February 2, 1999 issue of Eos ([AGU, 1999]. The present article reviews scientific understanding of this issue as presented in peer-reviewed publications that serves as the underlying basis of the position statement.

The Effects of Online Peer Assessment and Family Entrepreneurial Experience on Students' Business Planning Performance

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lee, Chun-Yi

2015-01-01

Problem Statement: In recent years, many educators and researchers in the field of education have made efforts to leverage the advantages provided by online peer assessment, leading to its extensive application in a range of domains, particularly higher education. However, studies on the roles of the reviewer and author in online peer assessment…

SciRide Finder: a citation-based paradigm in biomedical literature search.

PubMed

Volanakis, Adam; Krawczyk, Konrad

2018-04-18

There are more than 26 million peer-reviewed biomedical research items according to Medline/PubMed. This breadth of information is indicative of the progress in biomedical sciences on one hand, but an overload for scientists performing literature searches on the other. A major portion of scientific literature search is to find statements, numbers and protocols that can be cited to build an evidence-based narrative for a new manuscript. Because science builds on prior knowledge, such information has likely been written out and cited in an older manuscript. Thus, Cited Statements, pieces of text from scientific literature supported by citing other peer-reviewed publications, carry significant amount of condensed information on prior art. Based on this principle, we propose a literature search service, SciRide Finder (finder.sciride.org), which constrains the search corpus to such Cited Statements only. We demonstrate that Cited Statements can carry different information to this found in titles/abstracts and full text, giving access to alternative literature search results than traditional search engines. We further show how presenting search results as a list of Cited Statements allows researchers to easily find information to build an evidence-based narrative for their own manuscripts.

Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by Chinese journals of Traditional Chinese Medicine: a survey of journal editors and review of journals' instructions for authors.

PubMed

Ma, Bin; Ke, Fa-Yong; Zheng, Er-Liang; Yang, Zun-Xian; Tang, Qing-Nan; Qi, Guo-Qing

2016-06-01

We aimed to assess the endorsement of the Consolidation Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement by Chinese journals of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and its incorporation into their editorial processes. PubMed, Embase and major Chinese databases were searched to identify journals of TCM from China for inclusion. The latest 'instruction for authors' (IFA) of each included journal was obtained and any text mentioning CONSORT or CONSORT extension papers was extracted. Subsequently, the editor of each of the included journals was surveyed about their journal's endorsement of the CONSORT recommendations and their incorporation into editorial and peer review processes. Sixty-three journals of TCM from China were examined. Of these, only three (5%) and one (2%) of the 63 journals mentioned the CONSORT statement and extension papers, respectively, in their IFA. Fifty-four of 63 (86%) of surveyed journals responded, with the majority of respondents being editors. Only 20% (11/54) of the respondents reported that they had any knowledge of the CONSORT statement. Only 6% (3/54) of the editors reported that they required authors to comply with the CONSORT statement or that they incorporated it into their peer review and editorial processes. TCM journals in China endorsing the CONSORT statement constituted a small percentage of the total. The majority of editors surveyed were not familiar with the content of the CONSORT statement and extension papers. We strongly recommend that the China Periodicals Association issue a policy to promote the endorsement of the CONSORT statement and conduct relevant training for journal editors in China. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

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

PubMed

Söderlund, Therese; Madison, Guy

2017-01-01

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

University lobbying

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Richman, Barbara T.

In the past year, an increasing number of individual academic institutions have lobbied in Congress for new science facilities funds thus circumventing the traditional peer review process of evaluating the merits of such facilities. As an attempt to stem this rising tide, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) governing council and the Association of American Universities (AAU) recently and independently issued strong statements condemning lobbying by individual universities and enthusiastically supporting the peer review system.“Informed peer judgments on the scientific merits of specific proposals, in open competition, should be a central element in the awarding of all federal funds for science,” the NAS resolution stated. AAU, meanwhile, implored “scientists, leaders of America's universities, and members of Congress” to “refrain from actions that would make scientific decisions a test of political influence rather than a judgment on the quality of the work to be done.” Roughly 50 research institutions constitute AAU; the two AAU Canadian members did not vote on the consortium's statement.

Portfolios in Preservice Teacher Education: What the Students Say.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Zidon, Margaret

1996-01-01

This study examined preservice teachers' perspectives of a required portfolio construction and review in one course. Interviews, surveys, reflective statements, and videotapes indicated that students initially questioned it, but after review with faculty and peers, they valued what they learned about their own knowledge of content, teaching and…

Policy Statements and Position Papers.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Journal of Dental Education, 1984

1984-01-01

The American Association of Dental Schools position is presented on dental school curriculum and administration, peer review, freedoms and responsibilities of individuals and institutions, national health programs, interdisciplinary education, ionizing radiation in dental education facilities, and due process. (MSE)

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

PubMed

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

2016-02-02

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

Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses.

PubMed

Francis, John A; Shea, Amy K; Samet, Jonathan M

2006-12-01

To analyse the statements given by tobacco industry defence witnesses during trial testimonies and depositions in second-hand smoke cases and in parallel, to review criticisms of epidemiology in industry-funded publications in order to identify strategies for discrediting epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking health effects. A collection of depositions and trial testimony transcripts from tobacco industry-related lawsuits filed in the United States during the 1990s, was compiled and indexed by the Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (DATTA). Statements in DATTA made by expert witnesses representing the tobacco industry relating to the health effects of passive smoking were identified and reviewed. Industry-supported publications within the peer-reviewed literature were also examined for statements on exposure misclassification, meta-analysis, and confounding. The witnesses challenged causation of adverse health effects of passive smoking by citing limitations of epidemiologic research, raising methodological and statistical issues, and disputing biological plausibility. Though not often cited directly by the witnesses, the defence tactics mirrored the strategies used in industry-funded reports in the peer-reviewed literature. The tobacco industry attempted to redirect the focus and dialogue related to the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking. This approach, used by industry experts in trial testimony and depositions, placed bias as a certain alternative to causation of diseases related to passive smoking and proposed an unachievable standard for establishing the mechanism of disease.

The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

PubMed

Hutton, Brian; Salanti, Georgia; Caldwell, Deborah M; Chaimani, Anna; Schmid, Christopher H; Cameron, Chris; Ioannidis, John P A; Straus, Sharon; Thorlund, Kristian; Jansen, Jeroen P; Mulrow, Cynthia; Catalá-López, Ferrán; Gøtzsche, Peter C; Dickersin, Kay; Boutron, Isabelle; Altman, Douglas G; Moher, David

2015-06-02

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.

Quality of nursing diagnoses: evaluation of an educational intervention.

PubMed

Florin, Jan; Ehrenberg, Anna; Ehnfors, Margareta

2005-01-01

To investigate the effects on the quality of nursing diagnostic statements in patient records after education in the nursing process and implementation of new forms for recording. Quasi-experimental design. Randomly selected patient records reviewed before and after intervention from one experimental unit (n = 70) and three control units (n = 70). A scale with 14 characteristics pertaining to nursing diagnoses was developed and used together with the instrument (CAT-CH-ING) for record review. Quality of nursing diagnostic statements improved in the experimental unit, whereas no improvement was found in the control units. Serious flaws in the use of the etiology component were found. CONCLUSION. Nurses must be more concerned with the accuracy and quality of the nursing diagnoses and the etiology component needs to be given special attention. Education of RNs in nursing diagnostic statements and peer review using standardized evaluation instruments can be means to further enhance RNs' documentation practice.

Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism.

PubMed

Paolucci, Mario; Grimaldo, Francisco

2014-01-01

Peer review works as the hinge of the scientific process, mediating between research and the awareness/acceptance of its results. While it might seem obvious that science would regulate itself scientifically, the consensus on peer review is eroding; a deeper understanding of its workings and potential alternatives is sorely needed. Employing a theoretical approach supported by agent-based simulation, we examined computational models of peer review, performing what we propose to call redesign , that is, the replication of simulations using different mechanisms . Here, we show that we are able to obtain the high sensitivity to rational cheating that is present in literature. In addition, we also show how this result appears to be fragile against small variations in mechanisms. Therefore, we argue that exploration of the parameter space is not enough if we want to support theoretical statements with simulation, and that exploration at the level of mechanisms is needed. These findings also support prudence in the application of simulation results based on single mechanisms, and endorse the use of complex agent platforms that encourage experimentation of diverse mechanisms.

78 FR 48672 - Environmental Impacts Statements;

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-08-09

... Bend Vegetation Management Project, Review Period Ends: 09/19/2013, Contact: Beth Peer 541-383- 4769... Supplement, USFS, ID, Salmon-Challis National Forest Travel Planning and OHV Designation Project, Comment... Mine Project, Comment Period Ends: 09/23/2013, Contact: Shiva Achet 575-234-5924 EIS No. 20130235...

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 3401.8 - Grant awards.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... project period without the announced intention of providing additional support at a future date. This type... renewal shall be based upon new application, de novo peer review and staff evaluation, new recommendation... statement of intention to provide additional support at a future date, provided that performance has been...

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

PubMed

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

2016-08-01

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

The National Osteoporosis Foundation's methods and processes for developing position statements.

PubMed

Wallace, Taylor C; Bauer, Douglas C; Gagel, Robert F; Greenspan, Susan L; Lappe, Joan M; LeBoff, Meryl S; Recker, Robert R; Saag, Kenneth G; Singer, Andrea J

2016-01-01

The methods and processes described in this manuscript have been approved and adopted by the NOF Board of Trustees on November 11, 2015. This manuscript has been peer-reviewed by the NOF Research Committee and Osteoporosis International. The National Osteoporosis Foundation frequently publishes position statements for the benefit of educating healthcare professionals and the general public on a particular issue and/or concern related to preventing osteoporosis and/or promoting strong bones throughout the lifespan. This manuscript represents the official methods and processes adopted by the NOF Board of Trustees for the purpose developing future position statements in a transparent and unbiased manner.

Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions.

PubMed

Hasty, Robert T; Garbalosa, Ryan C; Barbato, Vincenzo A; Valdes, Pedro J; Powers, David W; Hernandez, Emmanuel; John, Jones S; Suciu, Gabriel; Qureshi, Farheen; Popa-Radu, Matei; San Jose, Sergio; Drexler, Nathaniel; Patankar, Rohan; Paz, Jose R; King, Christopher W; Gerber, Hilary N; Valladares, Michael G; Somji, Alyaz A

2014-05-01

Since its launch in 2001, Wikipedia has become the most popular general reference site on the Internet and a popular source of health care information. To evaluate the accuracy of this resource, the authors compared Wikipedia articles on the most costly medical conditions with standard, evidence-based, peer-reviewed sources. The top 10 most costly conditions in terms of public and private expenditure in the United States were identified, and a Wikipedia article corresponding to each topic was chosen. In a blinded process, 2 randomly assigned investigators independently reviewed each article and identified all assertions (ie, implication or statement of fact) made in it. The reviewer then conducted a literature search to determine whether each assertion was supported by evidence. The assertions found by each reviewer were compared and analyzed to determine whether assertions made by Wikipedia for these conditions were supported by peer-reviewed sources. For commonly identified assertions, there was statistically significant discordance between 9 of the 10 selected Wikipedia articles (coronary artery disease, lung cancer, major depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, back pain, and hyperlipidemia) and their corresponding peer-reviewed sources (P<.05) and for all assertions made by Wikipedia for these medical conditions (P<.05 for all 9). Most Wikipedia articles representing the 10 most costly medical conditions in the United States contain many errors when checked against standard peer-reviewed sources. Caution should be used when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care.

Enhancing Students' Written Mathematical Arguments

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lepak, Jerilynn

2014-01-01

Writing in mathematics is complex. The purpose of this article is to share how one teacher, Ms. Hill, used peer-review activities involving rubrics to explicitly communicate mathematical resources that students could draw from when justifying a claim. She found that helping students understand which type of statements could be used in…

American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery position statement on long-term survival benefit after metabolic and bariatric surgery.

PubMed

Kim, Julie; Eisenberg, Dan; Azagury, Dan; Rogers, Ann; Campos, Guilherme M

2016-01-01

The following position statement has been issued by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery in response to numerous inquiries made to the Society by patients, physicians, society members, hospitals, health insurance payors, the media, and others regarding the benefit of metabolic and bariatric surgery on long-term survival. An overview of the current available published peer-reviewed scientific evidence is presented. Copyright © 2016 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

PubMed

Thompson, B Gregory; Brown, Robert D; Amin-Hanjani, Sepideh; Broderick, Joseph P; Cockroft, Kevin M; Connolly, E Sander; Duckwiler, Gary R; Harris, Catherine C; Howard, Virginia J; Johnston, S Claiborne Clay; Meyers, Philip M; Molyneux, Andrew; Ogilvy, Christopher S; Ringer, Andrew J; Torner, James

2015-08-01

The aim of this updated statement is to provide comprehensive and evidence-based recommendations for management of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Writing group members used systematic literature reviews from January 1977 up to June 2014. They also reviewed contemporary published evidence-based guidelines, personal files, and published expert opinion to summarize existing evidence, indicate gaps in current knowledge, and when appropriate, formulated recommendations using standard American Heart Association criteria. The guideline underwent extensive peer review, including review by the Stroke Council Leadership and Stroke Scientific Statement Oversight Committees, before consideration and approval by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. Evidence-based guidelines are presented for the care of patients presenting with unruptured intracranial aneurysms. The guidelines address presentation, natural history, epidemiology, risk factors, screening, diagnosis, imaging and outcomes from surgical and endovascular treatment. © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.

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

PubMed Central

Hirst, Allison; Altman, Douglas G.

2012-01-01

Background Pre-publication peer review of manuscripts should enhance the value of research publications to readers who may wish to utilize findings in clinical care or health policy-making. Much published research across all medical specialties is not useful, may be misleading, wasteful and even harmful. Reporting guidelines are tools that in addition to helping authors prepare better manuscripts may help peer reviewers in assessing them. We examined journals' instructions to peer reviewers to see if and how reviewers are encouraged to use them. Methods We surveyed websites of 116 journals from the McMaster list. Main outcomes were 1) identification of online instructions to peer reviewers and 2) presence or absence of key domains within instructions: on journal logistics, reviewer etiquette and addressing manuscript content (11 domains). Findings Only 41/116 journals (35%) provided online instructions. All 41 guided reviewers about the logistics of their review processes, 38 (93%) outlined standards of behaviour expected and 39 (95%) contained instruction about evaluating the manuscript content. There was great variation in explicit instruction for reviewers about how to evaluate manuscript content. Almost half of the online instructions 19/41 (46%) mentioned reporting guidelines usually as general statements suggesting they may be useful or asking whether authors had followed them rather than clear instructions about how to use them. All 19 named CONSORT for reporting randomized trials but there was little mention of CONSORT extensions. PRISMA, QUOROM (forerunner of PRISMA), STARD, STROBE and MOOSE were mentioned by several journals. No other reporting guideline was mentioned by more than two journals. Conclusions Although almost half of instructions mentioned reporting guidelines, their value in improving research publications is not being fully realised. Journals have a responsibility to support peer reviewers. We make several recommendations including wider reference to the EQUATOR Network online library (www.equator-network.org/). PMID:22558178

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

PubMed

Maisonneuve, Hervé

2012-09-01

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

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

PubMed

Husereau, Don; Drummond, Michael; Petrou, Stavros; Carswell, Chris; Moher, David; Greenberg, Dan; Augustovski, Federico; Briggs, Andrew H; Mauskopf, Josephine; Loder, Elizabeth

2013-06-01

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website ( www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

PubMed

Husereau, Don; Drummond, Michael; Petrou, Stavros; Carswell, Chris; Moher, David; Greenberg, Dan; Augustovski, Federico; Briggs, Andrew H; Mauskopf, Josephine; Loder, Elizabeth

2013-04-01

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

PubMed

Husereau, Don; Drummond, Michael; Petrou, Stavros; Carswell, Chris; Moher, David; Greenberg, Dan; Augustovski, Federico; Briggs, Andrew H; Mauskopf, Josephine; Loder, Elizabeth

2013-05-01

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website ( www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp ).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

PubMed

Husereau, Don; Drummond, Michael; Petrou, Stavros; Carswell, Chris; Moher, David; Greenberg, Dan; Augustovski, Federico; Briggs, Andrew H; Mauskopf, Josephine; Loder, Elizabeth

2013-03-25

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

A substantial peer workforce in a psychiatric service will improve patient outcomes: the case for.

PubMed

Dark, Frances; Patton, Murray; Newton, Richard

2017-10-01

This statement of opinion relates to an invited debate on the role of peer workers in psychiatric services during the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists conference 2016. The views presented in this statement of opinion are those of the team for the affirmative. Peer workers are increasingly being employed within mental health services. Early adopters of this new workforce note advantages in terms of engagement of peers but also a bidirectional sharing of knowledge between clinicians and peer workers that has been mutually beneficial. Greater research and evaluation needs to occur to understand how best to incorporate peer workers into mental health care.

The validity of claims made in orthopaedic print advertisements.

PubMed

Bhattacharyya, Timothy; Tornetta, Paul; Healy, William L; Einhorn, Thomas A

2003-07-01

Orthopaedic surgeons are frequently presented with advertisements for orthopaedic and medical products in which companies make claims of clinical and scientific fact. This study was designed to evaluate the statements made in orthopaedic print advertisements and determine whether they are supported by scientific data. Fifty statements from fifty advertisements were chosen at random from six peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals. The companies that placed the advertisements were contacted to provide supporting data for the statement of clinical or scientific fact. Three senior orthopaedic surgeons evaluated the data for quality and support. A high-quality study was defined as a study that could be published in the peer-reviewed literature. A well-supported statement was defined as a statement with enough supporting evidence to be used in clinical practice. The evaluating surgeons were blinded to product and company identification. The supporting data were from a published source for eighteen claims (36%), from a presentation at a public forum or a scientific meeting for twelve claims (24%), or were "data on file" only at the company for twelve claims (24%). Interobserver agreement among the surgeons evaluating the advertisements for quality and support was good (the average intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.72). Of the fifty claims, twenty-two were considered unsupported by scientific data, seventeen were classified as possibly supported, seven were well supported, and four were from companies that did not respond despite three requests. Claims that were supported by published data were significantly more likely to be rated as well supported (p < 0.001). All twelve claims that were supported purely by "data on file" at the company were considered to be poorly supported. Orthopaedic surgeons should interpret claims made in orthopaedic print advertisements with caution. Approximately half of the claims are not supported by enough data to be used in a clinical decision-making process.

"Echo attributions" and other risks when publishing on novel therapies without peer review.

PubMed

Rosen, G M; Davison, G C

2001-10-01

A special series on Thought Field Therapy in the Journal of Clinical Psychology provides an opportunity for psychologists to learn about techniques and theories outside the mainstream of our field. Unfortunately, by publishing this series of manuscripts without meeting the standards of peer review, the Journal also provides an avenue for the misuse of its good reputation and the improper promotion of untested methods. "Echo attributions" can be made whereby an author attributes the source of his own words to the professional journal in which the text appears. Historical examples illustrate that such misuse of scientific journals and institutions occurs. A formal statement of guidelines is needed to instruct authors on appropriate versus unethical representations of their publications. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bioelectrocatalyzed Nitrogen Fixation under Standard Conditions

DTIC Science & Technology

2016-11-07

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILIBILITY STATEMENT 6. AUTHORS 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMES AND ADDRESSES 15. SUBJECT TERMS b. ABSTRACT...PAGE 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) ARO 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 19a. NAME OF...chemical manufacturing for fuel, propellants and fertilizer . (a) Papers published in peer-reviewed journals (N/A for none) Enter List of papers submitted

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years. PMID:23531108

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years. PMID:23531194

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

PubMed

Husereau, D; Drummond, M; Petrou, S; Carswell, C; Moher, D; Greenberg, D; Augustovski, F; Briggs, A H; Mauskopf, J; Loder, E

2013-05-01

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance.The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years. © 2013 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2013 RCOG.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

PubMed

Husereau, Don; Drummond, Michael; Petrou, Stavros; Carswell, Chris; Moher, David; Greenberg, Dan; Augustovski, Federico; Briggs, Andrew H; Mauskopf, Josephine; Loder, Elizabeth

2013-03-25

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

PubMed

Husereau, Don; Drummond, Michael; Petrou, Stavros; Carswell, Chris; Moher, David; Greenberg, Dan; Augustovski, Federico; Briggs, Andrew H; Mauskopf, Josephine; Loder, Elizabeth

2013-01-01

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years. Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

PubMed

Husereau, Don; Drummond, Michael; Petrou, Stavros; Carswell, Chris; Moher, David; Greenberg, Dan; Augustovski, Federico; Briggs, Andrew H; Mauskopf, Josephine; Loder, Elizabeth

2013-04-01

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years. Copyright © 2013. Published by EM Inc USA.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

PubMed

Husereau, Don; Drummond, Michael; Petrou, Stavros; Carswell, Chris; Moher, David; Greenberg, Dan; Augustovski, Federico; Briggs, Andrew H; Mauskopf, Josephine; Loder, Elizabeth

2013-01-01

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user-friendly, 24-item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). The hope is that CHEERS will lead to better reporting and, ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. Other journals and groups are encouraged to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

The Androgen Excess and PCOS Society criteria for the polycystic ovary syndrome: the complete task force report.

PubMed

Azziz, Ricardo; Carmina, Enrico; Dewailly, Didier; Diamanti-Kandarakis, Evanthia; Escobar-Morreale, Héctor F; Futterweit, Walter; Janssen, Onno E; Legro, Richard S; Norman, Robert J; Taylor, Ann E; Witchel, Selma F

2009-02-01

To review all available data and recommend a definition for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) based on published peer-reviewed data, whether already in use or not, to guide clinical diagnosis and future research. Literature review and expert consensus. Professional society. None. None. A systematic review of the published peer-reviewed medical literature, by querying MEDLINE databases, to identify studies evaluating the epidemiology or phenotypic aspects of PCOS. The Task Force drafted the initial report, following a consensus process via electronic communication, which was then reviewed and critiqued by the Androgen Excess and PCOS (AE-PCOS) Society AE-PCOS Board of Directors. No section was finalized until all members were satisfied with the contents, and minority opinions noted. Statements were not included that were not supported by peer-reviewed evidence. Based on the available data, it is the view of the AE-PCOS Society Task Force that PCOS should be defined by the presence of hyperandrogenism (clinical and/or biochemical), ovarian dysfunction (oligo-anovulation and/or polycystic ovaries), and the exclusion of related disorders. However, a minority considered the possibility that there may be forms of PCOS without overt evidence of hyperandrogenism, but recognized that more data are required before validating this supposition. Finally, the Task Force recognized and fully expects that the definition of this syndrome will evolve over time to incorporate new research findings.

Positions statement: criteria for defining polycystic ovary syndrome as a predominantly hyperandrogenic syndrome: an Androgen Excess Society guideline.

PubMed

Azziz, Ricardo; Carmina, Enrico; Dewailly, Didier; Diamanti-Kandarakis, Evanthia; Escobar-Morreale, Hector F; Futterweit, Walter; Janssen, Onno E; Legro, Richard S; Norman, Robert J; Taylor, Ann E; Witchel, Selma F

2006-11-01

The Androgen Excess Society (AES) charged a task force to review all available data and recommend an evidence-based definition for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), whether already in use or not, to guide clinical diagnosis and future research. Participants included expert investigators in the field. Based on a systematic review of the published peer-reviewed medical literature, by querying MEDLINE databases, we tried to identify studies evaluating the epidemiology or phenotypic aspects of PCOS. The task force drafted the initial report, following a consensus process via electronic communication, which was then reviewed and critiqued by the AES Board of Directors. No section was finalized until all members were satisfied with the contents and minority opinions noted. Statements that were not supported by peer-reviewed evidence were not included. Based on the available data, it is the view of the AES Task Force on the Phenotype of PCOS that there should be acceptance of the original 1990 National Institutes of Health criteria with some modifications, taking into consideration the concerns expressed in the proceedings of the 2003 Rotterdam conference. A principal conclusion was that PCOS should be first considered a disorder of androgen excess or hyperandrogenism, although a minority considered the possibility that there may be forms of PCOS without overt evidence of hyperandrogenism but recognized that more data are required before validating this supposition. Finally, the task force recognized, and fully expects, that the definition of this syndrome will evolve over time to incorporate new research findings.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.

PubMed

Husereau, Don; Drummond, Michael; Petrou, Stavros; Carswell, Chris; Moher, David; Greenberg, Dan; Augustovski, Federico; Briggs, Andrew H; Mauskopf, Josephine; Loder, Elizabeth

2013-01-01

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years. Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

PubMed

Schroter, Sara; Pakpoor, Julia; Morris, Julie; Chew, Mabel; Godlee, Fiona

2016-06-10

Financial ties with industry are varied and common among academics, doctors and institutions. Clinical educational articles are intended to guide patient care and convey authors' own interpretation of selected data. Author biases in educational articles tend to be less visible to readers compared to those in research papers. Little is known about which types of competing interest statements affect readers' interpretation of the credibility of these articles. This study aims to investigate how different competing interest statements in educational articles affect clinical readers' perceptions of the articles. 2040 doctors who are members of the British Medical Association (BMA) and receive a copy of the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) each week will be randomly selected and invited by an email to participate in the study. They will be randomised to receive 1 of 2 Clinical Reviews, each with 1 of 4 possible competing interest statements. Versions of each review will be identical except for permutations of the competing interest statement. Study participants will be asked to read their article and complete an online questionnaire. The questionnaire will ask participants to rate their confidence in the conclusions drawn in the article, the importance of the article, their level of interest in the article and their likeliness to change their practice from the article. Factorial analyses of variance and analyses of covariance will be carried out to assess the impact of the type of competing interest statement and Clinical Review on level of confidence, importance, interest and likeliness to change practice. The study protocol, questionnaire and letter of invitation to participants have been reviewed by members of The BMJ's Ethics Committee for ethical concerns. The trial results will be disseminated to participants and published in a peer-reviewed journal. NCT02548312; Pre-results. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

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

PubMed

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

2013-01-01

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

The Effects of a Peer-Mediated Reading Intervention on Juvenile Offenders' Main Idea Statements about Informational Text

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Wexler, Jade; Reed, Deborah K.; Barton, Erin E.; Mitchell, Marisa; Clancy, Erin

2018-01-01

Many youth in the juvenile justice system with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders struggle with reading. A multiple-baseline-across-participants single-case research design was used to examine the relationship between a supplemental peer-mediated reading intervention and juvenile offenders' generation of main idea statements about…

Ethical issues in studying submissions to a medical journal.

PubMed

Olson, C M; Glass, R M; Thacker, S B; Stroup, D F

1998-07-15

A protocol to prospectively study characteristics of meta-analyses submitted to a weekly medical journal raised several ethical issues. In submitting a manuscript for publication, authors do not implicitly consent to have their work used for research. Authors must be free to refuse to consent, without it affecting their chances for publication. Systematically analyzing data on manuscript characteristics might influence the decision to publish. Having investigators who are not on the editorial staff or peer reviewers extract the manuscripts' characteristics breaks the confidentiality of the author-editor-reviewer relationship. In response to these issues, we added a statement to our journal's instructions for authors that submitted manuscripts may be systematically analyzed to improve the quality of the editorial or peer review process. Authors had to actively consent to participate, but editors and external reviewers were unaware of which authors were participating. The manuscript characteristics were not shared with authors, editors, or external reviewers. The investigators were blinded to each manuscript's author and institution. After we addressed ethical issues encountered in studying manuscripts submitted to a medical journal, 99 of 105 authors submitting a meta-analysis during the study's first 24 months agreed to participate.

UROTRAUMA: AUA GUIDELINE

PubMed Central

Morey, Allen F.; Brandes, Steve; Dugi, Daniel David; Armstrong, John H.; Breyer, Benjamin N.; Broghammer, Joshua A.; Erickson, Bradley A.; Holzbeierlein, Jeff; Hudak, Steven J.; Mirvis, Stuart; Pruitt, Jeffrey H.; Reston, James T.; Santucci, Richard A.; Smith, Thomas G.; Wessells, Hunter

2014-01-01

Purpose The authors of this guideline reviewed the urologic trauma literature to guide clinicians in the appropriate methods of evaluation and management of genitourinary injuries. Methods A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE® and EMBASE databases (search dates 1/1/90-9/19/12) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to urotrauma. The review yielded an evidence base of 372 studies after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. These publications were used to inform the statements presented in the guideline as Standards, Recommendations or Options. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate) or C (low). In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. PMID:24857651

An Analysis of Peer Feedback Exchanged in Group Supervision

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Wahesh, Edward; Kemer, Gulsah; Willis, Ben T.; Schmidt, Christopher D.

2017-01-01

The authors examined the peer feedback exchanged in 2 supervision groups of counselors-in-training (CITs). CITs generated 169 statements grouped into 10 clusters representing 5 regions of peer feedback: counselor focus and engagement, insight-oriented skills, exploratory skills, therapeutic alliance, and intervention activities. Both positive and…

A Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT Statement.

PubMed

Chen, Yaolong; Yang, Kehu; Marušic, Ana; Qaseem, Amir; Meerpohl, Joerg J; Flottorp, Signe; Akl, Elie A; Schünemann, Holger J; Chan, Edwin S Y; Falck-Ytter, Yngve; Ahmed, Faruque; Barber, Sarah; Chen, Chiehfeng; Zhang, Mingming; Xu, Bin; Tian, Jinhui; Song, Fujian; Shang, Hongcai; Tang, Kun; Wang, Qi; Norris, Susan L

2017-01-17

The quality of reporting practice guidelines is often poor, and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for such reporting in health care. The international RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) Working Group was established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing guidelines for health research reporting and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. It developed a checklist and an explanation and elaboration statement. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of practice guidelines: basic information (items 1 to 4), background (items 5 to 9), evidence (items 10 to 12), recommendations (items 13 to 15), review and quality assurance (items 16 and 17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18 and 19), and other information (items 20 to 22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a guideline.

Peyronie’s Disease: AUA Guideline

PubMed Central

Nehra, Ajay; Alterowitz, Ralph; Culkin, Daniel J.; Faraday, Martha M.; Hakim, Lawrence S.; Heidelbaugh, Joel J.; Khera, Mohit; Kirkby, Erin; McVary, Kevin T.; Miner, Martin M.; Nelson, Christian J.; Sadeghi-Nejad, Hossein; Seftel, Allen D.; Shindel, Alan W.; Burnett, Arthur L.

2016-01-01

Purpose The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of Peyronie’s disease. Materials and Methods A systematic review of the literature using the PubMed®, EMBASE® and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1965 to 1/26/15) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of PD. The review yielded an evidence base of 303 articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results The systematic review was used to create guideline statements regarding treatment of PD. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high quality evidence; high certainty), B (moderate quality evidence; moderate certainty), or C (low quality evidence; low certainty). Evidence-based statements of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendation were developed based on benefits and risks/burdens to patients. Additional consensus statements related to the diagnosis of PD are provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions due to insufficient published evidence. Conclusions There is a continually expanding literature on PD; the Panel notes that this document constitutes a clinical strategy and is not intended to be interpreted rigidly. The most effective approach for a particular patient is best determined by the individual clinician and patient in the context of that patient’s history, values, and goals for treatment. As the science relevant to PD evolves and improves, the strategies presented here will be amended to remain consistent with the highest standards of clinical care. PMID:26066402

The Florence Statement on Triclosan and Triclocarban

PubMed Central

Halden, Rolf U.; Aiello, Allison E.; Andrews, David; Arnold, William A.; Fair, Patricia; Fuoco, Rebecca E.; Geer, Laura A.; Johnson, Paula I.; Lohmann, Rainer; McNeill, Kristopher; Sacks, Victoria P.; Schettler, Ted; Weber, Roland; Zoeller, R. Thomas; Blum, Arlene

2017-01-01

Summary: The Florence Statement on Triclosan and Triclocarban documents a consensus of more than 200 scientists and medical professionals on the hazards of and lack of demonstrated benefit from common uses of triclosan and triclocarban. These chemicals may be used in thousands of personal care and consumer products as well as in building materials. Based on extensive peer-reviewed research, this statement concludes that triclosan and triclocarban are environmentally persistent endocrine disruptors that bioaccumulate in and are toxic to aquatic and other organisms. Evidence of other hazards to humans and ecosystems from triclosan and triclocarban is presented along with recommendations intended to prevent future harm from triclosan, triclocarban, and antimicrobial substances with similar properties and effects. Because antimicrobials can have unintended adverse health and environmental impacts, they should only be used when they provide an evidence-based health benefit. Greater transparency is needed in product formulations, and before an antimicrobial is incorporated into a product, the long-term health and ecological impacts should be evaluated. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1788 PMID:28632490

A systematic review of definitions and classification systems of adjacent segment pathology.

PubMed

Kraemer, Paul; Fehlings, Michael G; Hashimoto, Robin; Lee, Michael J; Anderson, Paul A; Chapman, Jens R; Raich, Annie; Norvell, Daniel C

2012-10-15

Systematic review. To undertake a systematic review to determine how "adjacent segment degeneration," "adjacent segment disease," or clinical pathological processes that serve as surrogates for adjacent segment pathology are classified and defined in the peer-reviewed literature. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease are terms referring to degenerative changes known to occur after reconstructive spine surgery, most commonly at an immediately adjacent functional spinal unit. These can include disc degeneration, instability, spinal stenosis, facet degeneration, and deformity. The true incidence and clinical impact of degenerative changes at the adjacent segment is unclear because there is lack of a universally accepted classification system that rigorously addresses clinical and radiological issues. A systematic review of the English language literature was undertaken and articles were classified using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS.: Seven classification systems of spinal degeneration, including degeneration at the adjacent segment, were identified. None have been evaluated for reliability or validity specific to patients with degeneration at the adjacent segment. The ways in which terms related to adjacent segment "degeneration" or "disease" are defined in the peer-reviewed literature are highly variable. On the basis of the systematic review presented in this article, no formal classification system for either cervical or thoracolumbar adjacent segment disorders currently exists. No recommendations regarding the use of current classification of degeneration at any segments can be made based on the available literature. A new comprehensive definition for adjacent segment pathology (ASP, the now preferred terminology) has been proposed in this Focus Issue, which reflects the diverse pathology observed at functional spinal units adjacent to previous spinal reconstruction and balances detailed stratification with clinical utility. A comprehensive classification system is being developed through expert opinion and will require validation as well as peer review. Strength of Statement: Strong.

Development of a multimedia educational programme for first-time hearing aid users: a participatory design.

PubMed

Ferguson, Melanie; Leighton, Paul; Brandreth, Marian; Wharrad, Heather

2018-05-02

To develop content for a series of interactive video tutorials (or reusable learning objects, RLOs) for first-time adult hearing aid users, to enhance knowledge of hearing aids and communication. RLO content was based on an electronically-delivered Delphi review, workshops, and iterative peer-review and feedback using a mixed-methods participatory approach. An expert panel of 33 hearing healthcare professionals, and workshops involving 32 hearing aid users and 11 audiologists. This ensured that social, emotional and practical experiences of the end-user alongside clinical validity were captured. Content for evidence-based, self-contained RLOs based on pedagogical principles was developed for delivery via DVD for television, PC or internet. Content was developed based on Delphi review statements about essential information that reached consensus (≥90%), visual representations of relevant concepts relating to hearing aids and communication, and iterative peer-review and feedback of content. This participatory approach recognises and involves key stakeholders in the design process to create content for a user-friendly multimedia educational intervention, to supplement the clinical management of first-time hearing aid users. We propose participatory methodologies are used in the development of content for e-learning interventions in hearing-related research and clinical practice.

CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts.

PubMed

Boutron, Isabelle; Altman, Douglas G; Moher, David; Schulz, Kenneth F; Ravaud, Philippe

2017-07-04

Incomplete and inadequate reporting is an avoidable waste that reduces the usefulness of research. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement is an evidence-based reporting guideline that aims to improve research transparency and reduce waste. In 2008, the CONSORT Group developed an extension to the original statement that addressed methodological issues specific to trials of nonpharmacologic treatments (NPTs), such as surgery, rehabilitation, or psychotherapy. This article describes an update of that extension and presents an extension for reporting abstracts of NPT trials. To develop these materials, the authors reviewed pertinent literature published up to July 2016; surveyed authors of NPT trials; and conducted a consensus meeting with editors, trialists, and methodologists. Changes to the CONSORT Statement extension for NPT trials include wording modifications to improve readers' understanding and the addition of 3 new items. These items address whether and how adherence of participants to interventions is assessed or enhanced, description of attempts to limit bias if blinding is not possible, and specification of the delay between randomization and initiation of the intervention. The CONSORT extension for abstracts of NPT trials includes 2 new items that were not specified in the original CONSORT Statement for abstracts. The first addresses reporting of eligibility criteria for centers where the intervention is performed and for care providers. The second addresses reporting of important changes to the intervention versus what was planned. Both the updated CONSORT extension for NPT trials and the CONSORT extension for NPT trial abstracts should help authors, editors, and peer reviewers improve the transparency of NPT trial reports.

Consensus statement of the International Summit on Intellectual Disability and Dementia on valuing the perspectives of persons with intellectual disability.

PubMed

Watchman, Karen; Janicki, Matthew P; Udell, Leslie; Hogan, Mary; Quinn, Sam; Beránková, Anna

2018-01-01

The International Summit on Intellectual Disability and Dementia covered a range of issues related to dementia and intellectual disability, including the dearth of personal reflections of persons with intellectual disability affected by dementia. This article reflects on this deficiency and explores some of the personal perspectives gleaned from the literature, from the Summit attendees and from the experiences of persons with intellectual disability recorded or scribed in advance of the two-day Summit meeting. Systemic recommendations included reinforcing the value of the involvement of persons with intellectual disability in (a) research alongside removing barriers to inclusion posed by institutional/ethics review boards, (b) planning groups that establish supports for dementia and (c) peer support. Practice recommendations included (a) valuing personal perspectives in decision-making, (b) enabling peer-to-peer support models, (c) supporting choice in community-dwelling arrangements and (d) broadening availability of materials for persons with intellectual disability that would promote understanding of dementia.

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.

Advancing oral health policy and advocacy to prevent childhood obesity and reduce children's consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.

PubMed

Sanghavi, Ankit; Siddiqui, Nadia J

2017-06-01

While a large body of work documents the interconnections between oral health and obesity, less is known about the role that oral health professionals and organizations play to prevent childhood obesity, especially by influencing children's consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). This review identifies efforts by oral health professionals and organizations to influence such policy and advocacy, while informing future opportunities to leverage and expand on existing efforts. A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature and a web-based review of oral health policy and advocacy initiatives addressing prevention of obesity and reducing children's consumption of SSBs were conducted. Of 30 unique references identified, four peer-reviewed and seven non-peer-reviewed references met selection criteria. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted using a priori determined headings. Findings suggest a strong role for oral health professionals in preventing childhood obesity and reducing children's consumption of SSBs; however, only a few national, state, and local oral-health-advocacy and -policy efforts were identified, such as policy statements by national associations, state and local education campaigns, and clinical guidelines. Evidence was limited on the role of oral health professionals in influencing broader communitywide advocacy and policy efforts such as soda taxation and limiting SSB consumption in schools. This review provides an emerging evidence base to support growing recognition among oral health professionals of their dual role in preventing childhood obesity and dental caries by targeting SSB consumption. It also identifies opportunities for oral health professionals to build on initial efforts to more proactively influence future policy and advocacy. © 2017 American Association of Public Health Dentistry.

The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement

PubMed Central

Benchimol, Eric I.; Smeeth, Liam; Guttmann, Astrid; Harron, Katie; Moher, David; Petersen, Irene; Sørensen, Henrik T.; von Elm, Erik; Langan, Sinéad M.

2015-01-01

Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting. PMID:26440803

The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.

PubMed

Benchimol, Eric I; Smeeth, Liam; Guttmann, Astrid; Harron, Katie; Moher, David; Petersen, Irene; Sørensen, Henrik T; von Elm, Erik; Langan, Sinéad M

2015-10-01

Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.

[The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement].

PubMed

Benchimol, Eric I; Smeeth, Liam; Guttmann, Astrid; Harron, Katie; Hemkens, Lars G; Moher, David; Petersen, Irene; Sørensen, Henrik T; von Elm, Erik; Langan, Sinéad M

2016-10-01

Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist as well as explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will improve the implementation and understanding of RECORD. By implementing RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can enhance transparency of research reporting. Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions: A Policy Statement From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee.

PubMed

Kon, Alexander A; Shepard, Eric K; Sederstrom, Nneka O; Swoboda, Sandra M; Marshall, Mary Faith; Birriel, Barbara; Rincon, Fred

2016-09-01

The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer: AUA Guideline.

PubMed

Cookson, Michael S; Roth, Bruce J; Dahm, Philipp; Engstrom, Christine; Freedland, Stephen J; Hussain, Maha; Lin, Daniel W; Lowrance, William T; Murad, Mohammad Hassan; Oh, William K; Penson, David F; Kibel, Adam S

2013-08-01

This Guideline is intended to provide a rational basis for the management of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer based on currently available published data. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature was conducted using controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords relating to the relevant concepts of prostate cancer and castration resistance. The search strategy was developed and executed by reference librarians and methodologists to create an evidence report limited to English-language, published peer-reviewed literature. This review yielded 303 articles published from 1996 through 2013 that were used to form a majority of the guideline statements. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidence-based data. Guideline statements were created to inform clinicians on the appropriate use of observation, androgen-deprivation and antiandrogen therapy, androgen synthesis inhibitors, immunotherapy, radionuclide therapy, systemic chemotherapy, palliative care and bone health. These were based on six index patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice. As a direct result of the significant increase in FDA-approved therapeutic agents for use in patients with metastatic CRPC, clinicians are challenged with a multitude of treatment options and potential sequencing of these agents that, consequently, make clinical decision-making more complex. Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient's treatment goals. In all cases, patients' preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies. Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A critical review of Dr. Charles S. Greene's article titled "Managing the Care of Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders: a new Guideline for Care" and a revision of the American Association for Dental Research's 1996 policy statement on temporomandibular disorders, approved by the AADR Council in March 2010, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association September 2010.

PubMed

Simmons, H Clifton

2012-01-01

Dr. Charles Greene's article, "Managing the Care of Patients with TMDs A New Guideline for Care," and the American Association for Dental Research's (AADR) 2010 Policy Statement on Temporomandibular Disorders, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) September 2010, are reviewed in detail. The concept that all temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) should be lumped into one policy statement for care is inappropriate. TMDs are a collection of disorders that are treated differently, and the concept that TMDs must only be managed within a biopsychosocial model of care is inappropriate. TMDs are usually a musculoskeletal orthopedic disorder, as defined by the AADR. TMD orthopedic care that is peer-reviewed and evidence-based is available and appropriate for some TMDs. Organized dentistry, including the American Dental Association, and mainstream texts on TMDs, support the use of orthopedics in the treatment of some TMDs. TMDs are not psychological or social disorders. Informed consent requires that alternative care is discussed with patients. Standard of care is a legal concept that is usually decided by a court of law and not decided by a policy statement, position paper, guidelines or parameters of care handed down by professional organizations. The 2010 AADR Policy Statement on TMD is not the standard of care in the United States. Whether a patient needs care for a TMD is not decided by a diagnostic test, but by whether the patient has significant pain, dysfunction and/or a negative change in quality of life from a TMD and they want care. Some TMDs need timely invasive and irreversible care.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.

PubMed

Moher, David; Shamseer, Larissa; Clarke, Mike; Ghersi, Davina; Liberati, Alessandro; Petticrew, Mark; Shekelle, Paul; Stewart, Lesley A

2015-01-01

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors’ perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals

PubMed Central

Galipeau, James; Cobey, Kelly D.; Barbour, Virginia; Baskin, Patricia; Bell-Syer, Sally; Deeks, Jonathan; Garner, Paul; Shamseer, Larissa; Sharon, Straus; Tugwell, Peter; Winker, Margaret; Moher, David

2017-01-01

Background: Scientific editors (i.e., those who make decisions on the content and policies of a journal) have a central role in the editorial process at biomedical journals. However, very little is known about the training needs of these editors or what competencies are required to perform effectively in this role. Methods: We conducted a survey of perceptions and training needs among scientific editors from major editorial organizations around the world, followed by a modified Delphi process in which we invited the same scientific editors to rate the importance of competency-related statements obtained from a previous scoping review. Results: A total of 148 participants completed the survey of perceptions and training needs. At least 80% of participants agreed on six of the 38 skill and expertise-related statements presented to them as being important or very important to their role as scientific editors. At least 80% agreed on three of the 38 statements as necessary skills they perceived themselves as possessing (well or very well).  The top five items on participants’ list of top training needs were training in statistics, research methods, publication ethics, recruiting and dealing with peer reviewers, and indexing of journals. The three rounds of the Delphi were completed by 83, 83, and 73 participants, respectively, which ultimately produced a list of 23 “highly rated” competency-related statements and another 86 “included” items. Conclusion: Both the survey and the modified Delphi process will be critical for understanding knowledge and training gaps among scientific editors when designing curriculum around core competencies in the future. PMID:28979768

An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors' perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.

PubMed

Galipeau, James; Cobey, Kelly D; Barbour, Virginia; Baskin, Patricia; Bell-Syer, Sally; Deeks, Jonathan; Garner, Paul; Shamseer, Larissa; Sharon, Straus; Tugwell, Peter; Winker, Margaret; Moher, David

2017-01-01

Background: Scientific editors (i.e., those who make decisions on the content and policies of a journal) have a central role in the editorial process at biomedical journals. However, very little is known about the training needs of these editors or what competencies are required to perform effectively in this role. Methods: We conducted a survey of perceptions and training needs among scientific editors from major editorial organizations around the world, followed by a modified Delphi process in which we invited the same scientific editors to rate the importance of competency-related statements obtained from a previous scoping review. Results: A total of 148 participants completed the survey of perceptions and training needs. At least 80% of participants agreed on six of the 38 skill and expertise-related statements presented to them as being important or very important to their role as scientific editors. At least 80% agreed on three of the 38 statements as necessary skills they perceived themselves as possessing (well or very well).  The top five items on participants' list of top training needs were training in statistics, research methods, publication ethics, recruiting and dealing with peer reviewers, and indexing of journals. The three rounds of the Delphi were completed by 83, 83, and 73 participants, respectively, which ultimately produced a list of 23 "highly rated" competency-related statements and another 86 "included" items. Conclusion: Both the survey and the modified Delphi process will be critical for understanding knowledge and training gaps among scientific editors when designing curriculum around core competencies in the future.

The transfer of land resources information into the public sector—The Texas experience

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Wermund, E. G.

1980-03-01

Mapping of land resources and environmental geology was initiated in Texas toward better communication of geology to the public policy sector. Relevant mapping parameters have included terrain, substrate, active processes, economic resources, and hydrology as well as physical, chemical, and biologic properties. Land resources maps and reports have been prepared for public agencies and published for technical and nontechnical readers; sales of these articles are one indicator of public policy transfer. Single lectures or participation in symposia and colloquia for scientific societies have been valuable only for peer review or as a means to sharpen communicative skills. The most successful mechanisms of public policy transfer have been (1) in-state workshops and short courses for elected officials, Governmental employees, and interested citizens; (2) legislative testimonies; (3) active participation on interagency committees; (4) reviews and comments on planning statements; and (5) a temporary loan of personnel to another agency. Areas where these methods successfully have impacted public policy are reflected in the present quality of Section 208, Section 701, and coastal zone management planning; applications for surface-mining permits; and environmental impact statement records in Texas.

[A reporting tool for practice guidelines in health care: the RIGHT statement].

PubMed

Chen, Yaolong; Yang, Kehu; Marušić, Ana; Qaseem, Amir; Meerpohl, Joerg J; Flottorp, Signe; Akl, Elie A; Schünemann, Holger J; Chan, Edwin S Y; Falck-Ytter, Yngve; Ahmed, Faruque; Barber, Sarah; Chen, Chiehfeng; Zhang, Mingming; Xu, Bin; Tian, Jinhui; Song, Fujian; Shang, Hongcai; Tang, Kun; Wang, Qi; Norris, Susan L; Labonté, Valérie C; Möhler, Ralph; Kopp, Ina; Nothacker, Monika; Meerpohl, Joerg J

2017-11-01

The quality of reporting practice guidelines is often poor, and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for such reporting in health care. The international RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) Working Group was established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing guidelines for health research reporting and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. A checklist and an explanation and elaboration statement were developed. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of practice guidelines: basic information (items 1 to 4), background (items 5 to 9), evidence (items 10 to 12), recommendations (items 13 to 15), review and quality assurance (items 16 and 17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18 and 19), and other information (items 20 to 22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a guideline. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

The Development of Conformity and Independence. Report from the Project on Role Theory Analysis of Peer-Teaching Techniques.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Allen, Vernon L.; Newtson, Darren

Age trends in conformity and independence, using a sample of 366 children from the 1st, 4th, 7th, and 10th grades were investigated. Three types of stimuli were used: (1) visual judgments; (2) opinion statements; and (3) delay of gratification preferences. Age-trends were observed for unanimous peer pressure, adult influence, and peer pressure…

Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.

PubMed

Magua, Wairimu; Zhu, Xiaojin; Bhattacharya, Anupama; Filut, Amarette; Potvien, Aaron; Leatherberry, Renee; Lee, You-Geon; Jens, Madeline; Malikireddy, Dastagiri; Carnes, Molly; Kaatz, Anna

2017-05-01

Women are less successful than men in renewing R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health. Continuing to probe text mining as a tool to identify gender bias in peer review, we used algorithmic text mining and qualitative analysis to examine a sample of critiques from men's and women's R01 renewal applications previously analyzed by counting and comparing word categories. We analyzed 241 critiques from 79 Summary Statements for 51 R01 renewals awarded to 45 investigators (64% male, 89% white, 80% PhD) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. We used latent Dirichlet allocation to discover evaluative "topics" (i.e., words that co-occur with high probability). We then qualitatively examined the context in which evaluative words occurred for male and female investigators. We also examined sex differences in assigned scores controlling for investigator productivity. Text analysis results showed that male investigators were described as "leaders" and "pioneers" in their "fields," with "highly innovative" and "highly significant research." By comparison, female investigators were characterized as having "expertise" and working in "excellent" environments. Applications from men received significantly better priority, approach, and significance scores, which could not be accounted for by differences in productivity. Results confirm our previous analyses suggesting that gender stereotypes operate in R01 grant peer review. Reviewers may more easily view male than female investigators as scientific leaders with significant and innovative research, and score their applications more competitively. Such implicit bias may contribute to sex differences in award rates for R01 renewals.

Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques

PubMed Central

Magua, Wairimu; Zhu, Xiaojin; Bhattacharya, Anupama; Filut, Amarette; Potvien, Aaron; Leatherberry, Renee; Lee, You-Geon; Jens, Madeline; Malikireddy, Dastagiri; Carnes, Molly

2017-01-01

Abstract Background: Women are less successful than men in renewing R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health. Continuing to probe text mining as a tool to identify gender bias in peer review, we used algorithmic text mining and qualitative analysis to examine a sample of critiques from men's and women's R01 renewal applications previously analyzed by counting and comparing word categories. Methods: We analyzed 241 critiques from 79 Summary Statements for 51 R01 renewals awarded to 45 investigators (64% male, 89% white, 80% PhD) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. We used latent Dirichlet allocation to discover evaluative “topics” (i.e., words that co-occur with high probability). We then qualitatively examined the context in which evaluative words occurred for male and female investigators. We also examined sex differences in assigned scores controlling for investigator productivity. Results: Text analysis results showed that male investigators were described as “leaders” and “pioneers” in their “fields,” with “highly innovative” and “highly significant research.” By comparison, female investigators were characterized as having “expertise” and working in “excellent” environments. Applications from men received significantly better priority, approach, and significance scores, which could not be accounted for by differences in productivity. Conclusions: Results confirm our previous analyses suggesting that gender stereotypes operate in R01 grant peer review. Reviewers may more easily view male than female investigators as scientific leaders with significant and innovative research, and score their applications more competitively. Such implicit bias may contribute to sex differences in award rates for R01 renewals. PMID:28281870

Simple Messages Help Set the Record Straight about Scientific Agreement on Human-Caused Climate Change: The Results of Two Experiments

PubMed Central

Myers, Teresa A.; Maibach, Edward; Peters, Ellen; Leiserowitz, Anthony

2015-01-01

Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents’ estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an “estimation and reveal” technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. PMID:25812121

Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: the results of two experiments.

PubMed

Myers, Teresa A; Maibach, Edward; Peters, Ellen; Leiserowitz, Anthony

2015-01-01

Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents' estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an "estimation and reveal" technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

New law requires 'medically accurate' lesson plans.

PubMed

1999-09-17

The California Legislature has passed a bill requiring all textbooks and materials used to teach about AIDS be medically accurate and objective. Statements made within the curriculum must be supported by research conducted in compliance with scientific methods, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Some of the current lesson plans were found to contain scientifically unsupported and biased information. In addition, the bill requires material to be "free of racial, ethnic, or gender biases." The legislation is supported by a wide range of interests, but opposed by the California Right to Life Education Fund, because they believe it discredits abstinence-only material.

An Official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Policy Statement: Enhancing Implementation, Use, and Delivery of Pulmonary Rehabilitation.

PubMed

Rochester, Carolyn L; Vogiatzis, Ioannis; Holland, Anne E; Lareau, Suzanne C; Marciniuk, Darcy D; Puhan, Milo A; Spruit, Martijn A; Masefield, Sarah; Casaburi, Richard; Clini, Enrico M; Crouch, Rebecca; Garcia-Aymerich, Judith; Garvey, Chris; Goldstein, Roger S; Hill, Kylie; Morgan, Michael; Nici, Linda; Pitta, Fabio; Ries, Andrew L; Singh, Sally J; Troosters, Thierry; Wijkstra, Peter J; Yawn, Barbara P; ZuWallack, Richard L

2015-12-01

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has demonstrated physiological, symptom-reducing, psychosocial, and health economic benefits for patients with chronic respiratory diseases, yet it is underutilized worldwide. Insufficient funding, resources, and reimbursement; lack of healthcare professional, payer, and patient awareness and knowledge; and additional patient-related barriers all contribute to the gap between the knowledge of the science and benefits of PR and the actual delivery of PR services to suitable patients. The objectives of this document are to enhance implementation, use, and delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation to suitable individuals worldwide. Members of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) Rehabilitation and Chronic Care Group established a Task Force and writing committee to develop a policy statement on PR. The document was modified based on feedback from expert peer reviewers. After cycles of review and revisions, the statement was reviewed and formally approved by the Board of Directors of the ATS and the Science Council and Executive Committee of the ERS. This document articulates policy recommendations for advancing healthcare professional, payer, and patient awareness and knowledge of PR, increasing patient access to PR, and ensuring quality of PR programs. It also recommends areas of future research to establish evidence to support the development of an updated funding and reimbursement policy regarding PR. The ATS and ERS commit to undertake actions that will improve access to and delivery of PR services for suitable patients. They call on their members and other health professional societies, payers, patients, and patient advocacy groups to join in this commitment.

Google+ and the Commodification of Cool

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Thomas, Lisa Carlucci

2011-01-01

This summer's "make a statement" statement was simple to understand: "I have moved." Facebook friends and colleagues marked their mass exodus from the social networking giant with these words as they left to start a new colony of peers on the newly announced Google+ (Google Plus). G+, as it is abbreviated, offered an appealing alternative from the…

The Role of Peer Pressure, Automatic Thoughts and Self-Esteem on Adolescents' Aggression

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Yavuzer, Yasemin; Karatas, Zeynep; Civilidag, Aydin; Gundogdu, Rezzan

2014-01-01

Problem Statement: Aggression is defined as any kind of behavior intended to hurt others. Aggression generally arises due to the interaction between individual (e.g., social and emotional difficulties, low self-esteem, peer rejection, academic failure) and environmental (e.g., poverty, lack of family supervision, limited social support, conflicts…

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.

The sunshine act and medical publications: Guidance from professional medical associations.

PubMed

Toroser, Dikran; DeTora, Lisa; Cairns, Angela; Juneja, Renu; Georgieva, Anna; Weigel, Al; Pepitone, Kim

2015-01-01

To review guidance from professional medical associations to physicians on the Sunshine Act, with a focus on industry support for medical publications. Using 'Sunshine Act' as a search term, we searched PubMed (dates February 2013 to November 2014) and the 'grey literature' using Google and Google Scholar. Online information was extracted from websites of pre-identified professional medical associations. Some professional medical associations have published peer-reviewed recommendations, position statements or general advice on their websites and in journals around the Sunshine Act. Associations also provided broad online educational resources for physicians. There was universal agreement between peer-reviewed publications, including guidelines, for the need for full transparency and disclosure of industry support. Surveys by some professional associations showed variance in opinion on the forecasted impact of the Sunshine Act on physician-industry relationships. There was scarce information specifically related to reporting requirements for industry-supported medical publications. There is a shortage of information for physicians from professional associations regarding the Sunshine Act and support for medical publications. Due to the lack of clear guidance regarding support for publications, there are presently varying interpretations of the Sunshine Act. The literature debates the potential impact of the Sunshine Act and expresses some concerns that physician-enabled innovation in drug development may be hindered.

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.

Supporting the Reflective Practice of Tutors: What Do Tutors Reflect on?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bell, Amani; Mladenovic, Rosina; Segara, Reuben

2010-01-01

Effective self-reflection is a key component of excellent teaching. We describe the types of self-reflection identified in tutors' reflective statements following a peer observation of teaching exercise. We used an adapted version of the categories developed by Grushka, McLeod and Reynolds in 2005 to code text from 20 written statements as…

Endorsement of CONSORT by Chinese medical journals: a survey of "instruction to authors".

PubMed

Xiao, Lu; Hu, Jing; Zhang, Li; Shang, Hong-cai

2014-07-01

To determine the extent to which Chinese medical (CM) journals incorporate Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) into their "instruction to authors". We reviewed the latest "instruction to authors" of the CM journals in China which indexed by MEDLINE in 2010 or Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) in 2012 and extracted all information of CONSORT, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), other reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. By reading the instructions to authors and reviewing recent studies published in those journals, those that do not publish clinical trials were excluded. We also contacted each of journals by telephone on contributor's status to ask them whether mentioned CONSORT in their instructions and incorporated it into their editorial and peer-review process. Full-text papers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs, from January 2011 to March 2012) published in the journals which mentioned "CONSORT" in their instructions for authors were downloaded. Seven CM journals were included. Three of these journals mentioned CONSORT in its instructions. By telephone survey, all journals gave responses and all respondents knew CONSORT statement. Three of 7 journals required authors to comply with the CONSORT statement and provide the CONSORT checklist and a flow chart of the trial. The rest 4 journals recommended authors of RCTs to refer to the CONSORT statement. From January 2011 to March 2012, a total of 50 RCTs were obtained from the 3 journals endorsing the CONSORT statement; 17 (17/50, 34%) contained a flow diagram in their manuscript, and none of those RCTs had mentioned the trial registration information. The endorsement of CONSORT by CM journals' "instruction to authors" was not satisfactory. The spread of CONSORT endorsement should be wider in instructing the performance of CM clinical trials in the future. Chinese journals should introduce CONSORT to their authors and require authors to comply with CONSORT when they submit their research.

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”. ...

Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control.

PubMed

Chaloupka, Frank J; Straif, Kurt; Leon, Maria E

2011-05-01

Over 20 experts on economics, epidemiology, public policy and tobacco control were asked by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to evaluate the strength of the available evidence on the effects of tax and price policies to prevent and reduce tobacco use. Draft papers presenting and assessing the evidence on the following topics were developed by the experts in an 8-month period prior to the meeting: tobacco industry pricing strategies and tax related lobbying; tax, price and aggregate demand for tobacco; tax, price and adult tobacco use, use among young people and use among the poor; tax avoidance and tax evasion; and the economic and health impact of tobacco taxation. Subsequently, papers were peer reviewed, revised and resubmitted for final discussion at a 6-day meeting at IARC in Lyon, France, where a consensus evaluation of 18 concluding statements using the pre-established criteria of the IARC Cancer Prevention Handbooks took place. Studies published (or accepted for publication) in the openly available scientific literature were the main source of evidence for the review and evaluation; other types of publications were included when appropriate. In support of 12 of the 18 conclusions, the experts agreed that there was sufficient evidence of effectiveness of increased tobacco excise taxes and prices in reducing overall tobacco consumption and prevalence of tobacco use and improvement of public health, including by preventing initiation and uptake among young people, promoting cessation among current users and lowering consumption among those who continue to use. For the remaining six concluding statements the evidence was strong (four statements) or limited (two statements). The evidence presented and assessed in IARC Handbook volume 14 documents the effectiveness of tax and price policies in the control of tobacco use and improvement of public health.

The Influence of Video Reflection on Preservice Music Teachers' Concerns in Peer- and Field-Teaching Settings

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Powell, Sean R.

2016-01-01

The purpose of this study was to investigate preservice music teacher concerns as stated in written reflections before and after video feedback. Nineteen preservice music teachers enrolled in instrumental methods courses wrote free-response reflections of peer- and field-teaching episodes. Statements were coded utilizing the Fuller and Bown…

Association between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes: systematic review protocol.

PubMed

Braithwaite, J; Herkes, J; Ludlow, K; Lamprell, G; Testa, L

2016-12-01

Despite widespread interest in the topic, no current synthesis of research is available analysing the linkages between organisational or workplace cultures on the one hand, and patient outcomes on the other. This protocol proposes a systematic review to analyse and synthesise the literature to date on this topic. The resulting review will discuss characteristics of included studies in terms of the type of healthcare settings researched, the measurements of organisational and workplace culture, patient outcomes measured and the influence of these cultures on patient outcomes. A systematic review will be conducted aiming to examine the associations between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. An English language search of abstracts will be executed using the following academic databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO. The review will include relevant peer-reviewed articles from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before and after studies, interrupted time series studies, cross-sectional analyses, qualitative studies and mixed-method studies. Multiple researchers will be involved in assessing the quality of articles for inclusion in the review. This protocol documents a detailed search strategy, including terms and inclusion criteria, which will form the basis of the subsequent systematic review. Ethics approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

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.

Communicating the Future: Best Practices for Communication of Science and Technology to the Public

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

Porter, Gail

To advance the state of the art in science and technology communication to the public a conference was held March 6-8, 2002 at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, MD. This report of the conference proceedings includes a summary statement by the conference steering committee, transcripts or other text summarizing the remarks of conference speakers, and abstracts for 48 "best practice" communications programs selected by the steering committee through an open competition and a formal peer review process. Additional information about the 48 best practice programs is available on the archival conference Web site at www.nist.gov/bestpractices.

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...

Family Medicine Global Health Fellowship Competencies: A Modified Delphi Study.

PubMed

Rayess, Fadya El; Filip, Anna; Doubeni, Anna; Wilson, Calvin; Haq, Cynthia; Debay, Marc; Anandarajah, Gowri; Heffron, Warren; Jayasekera, Neil; Larson, Paul; Dahlman, Bruce; Valdman, Olga; Hunt, Vince

2017-02-01

Many US medical schools and family medicine departments have responded to a growing interest in global health by developing global health fellowships. However, there are no guidelines or consensus statements outlining competencies for global health fellows. Our objective was to develop a mission and core competencies for Family Medicine Global Health Fellowships. A modified Delphi technique was used to develop consensus on fellowship competencies. A panel, comprised of 13 members with dual expertise in global health and medical education, undertook an iterative consensus process, followed by peer review, from April to December 2014. The panel developed a mission statement and identified six domains for family medicine global health fellowships: patient care, medical knowledge, professionalism, communication and leadership, teaching, and scholarship. Each domain includes a set of core and program-specific competencies. The family medicine global health competencies are intended to serve as an educational framework for the design, implementation, and evaluation of individual family medicine global health fellowship programs.

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.

Young age as a modifying factor in sports concussion management: what is the evidence?

PubMed

Foley, Cassidy; Gregory, Andrew; Solomon, Gary

2014-01-01

In 2008, the Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) published its third consensus statement and introduced 10 'modifying' factors that were presumed clinically to influence the investigation and management of concussions in sports. Young age was listed as one of the modifying factors. In some cases, these modifiers were thought to be predictive of prolonged or persistent symptoms. These same modifying factors were retained in the fourth iteration of the CISG consensus statement (2013), although mention was made of possible limitations of their efficacy. The CISG statements provided several empirical references regarding young age as a modifying factor. We reviewed the published sports concussion literature with the purpose of determining empirical studies that support or refute the inclusion of young age as a modifier of concussive injury in sports. We performed a systematic review of the PubMed database utilizing the keywords concussion, sports, mild traumatic brain injury, youth, adolescents, and children. English language studies were extracted by the authors and summarized for review. Multiple empirical studies were found indicating that younger athletes may take longer to recover from a sports-related concussion (SRC) than their older peers. However, studies did not indicate that younger athletes were at more risk for prolonged recovery (>4 wk). Empirical evidence supports the inclusion of young age as a modifying factor in sports concussion. However, the difference in recovery time seems relatively small (a few days) and young age does not predict prolonged recovery (>4 wk). The findings support the inclusion of young age as a specific modifier in the treatment of SRC and have implications for the clinical management of this common injury.

Do my peers approve? Interest in injunctive norms feedback delivered online to college student drinkers.

PubMed

Merrill, Jennifer E; Miller, Mary Beth; Balestrieri, Sara G; Carey, Kate B

2016-07-01

Injunctive norms feedback is promising but understudied as a component of college drinking interventions. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate acceptability of injunctive norms feedback delivered to college drinkers via the web. We examined subjective interest in information reflecting peer approval of four sets of drinking behaviors and outcomes, and correlates of interest in the normative feedback. A sample of 221 young adults enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college or university (ages 18-25 years; 52% female) completed online surveys in which they were asked to rate their interest in each of 11 injunctive norms statements. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four sets of statements regarding peer approval of (a) intoxicated behaviors, (b) safe drinking strategies, (c) drinking-related consequences, and (d) drinking behaviors of potential partners. All items were framed to reflect disapproval of risky behaviors and approval of protective behaviors. Across norm sets, participants found the items to be moderately interesting and interest ratings did not differ across sets. Higher scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), stronger perceived approval of drinking in general (injunctive norms), stronger perceptions of drinking among peers (descriptive norms), and female gender were bivariately correlated with more interest. In a multiple regression, female gender, higher AUDIT (consequence subscale), and stronger general drinking injunctive norms remained significantly associated with interest in the pro-moderation statements. An important future direction is to determine whether the presentation of specific types of injunctive norms feedback can result in downward changes in drinking behavior. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: The MAPS statement.

PubMed

Petrou, Stavros; Rivero-Arias, Oliver; Dakin, Helen; Longworth, Louise; Oppe, Mark; Froud, Robert; Gray, Alastair

2015-01-01

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user friendly 23 item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract; (ii) introduction; (iii) methods; (iv) results; (v) discussion; and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in five years' time.

Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement.

PubMed

Petrou, Stavros; Rivero-Arias, Oliver; Dakin, Helen; Longworth, Louise; Oppe, Mark; Froud, Robert; Gray, Alastair

2015-10-01

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite the publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprising six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user-friendly 23-item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality-of-life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.

Mortuary operations following mass fatality natural disasters: a review.

PubMed

Anderson, Madelyn; Leditschke, Jodie; Bassed, Richard; Cordner, Stephen M; Drummer, Olaf H

2017-03-01

This is a critical review to discuss the best practice approaches to mortuary operations in preparation for and the response to natural, mass fatality, disaster events, as identified by a review of published articles. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) Statement guided the identification of potential articles to use in this critical review. Subsequent searches were also conducted to identify articles relating to heat wave, and flood mortality. All identified peer-reviewed studies published in English which discussed the preparation and response of mortuaries to mass fatality natural disasters occurring in developed countries were included. Using the PRISMA-P method of identifying articles, 18 articles were selected for inclusion in this review. Although there are numerous articles which describe the mortuary response to mass fatality incidents, few articles analyzed the response, or discussed the roles which supported and enabled the organization to undertake the task of identifying disaster victims. It is thus difficult to determine objectively if the actions and activities outlined in the articles represent best-practice.

The effectiveness of self-management support interventions for men with long-term conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PubMed

Galdas, Paul; Fell, Jennifer; Bower, Peter; Kidd, Lisa; Blickem, Christian; McPherson, Kerri; Hunt, Kate; Gilbody, Simon; Richardson, Gerry

2015-03-20

To assess the effectiveness of self-management support interventions in men with long-term conditions. A quantitative systematic review with meta-analysis. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched to identify published reviews of self-management support interventions. Relevant reviews were screened to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of self-management support interventions conducted in men alone, or which analysed the effects of interventions by sex. Data on relevant outcomes, patient populations, intervention type and study quality were extracted. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of interventions in men, women, and mixed-sex sub-groups. 40 RCTs of self-management support interventions in men, and 20 eligible RCTs where an analysis by sex was reported, were included in the review. Meta-analysis suggested that physical activity, education, and peer support-based interventions have a positive impact on quality of life in men. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to make strong statements about whether self-management support interventions show larger, similar or smaller effects in men compared with women and mixed-sex groups. Clinicians may wish to consider whether certain types of self-management support (eg, physical activity, education, peer support) are particularly effective in men, although more research is needed to fully determine and explore this. 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.

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.

Health Disparities in Endocrine Disorders: Biological, Clinical, and Nonclinical Factors—An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement

PubMed Central

Brown, Arleen; Cauley, Jane A.; Chin, Marshall H.; Gary-Webb, Tiffany L.; Kim, Catherine; Sosa, Julie Ann; Sumner, Anne E.; Anton, Blair

2012-01-01

Objective: The aim was to provide a scholarly review of the published literature on biological, clinical, and nonclinical contributors to race/ethnic and sex disparities in endocrine disorders and to identify current gaps in knowledge as a focus for future research needs. Participants in Development of Scientific Statement: The Endocrine Society's Scientific Statement Task Force (SSTF) selected the leader of the statement development group (S.H.G.). She selected an eight-member writing group with expertise in endocrinology and health disparities, which was approved by the Society. All discussions regarding the scientific statement content occurred via teleconference or written correspondence. No funding was provided to any expert or peer reviewer, and all participants volunteered their time to prepare this Scientific Statement. Evidence: The primary sources of data on global disease prevalence are from the World Health Organization. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed identified U.S. population-based studies. Search strategies combining Medical Subject Headings terms and keyword terms and phrases defined two concepts: 1) racial, ethnic, and sex differences including specific populations; and 2) the specific endocrine disorder or condition. The search identified systematic reviews, meta-analyses, large cohort and population-based studies, and original studies focusing on the prevalence and determinants of disparities in endocrine disorders. Consensus Process: The writing group focused on population differences in the highly prevalent endocrine diseases of type 2 diabetes mellitus and related conditions (prediabetes and diabetic complications), gestational diabetes, metabolic syndrome with a focus on obesity and dyslipidemia, thyroid disorders, osteoporosis, and vitamin D deficiency. Authors reviewed and synthesized evidence in their areas of expertise. The final statement incorporated responses to several levels of review: 1) comments of the SSTF and the Advocacy and Public Outreach Core Committee; and 2) suggestions offered by the Council and members of The Endocrine Society. Conclusions: Several themes emerged in the statement, including a need for basic science, population-based, translational and health services studies to explore underlying mechanisms contributing to endocrine health disparities. Compared to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks have worse outcomes and higher mortality from certain disorders despite having a lower (e.g. macrovascular complications of diabetes mellitus and osteoporotic fractures) or similar (e.g. thyroid cancer) incidence of these disorders. Obesity is an important contributor to diabetes risk in minority populations and to sex disparities in thyroid cancer, suggesting that population interventions targeting weight loss may favorably impact a number of endocrine disorders. There are important implications regarding the definition of obesity in different race/ethnic groups, including potential underestimation of disease risk in Asian-Americans and overestimation in non-Hispanic black women. Ethnic-specific cut-points for central obesity should be determined so that clinicians can adequately assess metabolic risk. There is little evidence that genetic differences contribute significantly to race/ethnic disparities in the endocrine disorders examined. Multilevel interventions have reduced disparities in diabetes care, and these successes can be modeled to design similar interventions for other endocrine diseases. PMID:22730516

Quality of care and investment in property, plant, and equipment in hospitals.

PubMed

Levitt, S W

1994-02-01

This study explores the relationship between quality of care and investment in property, plant, and equipment (PPE) in hospitals. Hospitals' investment in PPE was derived from audited financial statements for the fiscal years 1984-1989. Peer Review Organization (PRO) Generic Quality Screen (GQS) reviews and confirmed failures between April 1989 and September 1990 were obtained from the Massachusetts PRO. Weighted least squares regression models used PRO GQS confirmed failure rates as the dependent variable, and investment in PPE as the key explanatory variable. Investment in PPE was standardized, summed by the hospital over the six years, and divided by the hospital's average number of beds in that period. The number of PRO reviewed cases with one or more GQS confirmed failures was divided by the total number of cases reviewed to create confirmed failure rates. Investment in PPE in Massachusetts hospitals is correlated with GQS confirmed failure rates. A financial variable, investment in PPE, predicts certain dimensions of quality of care in hospitals.

National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Inventory Program: Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve Vegetation Mapping Project

USGS Publications Warehouse

Hop, Kevin D.; Strassman, Andrew C.; Sattler, Stephanie; Pyne, Milo; Teague, Judy; White, Rickie; Ruhser, Janis; Hlavacek, Enrika; Dieck, Jennifer

2017-01-01

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting lengthier results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information. The peer review was led according to the Fundamental Science Practices of the U.S. Geological Survey. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available in digital format from the Gulf Coast Network website and the Natural Resource Publications Management website.

Selection criteria for internal medicine residency applicants and professionalism ratings during internship.

PubMed

Cullen, Michael W; Reed, Darcy A; Halvorsen, Andrew J; Wittich, Christopher M; Kreuziger, Lisa M Baumann; Keddis, Mira T; McDonald, Furman S; Beckman, Thomas J

2011-03-01

To determine whether standardized admissions data in residents' Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) submissions were associated with multisource assessments of professionalism during internship. ERAS applications for all internal medicine interns (N=191) at Mayo Clinic entering training between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2008, were reviewed by 6 raters. Extracted data included United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, medicine clerkship grades, class rank, Alpha Omega Alpha membership, advanced degrees, awards, volunteer activities, research experiences, first author publications, career choice, and red flags in performance evaluations. Medical school reputation was quantified using U.S. News & World Report rankings. Strength of comparative statements in recommendation letters (0 = no comparative statement, 1 = equal to peers, 2 = top 20%, 3 = top 10% or "best") were also recorded. Validated multisource professionalism scores (5-point scales) were obtained for each intern. Associations between application variables and professionalism scores were examined using linear regression. The mean ± SD (minimum-maximum) professionalism score was 4.09 ± 0.31 (2.13-4.56). In multivariate analysis, professionalism scores were positively associated with mean strength of comparative statements in recommendation letters (β = 0.13; P = .002). No other associations between ERAS application variables and professionalism scores were found. Comparative statements in recommendation letters for internal medicine residency applicants were associated with professionalism scores during internship. Other variables traditionally examined when selecting residents were not associated with professionalism. These findings suggest that faculty physicians' direct observations, as reflected in letters of recommendation, are useful indicators of what constitutes a best student. Residency selection committees should scrutinize applicants' letters for strongly favorable comparative statements.

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.

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

PubMed

Reiner, Bruce I

2017-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-03-27

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

Is embellishing UCAS personal statements accepted practice in applications to medicine and dentistry?

PubMed

Kumwenda, Ben; Dowell, Jon; Husbands, Adrian

2013-07-01

The assessment of non-academic achievements through the personal statement remains part of the selection process at most UK medical and dental schools. Such statement offers applicants an opportunity to highlight their non-academic achievements, but the highly competitive nature of the process may tempt them to exaggerate their accomplishments. The challenge is that selectors cannot discern applicants' exaggerated claims from genuine accounts and the system risks preferentially selecting dishonest applicants. To explore the level and perception of deception on UCAS personal statements among applicants to medical and dental schools. To investigate the association between attitudes towards deception and various other demographic variables and cognitive ability via the UKCAT. An online survey was completed with first year students from six UK medical schools and one dental school. Questionnaire items were classified into three categories involving individual acts, how they suspect their peers behave, and overall perceptions of personal statements to influence the selection process. Descriptive statistics were used to investigate responses to questionnaire items. t-Tests were used to investigate the relationship between items, demographic variables and cognitive ability. Candidates recognized that putting fraudulent information or exaggerating one's experience on UCAS personal statement was dishonest; however there is a widespread belief that their peers do it. Female respondents and those with a higher UKCAT score were more likely to condemn deceptive practices. The existing selection process is open to abuse and may benefit dishonest applicants. Admission systems should consider investing in systems that can pursue traceable information that applicants provide, and nullify the application should it contain fraudulent information.

An International Position Statement on the Management of Frailty in Diabetes Mellitus: Summary of Recommendations 2017.

PubMed

Sinclair, A J; Abdelhafiz, A; Dunning, T; Izquierdo, M; Rodriguez Manas, L; Bourdel-Marchasson, I; Morley, J E; Munshi, M; Woo, J; Vellas, B

2018-01-01

The International Position Statement provides the opportunity to summarise all existing clinical trial and best practice evidence for older people with frailty and diabetes. It is the first document of its kind and is intended to support clinical decisions that will enhance safety in management and promote high quality care. The Review Group sought evidence from a wide range of studies that provide sufficient confidence (in the absence of grading) for the basis of each recommendation. This was supported by a given rationale and key references for our recommendations in each section, all of which have been reviewed by leading international experts. Searches for any relevant clinical evidence were generally limited to English language citations over the previous 15 years. The following databases were examined: Embase, Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Trials Register, Cinahl, and Science Citation. Hand searching of 16 key major peer-reviewed journals was undertaken by two reviewers (AJS and AA) and these included Lancet, Diabetes, Diabetologia, Diabetes Care, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Frailty and Aging, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, and Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. Two scientific supporting statements have been provided that relate to the area of frailty and diabetes; this is accompanied by evidence-based decisions in 9 clinical domains. The Summary has been supported by diagrammatic figures and a table relating to the inter-relations between frailty and diabetes, a frailty assessment pathway, an exercise-based programme of intervention, a glucose-lowering algorithm with a description of available therapies. We have provided an up to date evidence-based approach to practical decision-making for older adults with frailty and diabetes. This Summary document includes a user-friendly set of recommendations that should be considered for implementation in primary, community-based and secondary care settings.

AICPA allows low-cost options for compiled financial statements.

PubMed

Reinstein, Alan; Luecke, Randall W

2002-02-01

The AICPA Accounting and Review Services Committee's (ARSC) SSARS No. 8, Amendment to Statement on Standards for Accounting and Review Services No. 1, Compilation and Review of Financial Statements, issued in October 2000, allows financial managers to provide plain-paper, compiled financial statements for the exclusive use of management. Such financial statements were disallowed in 1979 when the AICPA issued SSARS No. 1, Compilation and Review of Financial Statements. With the issuance of SSARS No. 8, financial managers can prepare plain-paper, compiled financial statements when third parties are not expected to rely on the financial statements, management acknowledges such restrictions in writing, and management acknowledges its primary responsibility for the adequacy of the financial statements.

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

Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: The MAPS statement.

PubMed

Petrou, Stavros; Rivero-Arias, Oliver; Dakin, Helen; Longworth, Louise; Oppe, Mark; Froud, Robert; Gray, Alastair

2015-08-01

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication.A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user friendly 23 item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract; (ii) introduction; (iii) methods; (iv) results; (v) discussion; and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document.It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by eight health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in five years' time.This statement was published jointly in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Journal of Medical Economics, Medical Decision Making, PharmacoEconomics, and Quality of Life Research.

Medical Physics Practice Guidelines - the AAPM's minimum practice recommendations for medical physicists.

PubMed

Mills, Michael D; Chan, Maria F; Prisciandaro, Joann I; Shepard, Jeff; Halvorsen, Per H

2013-11-04

The AAPM has long advocated a consistent level of medical physics practice, and has published many recommendations and position statements toward that goal, such as Science Council Task Group reports related to calibration and quality assurance, Education Council and Professional Council Task Group reports related to education, training, and peer review, and Board-approved Position Statements related to the Scope of Practice, physicist qualifications, and other aspects of medical physics practice. Despite these concerted and enduring efforts, the profession does not have clear and concise statements of the acceptable practice guidelines for routine clinical medical physics. As accreditation of clinical practices becomes more common, Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPGs) will be crucial to ensuring a consistent benchmark for accreditation programs. To this end, the AAPM has recently endorsed the development of MPPGs, which may be generated in collaboration with other professional societies. The MPPGs are intended to be freely available to the general public. Accrediting organizations, regulatory agencies, and legislators will be encouraged to reference these MPPGs when defining their respective requirements. MPPGs are intended to provide the medical community with a clear description of the minimum level of medical physics support that the AAPM would consider prudent in clinical practice settings. Support includes, but is not limited to, staffing, equipment, machine access, and training. These MPPGs are not designed to replace extensive Task Group reports or review articles, but rather to describe the recommended minimum level of medical physics support for specific clinical services. This article has described the purpose, scope, and process for the development of MPPGs.

Re-development of mental health first aid guidelines for supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who are engaging in non-suicidal self-injury.

PubMed

Armstrong, Gregory; Ironfield, Natalie; Kelly, Claire M; Dart, Katrina; Arabena, Kerry; Bond, Kathy; Jorm, Anthony F

2017-08-22

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) disproportionally affects Indigenous Australians. Friends, family and frontline workers (for example, teachers, youth workers) are often best positioned to provide initial assistance if someone is engaging in NSSI. Culturally appropriate expert consensus guidelines on how to provide mental health first aid to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who are engaging in NSSI were developed in 2009. This study describes the re-development of these guidelines to ensure they contain the most current recommended helping actions. The Delphi consensus method was used to elicit consensus on potential helping statements to be included in the guidelines. These statements describe helping actions that Indigenous community members and non-Indigenous frontline workers can take, and information they should have, to help someone who is engaging in NSSI. The statements were sourced from systematic searches of peer-reviewed literature, grey literature, books, websites and online materials, and existing NSSI courses. A panel was formed, comprising 26 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders with expertise in NSSI. The panellists were presented with the helping statements via online questionnaires and were encouraged to suggest re-wording of statements and any additional helping statements that were not included in the original questionnaire. Statements were only accepted for inclusion in the guidelines if they were endorsed by ≥90% of panellists as essential or important. From a total of 185 statements shown to the expert panel, 115 were endorsed as helping statements to be included in the re-developed guidelines. A panel of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with expertise in NSSI were able to reach consensus on appropriate strategies for providing mental health first aid to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engaging in NSSI. The re-development of the guidelines has resulted in more comprehensive guidance than the earlier version. The re-developed guidelines will form the basis of an Aboriginal mental health first aid short course on NSSI for Indigenous community members and non-Indigenous frontline workers that will be evaluated in an upcoming trial.

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...

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-05-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

Anticipating Job Aiding and Training Requirements

DTIC Science & Technology

2009-01-01

own ability to learn with statements like “I know how to do this,” getting right to work on assignments, helping peers, elaborating beyond basic...know how to do this”, getting right to work on assignments, helping peers, elaborating beyond basic understandings) _____ Selecting...older. In was estimated that over 50 percent of the workforce in 2007 was eligible to retire [Ref. 5], thus raising concerns about how to: a) replace

Influence of Peer Pressure on Secondary School Students Drop out in Rongo Sub-County, Migori County, Kenya

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Omollo, Atieno Evaline; Yambo, Onyango J. M.

2017-01-01

The purpose of this study was to establish the influence of peer pressure on secondary school students' drop out in Rongo Sub-County, Migori County, Kenya. The statement of the problem showed that the sub-county had a dropout rate of 43 percent as compared to the neighboring sub counties like Uriri, Awendo, Nyatike, Kuria and Migori which had 25,…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2017-01-01

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

Peer Review as a Strategy for Improving Students' Writing Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Baker, Kimberly M.

2016-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Trautmann, Nancy M.

2009-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Anderson, Neil O.; Flash, Pamela

2014-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.

PubMed

Etemadi, Arash; Raiszadeh, Farbod; Alaeddini, Farshid; Azizi, Fereidoun

2004-01-01

Medical journal editors play an important role in optimizing research publication. This study evaluates the views of Iranian medical journal editors, and their knowledge of medical publication standards. In May 2001, 51 editors from all journals approved by the Ministry of Health were invited to participate, 27 of whom completed the study. A self-administered questionnaire, based on the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URMS) was used which consisted of 28 questions in 9 subject fields. These fields included: peer review, conflicts of interest, authorship criteria, publication ethics, duplicate publication, mass media, advertising, competing manuscripts, and the Internet. The knowledge of the editors was assessed by a scoring system, with a range of -46 to +44 points. Twenty-three of the participants were editors-in-chief and 4 were managing editors. Their average age was 47.3 +/- 8.7 years and 25 were male. All journals were peer-reviewed, most having 2 or 3 reviewers for each manuscript. Of the journals, 92.6% accepted or rejected an article on the basis of the views of most reviewers and 52%, sometimes or always, used a statistician as a reviewer. Most of the editors believed that writing the first draft and designing the study are authorship criteria, and most of them believed that these 2 are stated in URMS. Seven journals (25.9%) never published advertisements. Among journals that sold advertisements, the most popular policy (85%) was the rejection of advertisements because they advertised harmful products. Out of 27 journals, 12 were accessible on the Internet, and 7 had independent websites. Of the editors, 81.5% thought that a website is useful for their journal. The average knowledge score of the editors was 6.5 +/- 7.5. None had a negative score, 33% scored zero, 45% obtained average scores and 22% obtained good scores. The results show that peer review is favored by all the editors studied, though it seems that journals do not follow clear-cut policies in this regard. Most of the editors, agreed with the statements of URMS to some extent and generally most have average to high knowledge of URMS.

28 CFR 34.108 - Selection of reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara

2014-01-01

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review. PMID:27683470

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

PubMed

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

2018-05-10

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

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.

Scientific Rationale for the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Intravenous Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

PubMed

Demaerschalk, Bart M; Kleindorfer, Dawn O; Adeoye, Opeolu M; Demchuk, Andrew M; Fugate, Jennifer E; Grotta, James C; Khalessi, Alexander A; Levy, Elad I; Palesch, Yuko Y; Prabhakaran, Shyam; Saposnik, Gustavo; Saver, Jeffrey L; Smith, Eric E

2016-02-01

To critically review and evaluate the science behind individual eligibility criteria (indication/inclusion and contraindications/exclusion criteria) for intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (alteplase) treatment in acute ischemic stroke. This will allow us to better inform stroke providers of quantitative and qualitative risks associated with alteplase administration under selected commonly and uncommonly encountered clinical circumstances and to identify future research priorities concerning these eligibility criteria, which could potentially expand the safe and judicious use of alteplase and improve outcomes after stroke. Writing group members were nominated by the committee chair on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association Stroke Council's Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the American Heart Association's Manuscript Oversight Committee. The writers used systematic literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, morbidity and mortality reports, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, personal files, and expert opinion to summarize existing evidence and to indicate gaps in current knowledge and, when appropriate, formulated recommendations using standard American Heart Association criteria. All members of the writing group had the opportunity to comment on and approved the final version of this document. The document underwent extensive American Heart Association internal peer review, Stroke Council Leadership review, and Scientific Statements Oversight Committee review before consideration and approval by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. After a review of the current literature, it was clearly evident that the levels of evidence supporting individual exclusion criteria for intravenous alteplase vary widely. Several exclusionary criteria have already undergone extensive scientific study such as the clear benefit of alteplase treatment in elderly stroke patients, those with severe stroke, those with diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia, and those with minor early ischemic changes evident on computed tomography. Some exclusions such as recent intracranial surgery are likely based on common sense and sound judgment and are unlikely to ever be subjected to a randomized, clinical trial to evaluate safety. Most other contraindications or warnings range somewhere in between. However, the differential impact of each exclusion criterion varies not only with the evidence base behind it but also with the frequency of the exclusion within the stroke population, the probability of coexistence of multiple exclusion factors in a single patient, and the variation in practice among treating clinicians. © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.

Selection Criteria for Internal Medicine Residency Applicants and Professionalism Ratings During Internship

PubMed Central

Cullen, Michael W.; Reed, Darcy A.; Halvorsen, Andrew J.; Wittich, Christopher M.; Kreuziger, Lisa M. Baumann; Keddis, Mira T.; McDonald, Furman S.; Beckman, Thomas J.

2011-01-01

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether standardized admissions data in residents' Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) submissions were associated with multisource assessments of professionalism during internship. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: ERAS applications for all internal medicine interns (N=191) at Mayo Clinic entering training between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2008, were reviewed by 6 raters. Extracted data included United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, medicine clerkship grades, class rank, Alpha Omega Alpha membership, advanced degrees, awards, volunteer activities, research experiences, first author publications, career choice, and red flags in performance evaluations. Medical school reputation was quantified using U.S. News & World Report rankings. Strength of comparative statements in recommendation letters (0 = no comparative statement, 1 = equal to peers, 2 = top 20%, 3 = top 10% or “best”) were also recorded. Validated multisource professionalism scores (5-point scales) were obtained for each intern. Associations between application variables and professionalism scores were examined using linear regression. RESULTS: The mean ± SD (minimum-maximum) professionalism score was 4.09±0.31 (2.13-4.56). In multivariate analysis, professionalism scores were positively associated with mean strength of comparative statements in recommendation letters (β=0.13; P=.002). No other associations between ERAS application variables and professionalism scores were found. CONCLUSION: Comparative statements in recommendation letters for internal medicine residency applicants were associated with professionalism scores during internship. Other variables traditionally examined when selecting residents were not associated with professionalism. These findings suggest that faculty physicians' direct observations, as reflected in letters of recommendation, are useful indicators of what constitutes a best student. Residency selection committees should scrutinize applicants' letters for strongly favorable comparative statements. PMID:21364111

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers.

PubMed

Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

The ethics of peer review in bioethics.

PubMed

Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

2014-10-01

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

Adjuvant and Salvage Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy: American Society for Radiation Oncology/American Urological Association Guidelines

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

Valicenti, Richard K., E-mail: Richard.valicenti@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu; Thompson, Ian; Albertsen, Peter

Purpose: The purpose of this guideline was to provide a clinical framework for the use of radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy as adjuvant or salvage therapy. Methods and Materials: A systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane database was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the use of radiation therapy after prostatectomy. The review yielded 294 articles; these publications were used to create the evidence-based guideline statements. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles when insufficient evidence existed. Results: Guideline statements are provided for patient counseling, use of radiation therapy in the adjuvant and salvage contexts, defining biochemicalmore » recurrence, and conducting a restaging evaluation. Conclusions: Physicians should offer adjuvant radiation therapy to patients with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy (ie, seminal vesicle invastion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and salvage radiation therapy to patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or local recurrence after prostatectomy in whom there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The offer of radiation therapy should be made in the context of a thoughtful discussion of possible short- and long-term side effects of radiation therapy as well as the potential benefits of preventing recurrence. The decision to administer radiation therapy should be made by the patient and the multidisciplinary treatment team with full consideration of the patient's history, values, preferences, quality of life, and functional status. The American Society for Radiation Oncology and American Urological Association websites show this guideline in its entirety, including the full literature review.« less

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.

Scientists' Views about Attribution of Global Warming

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Verheggen, Bart; Strengers, Bart; Cook, John; van Dorland, Rob; Vringer, Kees; Peters, Jeroen; Visser, Hans; Meyer, Leo

2015-04-01

What do scientists think? That is an important question when engaging in science communication, in which an attempt is made to communicate the scientific understanding to a lay audience. To address this question we undertook a large and detailed survey among scientists studying various aspects of climate change , dubbed "perhaps the most thorough survey of climate scientists ever" by well-known climate scientist and science communicator Gavin Schmidt. Among more than 1800 respondents we found widespread agreement that global warming is predominantly caused by human greenhouse gases. This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of recent global warming, i.e. having contributed more than half of the observed warming. With this survey we specified what the consensus position entails with much greater specificity than previous studies. The relevance of this consensus for science communication will be discussed. Another important result from our survey is that the main attribution statement in IPCC's fourth assessment report (AR4) may lead to an underestimate of the greenhouse gas contribution to warming, because it implicitly includes the lesser known masking effect of cooling aerosols. This shows the importance of the exact wording in high-profile reports such as those from IPCC in how the statement is perceived, even by fellow scientists. The phrasing was improved in the most recent assessment report (AR5). Respondents who characterized the human influence on climate as insignificant, reported having the most frequent media coverage regarding their views on climate change. This shows that contrarian opinions are amplified in the media in relation to their prevalence in the scientific community. This is related to what is sometimes referred to as "false balance" in media reporting and may partly explain the divergence between public and scientific opinion regarding climate change.

Tiny tweaks, big changes: An alternative strategy to empower ethical culture of human research in anesthesia (A Taiwan Acta Anesthesiologica Taiwanica-Ethics Review Task Force Report).

PubMed

Luk, Hsiang-Ning; Ennever, John F; Day, Yuan-Ji; Wong, Chih-Shung; Sun, Wei-Zen

2015-03-01

For this guidance article, the Ethics Review Task Force (ERTF) of the Journal reviewed and discussed the ethics issues related to publication of human research in the field of anesthesia. ERTF first introduced international ethics principles and minimal requirements of reporting of ethics practices, followed by discussing the universal problems of publication ethics. ERTF then compared the accountability and methodology of several medical journals in assuring authors' ethics compliance. Using the Taiwan Institutional Review Board system as an example, ERTF expressed the importance of institutional review board registration and accreditation to assure human participant protection. ERTF presented four major human research misconducts in the field of anesthesia in recent years. ERTF finally proposed a flow-chart to guide journal peer reviewers and editors in ethics review during the editorial process in publishing. Examples of template languages applied in the Ethics statement section in the manuscript are expected to strengthen the ethics compliance of the authors and to set an ethical culture for all the stakeholders involved in human research. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brennan, John; And Others

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

Re-Viewing Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Flynn, Elizabeth A.

2011-01-01

In this article, the author revisits her essay, "Students as Readers of Their Classmates' Writing," by providing a review of the literature on peer review over the past three decades and comments on patterns she sees in waves of peer review research and theorizing. She describes her subsequent experience with peer review in her own classes, and…

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

PubMed

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

2015-12-01

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

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration.

PubMed

Petrou, Stavros; Rivero-Arias, Oliver; Dakin, Helen; Longworth, Louise; Oppe, Mark; Froud, Robert; Gray, Alastair

2015-10-01

The process of "mapping" is increasingly being used to predict health utilities, for application within health economic evaluations, using data on other indicators or measures of health. Guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The overall objective of this research was to develop a checklist of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting mapping studies. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting by researchers. This paper provides a detailed explanation and elaboration of the items contained within the MAPS statement. In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items and accompanying explanations was created. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list. From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely, (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion and (vi) other. For each item, we summarise the recommendation, illustrate it using an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature, and provide a detailed explanation to accompany the recommendation. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. It is targeted at researchers developing mapping algorithms, peer reviewers and editors involved in the manuscript review process for mapping studies, and the funders of the research. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.

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…

Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers.

PubMed

Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Yessirkepov, Marlen; Voronov, Alexander A; Gorin, Sergey V; Koroleva, Anna M; Kitas, George D

2016-09-01

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or 'predatory', journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to 'clean' the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re)drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions.

Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers

PubMed Central

2016-01-01

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or 'predatory', journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to 'clean' the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re)drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions. PMID:27510376

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

17 CFR 210.8-03 - Interim financial statements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... (§ 249.308(a) of this chapter) must be reviewed by an independent public accountant using professional... interim financial statements have been reviewed by an independent public accountant, a report of the accountant on the review must be filed with the interim financial statements. Interim financial statements...

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

PubMed

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

2012-08-01

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

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

PubMed

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

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

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

PubMed

Steinhauser, Georg; Adlassnig, Wolfram; Risch, Jesaka Ahau; Anderlini, Serena; Arguriou, Petros; Armendariz, Aaron Zolen; Bains, William; Baker, Clark; Barnes, Martin; Barnett, Jonathan; Baumgartner, Michael; Baumgartner, Thomas; Bendall, Charles A; Bender, Yvonne S; Bichler, Max; Biermann, Teresa; Bini, Ronaldo; Blanco, Eduardo; Bleau, John; Brink, Anthony; Brown, Darin; Burghuber, Christopher; Calne, Roy; Carter, Brian; Castaño, Cesar; Celec, Peter; Celis, Maria Eugenia; Clarke, Nicky; Cockrell, David; Collins, David; Coogan, Brian; Craig, Jennifer; Crilly, Cal; Crowe, David; Csoka, Antonei B; Darwich, Chaza; Del Kebos, Topiciprin; Derinaldi, Michele; Dlamini, Bongani; Drewa, Tomasz; Dwyer, Michael; Eder, Fabienne; de Palma, Raúl Ehrichs; Esmay, Dean; Rött, Catherine Evans; Exley, Christopher; Falkov, Robin; Farber, Celia Ingrid; Fearn, William; Felsmann, Sophie; Flensmark, Jarl; Fletcher, Andrew K; Foster, Michaela; Fountoulakis, Kostas N; Fouratt, Jim; Blanca, Jesus Garcia; Sotelo, Manuel Garrido; Gittler, Florian; Gittler, Georg; Gomez, Juan; Gomez, Juan F; Polar, Maria Grazia Gonzales; Gonzalez, Jossina; Gösselsberger, Christoph; Habermacher, Lynn; Hajek, Michael; Hakala, Faith; Haliburton, Mary-Sue; Hankins, John Robert; Hart, Jason; Hasslberger, Sepp; Hennessey, Donalyn; Herrmann, Andrea; Hersee, Mike; Howard, Connie; Humphries, Suzanne; Isharc, Laeeth; Ivanovski, Petar; Jenuth, Stephen; Jerndal, Jens; Johnson, Christine; Keleta, Yonas; Kenny, Anna; Kidd, Billie; Kohle, Fritz; Kolahi, Jafar; Koller-Peroutka, Marianne; Kostova, Lyubov; Kumar, Arunachalam; Kurosawa, Alejandro; Lance, Tony; Lechermann, Michael; Lendl, Bernhard; Leuchters, Michael; Lewis, Evan; Lieb, Edward; Lloyd, Gloria; Losek, Angelika; Lu, Yao; Maestracci, Saadia; Mangan, Dennis; Mares, Alberto W; Barnett, Juan Mazar; McClain, Valerie; McNair, John Sydney; Michael, Terry; Miller, Lloyd; Monzani, Partizia; Moran, Belen; Morris, Mike; Mößmer, Georg; Mountain, Johny; Phuthe, Onnie Mary Moyo; Muñoz, Marcos; Nakken, Sheri; Wambui, Anne Nduta; Neunteufl, Bettina; Nikolić, Dimitrije; Oberoi, Devesh V; Obmode, Gregory; Ogar, Laura; Ohara, Jo; Rybine, Naion Olej; Owen, Bryan; Owen, Kim Wilson; Parikh, Rakesh; Pearce, Nicholas J G; Pemmer, Bernhard; Piper, Chris; Prince, Ian; Reid, Terence; Rindermann, Heiner; Risch, Stefan; Robbins, Josh; Roberts, Seth; Romero, Ajeandro; Rothe, Michael Thaddäus; Ruiz, Sergio; Sacher, Juliane; Sackl, Wolfgang; Salletmaier, Markus; Sanand, Jairaj; Sauerzopf, Clemens; Schwarzgruber, Thomas; Scott, David; Seegers, Laura; Seppi, David; Shields, Kyle; Siller-Matula, Jolanta; Singh, Beldeu; Sithole, Sibusio; Six, Florian; Skoyles, John R; Slofstra, Jildou; Sole, Daphne Anne; Sommer, Werner F; Sonko, Mels; Starr-Casanova, Chrislie J; Steakley, Marjorie Elizabeth; Steinhauser, Wolfgang; Steinhoff, Konstantin; Sterba, Johannes H; Steppan, Martin; Stindl, Reinhard; Stokely, Joe; Stokely, Karri; St-Pierre, Gilles; Stratford, James; Streli, Christina; Stryg, Carl; Sullivan, Mike; Summhammer, Johann; Tadesse, Amhayes; Tavares, David; Thompson, Laura; Tomlinson, Alison; Tozer, Jack; Trevisanato, Siro I; Trimmel, Michaela; Turner, Nicole; Vahur, Paul; van der Byl, Jennie; van der Maas, Tine; Varela, Leo; Vega, Carlos A; Vermaak, Shiloh; Villasenor, Alex; Vogel, Matt; von Wintzigerode, Georg; Wagner, Christoph; Weinberger, Manuel; Weinberger, Peter; Wilson, Nick; Wolfe, Jennifer Finocchio; Woodley, Michael A; Young, Ian; Zuraw, Glenn; Zwiren, Nicole

2012-10-01

Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being "filtered out" or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses.

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

PubMed

Walters, W Patrick; Bajorath, Jürgen

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2010-12-01

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

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

PubMed

Pytynia, Kristen B

2017-06-01

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

48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

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

PubMed

Moher, David

2015-11-02

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

Is there a difference between child self-ratings and parent proxy-ratings of the quality of life of children with a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? A systematic review of the literature.

PubMed

Galloway, Helen; Newman, Emily

2017-03-01

There are contemporary indicators that parent proxy-ratings and child self-ratings of a child's quality of life (QoL) are not interchangeable. This review examines dual informant studies to assess parent-child agreement on the QoL of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. A systematic search of four major databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases) was completed, and related peer-reviewed journals were hand-searched. Studies which reported quantitative QoL ratings for matched parent and child dyads were screened in accordance with relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria. Key findings were extracted from thirteen relevant studies, which were rated for conformity to the recommendations of an adapted version of the STROBE statement guidelines for observational studies. In the majority of studies reviewed, children rated their QoL more highly than their parents. There was some evidence for greater agreement on the physical health domain than psychosocial domains.

Quality of care and investment in property, plant, and equipment in hospitals.

PubMed Central

Levitt, S W

1994-01-01

OBJECTIVE. This study explores the relationship between quality of care and investment in property, plant, and equipment (PPE) in hospitals. DATA SOURCES. Hospitals' investment in PPE was derived from audited financial statements for the fiscal years 1984-1989. Peer Review Organization (PRO) Generic Quality Screen (GQS) reviews and confirmed failures between April 1989 and September 1990 were obtained from the Massachusetts PRO. STUDY DESIGN. Weighted least squares regression models used PRO GQS confirmed failure rates as the dependent variable, and investment in PPE as the key explanatory variable. DATA EXTRACTION. Investment in PPE was standardized, summed by the hospital over the six years, and divided by the hospital's average number of beds in that period. The number of PRO reviewed cases with one or more GQS confirmed failures was divided by the total number of cases reviewed to create confirmed failure rates. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS. Investment in PPE in Massachusetts hospitals is correlated with GQS confirmed failure rates. CONCLUSIONS. A financial variable, investment in PPE, predicts certain dimensions of quality of care in hospitals. PMID:8113054

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…

School Bullying: Legal Protections for Vulnerable Youth Need to Be More Fully Assessed. Testimony before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate. GAO-12-785T

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Calbom, Linda M.

2012-01-01

In this statement, the author discusses the results of the work that the members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions requested on school bullying. It is estimated that millions of American youths have been bullied by their peers, including physical, verbal, and electronic attacks. The author's statement is based on a report…

What is open peer review? A systematic review.

PubMed

Ross-Hellauer, Tony

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Wicherts, Jelte M

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Wicherts, Jelte M.

2016-01-01

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

Detailed prospective peer review in a community radiation oncology clinic.

PubMed

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

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

Creating a Residency Application Personal Statement Writers Workshop: Fostering Narrative, Teamwork, and Insight at a Time of Stress.

PubMed

Campbell, Bruce H; Havas, Nancy; Derse, Arthur R; Holloway, Richard L

2016-03-01

Every graduating medical student must write a personal statement for the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS), yet there are no widely available resources designed to aid the writing process, causing stress among applicants. The authors offered every Medical College of Wisconsin senior student in the Classes of 2014 and 2015 a voluntary self-contained two-hour Residency Application Personal Statement Writers Workshop. The session included the selection of writing prompts, speedwriting, and a peer-edit critique. Data were gathered before and after each workshop and at the time of ERAS submission. One hundred nine students elected to participate. Of the 96 participants completing a preworkshop questionnaire, only 28 (29%) were comfortable with creative and reflective writing. Fifty-four students completed a follow-up survey after submitting their ERAS application. Fifty-one (94%) found the session effective in getting their personal statement started, and 65 (70%) were surprised by the quality of their writing. Almost all could trace some of their final statement to the workshop. Forty-six (85%) found working with other students helpful, and 49 (91%) would recommend the session to future students; 47 (87%) agreed that the workshop was "fun." The full workshop will be repeated yearly. Workshops will also be offered to residents preparing fellowship applications. A shorter version (without the peer-edit critique) was used successfully with the entire Class of 2016 to help them reflect on their initial clinical encounters. The authors will seek further opportunities to enhance reflection for students, residents, and faculty with these techniques.

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Murphy Tighe, Sylvia; Bradshaw, Carmel

2013-11-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-09-01

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

The Potential of Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Johnson, Susan Moore; Fiarman, Sarah E.

2012-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

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

Reflective practice: a framework for case manager development.

PubMed

Brubakken, Karen; Grant, Sara; Johnson, Mary K; Kollauf, Cynthia

2011-01-01

The role of a nurse case manager (NCM) incorporates practice that is built upon knowledge gained in other roles as well as components unique to case management. The concept of reflective practice was used in creating a framework to recognize the developmental stages that occur within community based case management practice. The formation of this framework and its uses are described in this article. The practice setting is a community based case management department in a large midwestern metropolitan health care system with Magnet recognition. Advanced practice nurses provide care for clients with chronic health conditions. Twenty-four narratives were used to identify behaviors of community based case managers and to distinguish stages of practice. The behaviors of advanced practice found within the narratives were labeled and analyzed for similarities. Related behaviors were grouped and descriptor statements were written. These statements grouped into 3 domains of practice: relationship/partnership, coordination/collaboration, and clinical knowledge/decision making. The statements in each domain showed practice variations from competent to expert, and 3 stages were determined. Reliability and validity of the framework involved analysis of additional narratives. The reflective practice process, used for monthly case review presentations, provides opportunity for professional development and group learning focused on improving case manager practice. The framework is also being used in orientation as new case managers acclimate to the role. Reflective writing has unveiled the richness and depth of nurse case manager practice. The depth of knowledge and skills involved in community-based case management is captured within this reflective practice framework. This framework provides a format for describing community based case manager practice development over the course of time and has been used as a tool for orientation and peer review.

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.

Peer Teaching to Foster Learning in Physiology.

PubMed

Srivastava, Tripti K; Waghmare, Lalitbhushan S; Mishra, Ved Prakash; Rawekar, Alka T; Quazi, Nazli; Jagzape, Arunita T

2015-08-01

Peer teaching is an effective tool to promote learning and retention of knowledge. By preparing to teach, students are encouraged to construct their own learning program, so that they can explain effectively to fellow learners. Peer teaching is introduced in present study to foster learning and pedagogical skills amongst first year medical under-graduates in physiology with a Hypothesis that teaching is linked to learning on part of the teacher. Non-randomized, Interventional study, with mixed methods design. Cases experienced peer teaching whereas controls underwent tutorials for four consecutive classes. Quantitative Evaluation was done through pre/post test score analysis for Class average normalized gain and tests of significance, difference in average score in surprise class test after one month and percentage of responses in closed ended items of feedback questionnaire. Qualitative Evaluation was done through categorization of open ended items and coding of reflective statements. The average pre and post test score was statistically significant within cases (p = 0.01) and controls (p = 0.023). The average post test scores was more for cases though not statistically significant. The class average normalized gain (g) for Tutorials was 49% and for peer teaching 53%. Surprise test had average scoring of 36 marks (out of 50) for controls and 41 marks for cases. Analysed section wise, the average score was better for Long answer question (LAQ) in cases. Section wise analysis suggested that through peer teaching, retention was better for descriptive answers as LAQ has better average score in cases. Feedback responses were predominantly positive for efficacy of peer teaching as a learning method. The reflective statements were sorted into reflection in action, reflection on action, claiming evidence, describing experience, and recognizing discrepancies. Teaching can stimulate further learning as it involves interplay of three processes: metacognitive awareness; deliberate practice, and self-explanation. Coupled with immediate feedback and reflective exercises, learning can be measurably enhanced along with improved teaching skills.

Peer Teaching to Foster Learning in Physiology

PubMed Central

Srivastava, Tripti K; Waghmare, Lalitbhushan S.; Mishra, Ved Prakash; Rawekar, Alka T; Quazi, Nazli; Jagzape, Arunita T

2015-01-01

Introduction Peer teaching is an effective tool to promote learning and retention of knowledge. By preparing to teach, students are encouraged to construct their own learning program, so that they can explain effectively to fellow learners. Peer teaching is introduced in present study to foster learning and pedagogical skills amongst first year medical under-graduates in physiology with a Hypothesis that teaching is linked to learning on part of the teacher. Materials and Methods Non-randomized, Interventional study, with mixed methods design. Cases experienced peer teaching whereas controls underwent tutorials for four consecutive classes. Quantitative Evaluation was done through pre/post test score analysis for Class average normalized gain and tests of significance, difference in average score in surprise class test after one month and percentage of responses in closed ended items of feedback questionnaire. Qualitative Evaluation was done through categorization of open ended items and coding of reflective statements. Results The average pre and post test score was statistically significant within cases (p = 0.01) and controls (p = 0.023). The average post test scores was more for cases though not statistically significant. The class average normalized gain (g) for Tutorials was 49% and for peer teaching 53%. Surprise test had average scoring of 36 marks (out of 50) for controls and 41 marks for cases. Analysed section wise, the average score was better for Long answer question (LAQ) in cases. Section wise analysis suggested that through peer teaching, retention was better for descriptive answers as LAQ has better average score in cases. Feedback responses were predominantly positive for efficacy of peer teaching as a learning method. The reflective statements were sorted into reflection in action, reflection on action, claiming evidence, describing experience, and recognizing discrepancies. Conclusion Teaching can stimulate further learning as it involves interplay of three processes: metacognitive awareness; deliberate practice, and self-explanation. Coupled with immediate feedback and reflective exercises, learning can be measurably enhanced along with improved teaching skills. PMID:26435969

Image-Based Medical Expert Teleconsultation in Acute Care of Injuries. A Systematic Review of Effects on Information Accuracy, Diagnostic Validity, Clinical Outcome, and User Satisfaction

PubMed Central

Hasselberg, Marie; Beer, Netta; Blom, Lisa; Wallis, Lee A.; Laflamme, Lucie

2014-01-01

Objective To systematically review the literature on image-based telemedicine for medical expert consultation in acute care of injuries, considering system, user, and clinical aspects. Design Systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles. Data sources Searches of five databases and in eligible articles, relevant reviews, and specialized peer-reviewed journals. Eligibility criteria Studies were included that covered teleconsultation systems based on image capture and transfer with the objective of seeking medical expertise for the diagnostic and treatment of acute injury care and that presented the evaluation of one or several aspects of the system based on empirical data. Studies of systems not under routine practice or including real-time interactive video conferencing were excluded. Method The procedures used in this review followed the PRISMA Statement. Predefined criteria were used for the assessment of the risk of bias. The DeLone and McLean Information System Success Model was used as a framework to synthesise the results according to system quality, user satisfaction, information quality and net benefits. All data extractions were done by at least two reviewers independently. Results Out of 331 articles, 24 were found eligible. Diagnostic validity and management outcomes were often studied; fewer studies focused on system quality and user satisfaction. Most systems were evaluated at a feasibility stage or during small-scale pilot testing. Although the results of the evaluations were generally positive, biases in the methodology of evaluation were concerning selection, performance and exclusion. Gold standards and statistical tests were not always used when assessing diagnostic validity and patient management. Conclusions Image-based telemedicine systems for injury emergency care tend to support valid diagnosis and influence patient management. The evidence relates to a few clinical fields, and has substantial methodological shortcomings. As in the case of telemedicine in general, user and system quality aspects are poorly documented, both of which affect scale up of such programs. PMID:24887257

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Peer review in forensic science.

PubMed

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

2017-08-01

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

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2017-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2012-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Fischman, Mark G.

2014-01-01

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

Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Vorobel, Oksana; Kim, Deoksoon

2014-01-01

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

Peer Reviewers Learn from Giving Comments

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cho, Young Hoan; Cho, Kwangsu

2011-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Schwegler, Andria F.; Altman, Barbara W.

2015-01-01

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

Pre-University Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-04-01

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

Peer Review in Radiology: A Resident and Fellow Perspective.

PubMed

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

2016-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-09-29

To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys. BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models. Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation. For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used. Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Peer Portal: Quality Enhancement in Thesis Writing Using Self-Managed Peer Review on a Mass Scale

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Aghaee, Naghmeh; Hansson, Henrik

2013-01-01

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

Gender bias in scholarly peer review.

PubMed

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

2017-03-21

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-12-01

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

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

PubMed

Reiner, Bruce I

2018-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics.

PubMed

Andersen, Line Edslev

2017-01-01

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

Status of cardiovascular disease and stroke in Hispanics/Latinos in the United States: a science advisory from the American Heart Association.

PubMed

Rodriguez, Carlos J; Allison, Matthew; Daviglus, Martha L; Isasi, Carmen R; Keller, Colleen; Leira, Enrique C; Palaniappan, Latha; Piña, Ileana L; Ramirez, Sarah M; Rodriguez, Beatriz; Sims, Mario

2014-08-12

This American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement provides a comprehensive overview of current evidence on the burden cardiovascular disease (CVD) among Hispanics in the United States. Hispanics are the largest minority ethnic group in the United States, and their health is vital to the public health of the nation and to achieving the AHA's 2020 goals. This statement describes the CVD epidemiology and related personal beliefs and the social and health issues of US Hispanics, and it identifies potential prevention and treatment opportunities. The intended audience for this statement includes healthcare professionals, researchers, and policy makers. Writing group members were nominated by the AHA's Manuscript Oversight Committee and represent a broad range of expertise in relation to Hispanic individuals and CVD. The writers used a general framework outlined by the committee chair to produce a comprehensive literature review that summarizes existing evidence, indicate gaps in current knowledge, and formulate recommendations. Only English-language studies were reviewed, with PubMed/MEDLINE as our primary resource, as well as the Cochrane Library Reviews, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the US Census data as secondary resources. Inductive methods and descriptive studies that focused on CVD outcomes incidence, prevalence, treatment response, and risks were included. Because of the wide scope of these topics, members of the writing committee were responsible for drafting individual sections selected by the chair of the writing committee, and the group chair assembled the complete statement. The conclusions of this statement are the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the AHA. All members of the writing group had the opportunity to comment on the initial drafts and approved the final version of this document. The manuscript underwent extensive AHA internal peer review before consideration and approval by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. This statement documents the status of knowledge regarding CVD among Hispanics and the sociocultural issues that impact all subgroups of Hispanics with regard to cardiovascular health. In this review, whenever possible, we identify the specific Hispanic subgroups examined to avoid generalizations. We identify specific areas for which current evidence was less robust, as well as inconsistencies and evidence gaps that inform the need for further rigorous and interdisciplinary approaches to increase our understanding of the US Hispanic population and its potential impact on the public health and cardiovascular health of the total US population. We provide recommendations specific to the 9 domains outlined by the chair to support the development of these culturally tailored and targeted approaches. Healthcare professionals and researchers need to consider the impact of culture and ethnicity on health behavior and ultimately health outcomes. There is a need to tailor and develop culturally relevant strategies to engage Hispanics in cardiovascular health promotion and cultivate a larger workforce of healthcare providers, researchers, and allies with the focused goal of improving cardiovascular health and reducing CVD among the US Hispanic population. © 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.

Status of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Hispanics/Latinos in the United States

PubMed Central

Rodriguez, Carlos J.; Allison, Matthew; Daviglus, Martha L.; Isasi, Carmen R.; Keller, Colleen; Leira, Enrique C.; Palaniappan, Latha; Piña, Ileana L.; Ramirez, Sarah M.; Rodriguez, Beatriz; Sims, Mario

2015-01-01

Background and Purpose This American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement provides a comprehensive overview of current evidence on the burden cardiovascular disease (CVD) among Hispanics in the United States. Hispanics are the largest minority ethnic group in the United States, and their health is vital to the public health of the nation and to achieving the AHA’s 2020 goals. This statement describes the CVD epidemiology and related personal beliefs and the social and health issues of US Hispanics, and it identifies potential prevention and treatment opportunities. The intended audience for this statement includes healthcare professionals, researchers, and policy makers. Methods Writing group members were nominated by the AHA’s Manuscript Oversight Committee and represent a broad range of expertise in relation to Hispanic individuals and CVD. The writers used a general framework outlined by the committee chair to produce a comprehensive literature review that summarizes existing evidence, indicate gaps in current knowledge, and formulate recommendations. Only English-language studies were reviewed, with PubMed/MEDLINE as our primary resource, as well as the Cochrane Library Reviews, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the US Census data as secondary resources. Inductive methods and descriptive studies that focused on CVD outcomes incidence, prevalence, treatment response, and risks were included. Because of the wide scope of these topics, members of the writing committee were responsible for drafting individual sections selected by the chair of the writing committee, and the group chair assembled the complete statement. The conclusions of this statement are the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the AHA. All members of the writing group had the opportunity to comment on the initial drafts and approved the final version of this document. The manuscript underwent extensive AHA internal peer review before consideration and approval by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. Results This statement documents the status of knowledge regarding CVD among Hispanics and the sociocultural issues that impact all subgroups of Hispanics with regard to cardiovascular health. In this review, whenever possible, we identify the specific Hispanic subgroups examined to avoid generalizations. We identify specific areas for which current evidence was less robust, as well as inconsistencies and evidence gaps that inform the need for further rigorous and interdisciplinary approaches to increase our understanding of the US Hispanic population and its potential impact on the public health and cardiovascular health of the total US population. We provide recommendations specific to the 9 domains outlined by the chair to support the development of these culturally tailored and targeted approaches. Conclusions Healthcare professionals and researchers need to consider the impact of culture and ethnicity on health behavior and ultimately health outcomes. There is a need to tailor and develop culturally relevant strategies to engage Hispanics in cardiovascular health promotion and cultivate a larger workforce of healthcare providers, researchers, and allies with the focused goal of improving cardiovascular health and reducing CVD among the US Hispanic population. PMID:25098323

Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy.

PubMed

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

2011-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kurihara, Noriko

2017-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

White, Kiri; Boehm, Emilia; Chester, Andrea

2014-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2015-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Adamek, Margaret Ellen

2015-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Iqbal, Isabeau A.

2014-01-01

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

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

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-05-05

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

Students' Collaborative Peer Reviewing in an Online Writing Environment

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bradley, Linda; Thouësny, Sylvie

2017-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Knight, Linda V.; Steinbach, Theresa A.

2011-01-01

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

Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

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

DTIC Science & Technology

2015-11-02

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

AQUATOX Peer Review Documents

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Coté, Robert A.

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

AGU Position Statements Addressed at Fall Meeting Town Hall

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Hankin, Erik

2013-01-01

The AGU Outreach Committee and Public Affairs staff held a town hall at the 2012 Fall Meeting to discuss AGU position statements. The town hall, "AGU Position Statements: Announcing New Submission and Review Methods," held on Monday, 3 December, provided background on AGU position statements, recent changes to the review and writing processes, updates on statements under revision, and ways for members to utilize and impact position statements.

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-08-01

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

7 CFR 3400.14 - Proposal review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Cowley, Stephen J

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

The effect of peer review on mortality rates.

PubMed

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

2016-10-01

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

Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores

PubMed Central

Lindner, Mark D.; Nakamura, Richard K.

2015-01-01

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

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

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-03-30

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Porcher, Raphaël; Ravaud, Philippe; Trinquart, Ludovic

2016-01-01

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

Gender bias in scholarly peer review

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback.

PubMed

Strickland, N H

2015-11-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2017-01-01

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

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.

30 CFR 705.4 - Responsibility.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... file statements pursuant to § 705.11; (2) Promptly review the statement of employment and financial... Regulatory Authority that the State has completed the review of the statement, that prohibited financial... operations; (2) File a fully completed statement of employment and financial interest 120 days after these...

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

PubMed

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

2010-06-01

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

Mentored peer reviewing for PhD faculty and students.

PubMed

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

2016-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

49 CFR 802.14 - Review procedure and judicial review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... concise statement enumerating the reasons for the requester's disagreement with the denial, pursuant to...) Statements of Disagreement. (1) Written Statements of Disagreement may be furnished by the individual within... envelope, “Privacy Act Statement of Disagreement.” (2) The Director, Bureau of Administration, or his...

What is open peer review? A systematic review

PubMed Central

Ross-Hellauer, Tony

2017-01-01

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

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

10 CFR 1021.313 - Public review of environmental impact statements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Public review of environmental impact statements. 1021.313 Section 1021.313 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (GENERAL PROVISIONS) NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES Implementing Procedures § 1021.313 Public review of environmental impact statements. (a...

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…

76 FR 54637 - Board Policy Statements

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-09-01

...The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) Board recently undertook its 5-year review of FCA Board policy statements. This review resulted in revisions to 14 policy statements that are mostly technical, grammatical, or syntactical. However, a few of the revisions add clarity to the policy statements and other revisions incorporate changes required either by new laws or by changes in the functional statement of operations for some FCA offices.

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.

49 CFR 520.29 - Internal review of final environmental impact statements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... 49 Transportation 6 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Internal review of final environmental impact... ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Procedures § 520.29 Internal review of final environmental impact statements. (a) Upon... office originating the action, the final environmental statement shall be accompanied by a brief cover...

Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

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

DTIC Science & Technology

2016-09-12

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

SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

PubMed

Chan, An-Wen; Tetzlaff, Jennifer M; Altman, Douglas G; Laupacis, Andreas; Gøtzsche, Peter C; Krle A-Jerić, Karmela; Hrobjartsson, Asbjørn; Mann, Howard; Dickersin, Kay; Berlin, Jesse A; Dore, Caroline J; Parulekar, Wendy R; Summerskill, William S M; Groves, Trish; Schulz, Kenneth F; Sox, Harold C; Rockhold, Frank W; Rennie, Drummond; Moher, David

2015-12-01

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials

PubMed Central

Chan, An-Wen; Tetzlaff, Jennifer M.; Altman, Douglas G.; Laupacis, Andreas; Gøtzsche, Peter C.; Krleža-Jerić, Karmela; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Mann, Howard; Dickersin, Kay; Berlin, Jesse A.; Doré, Caroline J.; Parulekar, Wendy R.; Summerskill, William S.M.; Groves, Trish; Schulz, Kenneth F.; Sox, Harold C.; Rockhold, Frank W.; Rennie, Drummond; Moher, David

2016-01-01

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders. PMID:23295957

SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

PubMed

Chan, An-Wen; Tetzlaff, Jennifer M; Altman, Douglas G; Laupacis, Andreas; Gøtzsche, Peter C; Krleža-Jerić, Karmela; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Mann, Howard; Dickersin, Kay; Berlin, Jesse A; Doré, Caroline J; Parulekar, Wendy R; Summerskill, William S M; Groves, Trish; Schulz, Kenneth F; Sox, Harold C; Rockhold, Frank W; Rennie, Drummond; Moher, David

2013-02-05

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

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

PubMed

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

2017-10-01

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

Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors.

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

Improving your journal article using feedback from peer review.

PubMed

Price, Bob

2014-09-30

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

Peer Collaboration: Improving Teaching through Comprehensive Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Smith, Shelley L.

2014-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

Peer review.

PubMed

Twaij, H; Oussedik, S; Hoffmeyer, P

2014-04-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

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

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

PubMed

Benson, P J

2015-10-01

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

Pre-university Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2014-10-01

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

42 CFR 426.517 - CMS' statement regarding new evidence.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... 42 Public Health 3 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false CMS' statement regarding new evidence. 426.517... DETERMINATIONS Review of an NCD § 426.517 CMS' statement regarding new evidence. (a) CMS may review any new... experts; and (5) Presented during any hearing. (b) CMS may submit a statement regarding whether the new...

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.

Views of Young People With Chronic Conditions on Transition From Pediatric to Adult Health Services

PubMed Central

Hislop, Jenni; Mason, Helen; Parr, Jeremy R.; Vale, Luke; Colver, Allan

2017-01-01

Purpose This study sought to identify and describe the views of young people with chronic conditions about the transition from pediatric to adult services. Methods Q methodology was used to identify young people’s views on transition. A set of 39 statements about transition was developed from an existing literature review and refined in consultation with local groups of young people. Statements were printed onto cards and a purposive sample of 44 young people with chronic health conditions was recruited, 41 remaining in the study. The young people were asked to sort the statement cards onto a Q-sort grid, according to their opinions from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view (patterns of similarity between individual’s Q-sorts). Results Four distinct views on transition were identified from young people: (1) “a laid-back view of transition;” (2) “anxiety about transition;” (3) “wanting independence and autonomy during transition;” and (4) “valuing social interaction with family, peers, and professionals to assist transition.” Conclusions Successful transition is likely to be influenced by how young people view the process. Discussing and understanding young people’s views and preferences about transition should help clinicians and young people develop personalized planning for transition as a whole, and more specifically the point of transfer, leading to effective and efficient engagement with adult care. PMID:27287962

Reporting Quality of Randomized, Controlled Trials Evaluating Combined Chemoradiotherapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

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

Chen, Yu-Pei; Chen, Lei; Li, Wen-Fei

Purpose: To comprehensively assess the reporting quality of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), and to identify significant predictors of quality. Methods and Materials: Two investigators searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for RCTs published between January 1988 and December 2015 that assessed the effect of combined chemoradiotherapy for NPC. The overall quality of each report was assessed using a 28-point overall quality score (OQS) based on the 2010 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. To provide baseline data for further evaluation, we also investigated the reporting quality of certain important issues in detail, including key methodologic items (allocationmore » concealment, blinding, intention-to-treat principle), endpoints, follow-up, subgroup analyses, and adverse events. Results: We retrieved 24 relevant RCTs including 6591 patients. Median 2010 OQS was 15.5 (range, 10-24). Half of the items in the 2010 OQS were poorly reported in at least 40% of trials. Multivariable regression models revealed that publication after 2010 and high impact factor were significant predictors of improved 2010 OQS. Additionally, many issues that we consider significant were not reported adequately. Conclusions: Despite publication of the CONSORT statement more than a decade ago, overall reporting quality for RCTs in NPC was unsatisfactory. Additionally, substantial selectivity and heterogeneity exists in reporting of certain crucial issues. This survey provides the first prompt for NPC trial investigators to improve reporting quality according to the CONSORT statement; increased scrutiny and diligence by editors and peer reviewers is also required.« less

Views of Young People With Chronic Conditions on Transition From Pediatric to Adult Health Services.

PubMed

Hislop, Jenni; Mason, Helen; Parr, Jeremy R; Vale, Luke; Colver, Allan

2016-09-01

This study sought to identify and describe the views of young people with chronic conditions about the transition from pediatric to adult services. Q methodology was used to identify young people's views on transition. A set of 39 statements about transition was developed from an existing literature review and refined in consultation with local groups of young people. Statements were printed onto cards and a purposive sample of 44 young people with chronic health conditions was recruited, 41 remaining in the study. The young people were asked to sort the statement cards onto a Q-sort grid, according to their opinions from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view (patterns of similarity between individual's Q-sorts). Four distinct views on transition were identified from young people: (1) "a laid-back view of transition;" (2) "anxiety about transition;" (3) "wanting independence and autonomy during transition;" and (4) "valuing social interaction with family, peers, and professionals to assist transition." Successful transition is likely to be influenced by how young people view the process. Discussing and understanding young people's views and preferences about transition should help clinicians and young people develop personalized planning for transition as a whole, and more specifically the point of transfer, leading to effective and efficient engagement with adult care. Copyright © 2016 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Management of Hypoparathyroidism: Summary Statement and Guidelines.

PubMed

Brandi, Maria Luisa; Bilezikian, John P; Shoback, Dolores; Bouillon, Roger; Clarke, Bart L; Thakker, Rajesh V; Khan, Aliya A; Potts, John T

2016-06-01

Hypoparathyroidism is a rare disorder characterized by hypocalcemia and absent or deficient PTH. This report presents a summary of current information about epidemiology, presentation, diagnosis, clinical features, and management and proposes guidelines to help clinicians diagnose, evaluate, and manage this disorder. Participants in the First International Conference on the Management of Hypoparathyroidism represented a worldwide constituency with acknowledged interest and expertise in key basic, translational, and clinical aspects of hypoparathyroidism. Three Workshop Panels were constituted to address questions for presentation and discussion at the Conference held in Florence, Italy, May 7-9, 2015. At that time, a series of presentations were made, followed by in-depth discussions in an open forum. Each Workshop Panel also met in closed sessions to formulate the three evidence-based reports that accompany this summary statement. An Expert Panel then considered this information, developed summaries, guidelines, and a research agenda that constitutes this summary statement. Preceding the conference, each Workshop Panel conducted an extensive literature search as noted in the individual manuscripts accompanying this report. All presentations were based upon the best peer-reviewed information taking into account the historical and current literature. This report represents the Expert Panel's synthesis of the conference material placed in a context designed to be relevant to clinicians and those engaged in cutting-edge studies of hypoparathyroidism. This document not only provides a summary of our current knowledge but also places recent advances in its management into a context that should enhance future advances in our understanding of hypoparathyroidism.

Children's thoughts on the social exclusion of peers with intellectual or learning disabilities.

PubMed

Nowicki, E A; Brown, J; Stepien, M

2014-04-01

Previous research has shown that children with intellectual or learning disabilities are at risk for social exclusion by their peers but little is known of children's views on this topic. In this study, we used concept mapping to investigate elementary school children's thoughts on why they believe their peers with intellectual or learning disabilities are sometimes socially excluded at school. Participants were 49 grade five and six children who attended inclusive classrooms. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. We extracted 49 unique statements from the transcribed data, and then invited participants to sort the statements into meaningful categories. Sorted data were entered into matrices, which were summed and analysed with multi-dimensional scaling and cluster analysis. A four-cluster solution provided the best conceptual fit for the data. Clusters reflected themes on (1) the thoughts and actions of other children; (2) differences in learning ability and resource allocation; (3) affect, physical characteristics and schooling; and (4) negative thoughts and behaviours. The overarching reason for social exclusion focused on differences between children with and without disabilities. This study also provided evidence that children are effective, reliable and competent participants in concept mapping. Educational and research implications are discussed. © 2013 The Authors. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, MENCAP & IASSIDD.

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.

75 FR 77958 - Agency Information Collection (Statement of Dependency of Parent(s)) Activity Under OMB Review

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-12-14

... (Statement of Dependency of Parent(s)) Activity Under OMB Review AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration...: Statement of Dependency of Parent(s), VA Form 21-509. OMB Control Number: 2900-0089. Type of Review... VA Form 21-509 to report income and dependency information. Surviving parents of deceased veterans...

Radiologist Peer Review by Group Consensus.

PubMed

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

2016-06-01

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

The mechanisms underpinning peer support: a literature review.

PubMed

Watson, Emma

2017-12-20

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kelly, Lauren

2015-01-01

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

42 CFR 52h.6 - Availability of information.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

Methodologies of Peer and Editorial Review: Changing Practices

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Selfe, Cynthia; Hawisher, Gail

2012-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Covill, Amy E.

2010-01-01

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

Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Full Report

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

none,

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

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

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background Peer review is the major method used by biomedical journals for making the decision of publishing an article. This cross-sectional survey assesses views concerning the review system of biomedical journals among academics globally. Methods A total of 28,009 biomedical academics from high-ranking universities listed by the 2009 Times Higher Education Quacquarelli Symonds (THE-QS) World University Rankings were contacted by email between March 2010 and August 2010. 1,340 completed an online survey which focused on their academic background, negative experiences and views on biomedical journal peer review and the results were compared among basic scientists, clinicians and clinician scientists. Results Fewer than half of the respondents agreed that the peer review systems of biomedical journals were fair (48.4%), scientific (47.5%), or transparent (25.1%). Nevertheless, 58.2% of the respondents agreed that authors should remain anonymous and 64.4% agreed that reviewers should not be disclosed. Most, (67.7%) agreed to the establishment of an appeal system. The proportion of native English-speaking respondents who agreed that the “peer review system is fair” was significantly higher than for non-native respondents (p = 0.02). Similarly, the proportion of clinicians stating that the “peer review system is fair” was significantly higher than that for basic scientists and clinician-scientists (p = 0.004). For females, (β = −0.1, p = 0.03), the frequency of encountering personal attacks in reviewers’ comments (β = −0.1, p = 0.002) and the frequency of imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers (β = −0.06, p = 0.04) were independently and inversely associated with agreement that “the peer review system is fair”. Conclusion Academics are divided on the issue of whether the biomedical journal peer review system is fair, scientific and transparent. A majority of academics agreed with the double-blind peer review and to the establishment of an appeal system. Female academics, experience of personal attacks and imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers were related to disagreement about fairness of the peer review system of biomedical journals. PMID:23758823

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-03-01

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

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2000-02-01

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

Helping agencies improve their planning analysis techniques.

DOT National Transportation Integrated Search

2011-11-18

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

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

EPA Science Inventory

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Philippakos, Zoi A.

2017-01-01

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

Writing Quality Peer Reviews of Research Manuscripts

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Ward, Phillip; Graber, Kim C.; van der Mars, Hans

2015-01-01

Peer review is an important mechanism for advancing knowledge in a manner deemed as acceptable by the research community. It can also serve the function of providing guidance to an author(s) to improve the likelihood that manuscripts will be accepted in peer reviewed journals. There is, however, little assistance for new or existing reviewers of…

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

EPA Science Inventory

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

Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Feedstock Platform Summary

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

none,

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2012-01-01

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

The Problem of Humiliation in Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Comer, Debra R.; Schwartz, Michael

2014-01-01

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

Online Peer Review: Encouraging Student Response and Development

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lansiquot, Reneta; Rosalia, Christine

2015-01-01

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

Thank you to our 2016 peer reviewers

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2017-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-10-22

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

Predicting the Problem Behavior in Adolescents

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Karaman, Neslihan G.

2013-01-01

Problem statement: Problem behavior theory describes both protective factors and risk factors to explain adolescent problem behaviors, such as delinquency, alcohol use, and reckless driving. The theory holds that problem behaviors involving risky behavior are used by adolescents as a means to gain peer acceptance and respect. Problem behaviors…

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

PubMed

Schmalbach, Cecelia E

2016-07-01

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

Developmental cascade models linking peer victimization, depression, and academic achievement in Chinese children.

PubMed

Liu, Junsheng; Bullock, Amanda; Coplan, Robert J; Chen, Xinyin; Li, Dan; Zhou, Ying

2018-03-01

This study explored the longitudinal relations among peer victimization, depression, and academic achievement in Chinese primary school students. Participants were N = 945 fourth-grade students (485 boys, 460 girls; M age  = 10.16 years, SD = 2 months) attending elementary schools in Shanghai, People's Republic of China. Three waves of data on peer victimization, depression, and academic achievement were collected from peer nominations, self-reports, and school records, respectively. The results indicated that peer victimization had both direct and indirect effects on later depression and academic achievement. Depression also had both direct and indirect negative effects on later academic achievement, but demonstrated only an indirect effect on later peer victimization. Finally, academic achievement had both direct and indirect negative effects on later peer victimization and depression. The findings show that there are cross-cultural similarities and differences in the various transactions that exist among peer victimization, depression, and academic achievement. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Peer victimization directly and indirectly relates to depression and academic achievement. Depression directly and indirectly relates to academic achievement. Academic achievement directly and indirectly relates to depression. What the present study adds? A developmental cascade approach was used to assess the interrelations among peer victimization, depression, and academic achievement. Academic achievement mediates the relation between peer victimization and depression. Depression is related to peer victimization through academic achievement. Academic achievement directly and indirectly relates to peer victimization. Academic achievement is related to depression through peer victimization. © 2017 The British Psychological Society.

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-03-25

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2012-01-01

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

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Olthof, A W; van Ooijen, P M A

2016-09-01

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

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

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

Warner, J. S.

2010-01-01

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

2015 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Focused Update of the 2013 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Regarding Endovascular Treatment: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

PubMed

Powers, William J; Derdeyn, Colin P; Biller, José; Coffey, Christopher S; Hoh, Brian L; Jauch, Edward C; Johnston, Karen C; Johnston, S Claiborne; Khalessi, Alexander A; Kidwell, Chelsea S; Meschia, James F; Ovbiagele, Bruce; Yavagal, Dileep R

2015-10-01

The aim of this guideline is to provide a focused update of the current recommendations for the endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke. When there is overlap, the recommendations made here supersede those of previous guidelines. This focused update analyzes results from 8 randomized, clinical trials of endovascular treatment and other relevant data published since 2013. It is not intended to be a complete literature review from the date of the previous guideline publication but rather to include pivotal new evidence that justifies changes in current recommendations. Members of the writing committee were appointed by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council's Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Manuscript Oversight Committee. Strict adherence to the American Heart Association conflict of interest policy was maintained throughout the consensus process. Recommendations follow the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association methods of classifying the level of certainty of the treatment effect and the class of evidence. Prerelease review of the draft guideline was performed by 6 expert peer reviewers and by the members of the Stroke Council Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and Stroke Council Leadership Committee. Evidence-based guidelines are presented for the selection of patients with acute ischemic stroke for endovascular treatment, for the endovascular procedure, and for systems of care to facilitate endovascular treatment. Certain endovascular procedures have been demonstrated to provide clinical benefit in selected patients with acute ischemic stroke. Systems of care should be organized to facilitate the delivery of this care. © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.

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

PubMed Central

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-03-23

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.101 - Exceptions to applicability.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

The "peer" in "peer review"

USGS Publications Warehouse

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

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Roberts, Holli; Cronin, Sherill Nones

2017-04-01

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

Timely deposition of macromolecular structures is necessary for peer review

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

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

2013-12-01

Deposition of crystallographic structures should be concurrent with or prior to manuscript submission for peer review, enabling validation and increasing reliability of the PDB. Most of the macromolecular structures in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), which are used daily by thousands of educators and scientists alike, are determined by X-ray crystallography. It was examined whether the crystallographic models and data were deposited to the PDB at the same time as the publications that describe them were submitted for peer review. This condition is necessary to ensure pre-publication validation and the quality of the PDB public archive. It was found thatmore » a significant proportion of PDB entries were submitted to the PDB after peer review of the corresponding publication started, and many were only submitted after peer review had ended. It is argued that clear description of journal policies and effective policing is important for pre-publication validation, which is key in ensuring the quality of the PDB and of peer-reviewed literature.« less

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

PubMed

Vyas, Dinesh; Cronin, Sean

2015-12-01

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

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2012-12-01

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

Tardive Dyskinesia

MedlinePlus

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

Hemicrania Continua

MedlinePlus

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

Benign Essential Blepharospasm

MedlinePlus

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

Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review.

PubMed

Sandewall, Erik

2012-01-01

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

Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review

PubMed Central

Sandewall, Erik

2011-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kendall, Diana

1999-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Garousi, V.

2010-01-01

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

MO-D-211-01: Medical Physics Practice Guidelines - The Minimum Level of Medical Physics Support in Clinical Practice Settings.

PubMed

Chan, M; Fontenot, J; Halvorsen, P

2012-06-01

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has long advocated a consistent level of medical physics practice, and has published many guidelines and position statements toward that goal, such as Science Council Task Group reports related to calibration and quality assurance, Education Council and Professional Council Task Group reports related to education, training, and peer review, and Board-approved Position Statements related to the Scope of Practice, physicist qualifications, and other aspects of medical physicspractice. Despite these concerted and enduring efforts, the profession does not have a clear and concise statement of the acceptable practice guidelines for routine clinical medical physics. As accreditation of clinical practices becomes more common, Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPGs) will be crucial to ensuring a consistent benchmark for accreditation programs. The AAPM will lead the development of MPPGs in collaboration with other professional societies. The MPPGs will be freely available to the general public. Accrediting organizations, regulatory agencies and legislators will be encouraged to reference these MPPGs when defining their respective requirements. MPPGs are intended to provide the medical community with a clear description of the minimum level of medical physics support that the AAPM would consider to be prudent in all clinical practice settings. Support includes but is not limited to staffing, equipment, machine access, and training. These MPPGs are not designed to replace extensive Task Group reports or review articles, but rather to describe the recommended minimum level of medical physics support for specific clinical services. This course will describe the purpose and scope of MPPGs, the procedure for the development of a MPPG, as well as the progress of Therapy MPPG TG #1 on "Evaluation and quality assurance of x-ray based image guided radiotherapy systems" and Diagnostic MPPG TG #2 on "CT Protocol management and review". 1. Understand the concept and scope of MPPG from the AAPM 2. Understand the benefits and process of the development of MPPG by the AAPM 3. Understand the goals and methodology of the Therapy MPPG Task Group #14. 4. Understand the strategic plans from Professional Council towards the AAPM initiatives. © 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

An Official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units.

PubMed

Bosslet, Gabriel T; Pope, Thaddeus M; Rubenfeld, Gordon D; Lo, Bernard; Truog, Robert D; Rushton, Cynda H; Curtis, J Randall; Ford, Dee W; Osborne, Molly; Misak, Cheryl; Au, David H; Azoulay, Elie; Brody, Baruch; Fahy, Brenda G; Hall, Jesse B; Kesecioglu, Jozef; Kon, Alexander A; Lindell, Kathleen O; White, Douglas B

2015-06-01

There is controversy about how to manage requests by patients or surrogates for treatments that clinicians believe should not be administered. This multisociety statement provides recommendations to prevent and manage intractable disagreements about the use of such treatments in intensive care units. The recommendations were developed using an iterative consensus process, including expert committee development and peer review by designated committees of each of the participating professional societies (American Thoracic Society, American Association for Critical Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, European Society for Intensive Care Medicine, and Society of Critical Care). The committee recommends: (1) Institutions should implement strategies to prevent intractable treatment conflicts, including proactive communication and early involvement of expert consultants. (2) The term "potentially inappropriate" should be used, rather than futile, to describe treatments that have at least some chance of accomplishing the effect sought by the patient, but clinicians believe that competing ethical considerations justify not providing them. Clinicians should explain and advocate for the treatment plan they believe is appropriate. Conflicts regarding potentially inappropriate treatments that remain intractable despite intensive communication and negotiation should be managed by a fair process of conflict resolution; this process should include hospital review, attempts to find a willing provider at another institution, and opportunity for external review of decisions. When time pressures make it infeasible to complete all steps of the conflict-resolution process and clinicians have a high degree of certainty that the requested treatment is outside accepted practice, they should seek procedural oversight to the extent allowed by the clinical situation and need not provide the requested treatment. (3) Use of the term "futile" should be restricted to the rare situations in which surrogates request interventions that simply cannot accomplish their intended physiologic goal. Clinicians should not provide futile interventions. (4) The medical profession should lead public engagement efforts and advocate for policies and legislation about when life-prolonging technologies should not be used. The multisociety statement on responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units provides guidance for clinicians to prevent and manage disputes in patients with advanced critical illness.

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

PubMed

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

2005-10-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2018-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Speer, Sandra

2011-01-01

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

Peering into peer-review at GigaScience.

PubMed

Edmunds, Scott C

2013-01-24

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-03-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-07-01

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

Child shyness and peer likeability: The moderating role of pragmatics and vocabulary.

PubMed

Cheung, Hoi Shan; Elliott, John M

2017-11-01

The association between shyness and children's likeability by peers was examined, with pragmatic difficulty and receptive and expressive vocabularies as moderators. Participants were 164 preschoolers (72 boys, 92 girls) between 52 and 79 months old in Singapore. A cross-informant methodology was used, with peers and teachers contributing to separate peer likeability ratings. The findings highlighted a conceptual distinction between peer- and teacher-rated likeability by peers. For the latter only, a 3-way interaction involving shyness, vocabulary, and pragmatic difficulty was found, indicating that for shy children with low vocabulary scores, those who experienced less pragmatic difficulty tended to be seen by teachers as more well-liked by peers than those with more pragmatic difficulty. This suggests that pragmatic skills may serve a protective function especially for shy children with poor vocabulary skills. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Child shyness is related to poorer peer acceptance and social competence Expressive vocabulary and pragmatic competence each has a buffering effect for shy children What the present study adds? Shyness is related to poorer peer likeability as assessed by teachers Shyness is unrelated to peer likeability as assessed by same- or different-sex peers Pragmatic skills buffer the effects of teacher-rated shyness only for children with poor receptive and expressive vocabularies The buffering effect of language ability is shown in a multilingual educational context. © 2017 The British Psychological Society.

Appendix G: Peer review nondisclosure agreement

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

None, None

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

A Review of Peer Social Development in Early Childhood.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Goin, Robin P.

1998-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Fitzgerald, Amanda; Fitzgerald, Noelle; Aherne, Cian

2012-08-01

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

[Improving patient safety through voluntary peer review].

PubMed

Kluge, S; Bause, H

2015-01-01

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

Predictors of Quality Verbal Engagement in Third-Grade Literature Discussions

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Young, Chase

2014-01-01

This study investigates how reading ability and personality traits predict the quality of verbal discussions in peer-led literature circles. Third grade literature discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded. The coded statements and questions were quantified into a quality of engagement score. Through multiple linear regression, the…

Drug Abuse Prevention for You and Your Friends.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Porter, Novelli and Associates, Inc., Washington, DC.

This booklet, written for adolescents, focuses on the individual's role and responsibility, both to themselves and their friends, in preventing drug abuse problems. Short statements define the influence of peer pressure on prevention, friendship, and intervention. The results of a ninth grade student survey list 22 reasons for using drugs,…

Managing Students' Learning in Classrooms: Reframing Classroom Research.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Fawns, Rod; Salder, Jo

1996-01-01

Analyzes Australian students' public and private statements to themselves and their peers collected in the course of a multiyear study of teacher management of communication in cooperative learning groups. Data reflect how students perceived and responded to subtle features in the public enactment of the curriculum, the task, and the setting…

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

42 CFR 52h.5 - Conflict of interest.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

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

42 CFR 52h.5 - Conflict of interest.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

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

42 CFR 52h.5 - Conflict of interest.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

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

Ways to say no: refusal skill strategies among urban adolescents.

PubMed

Nichols, Tracy R; Graber, Julia A; Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne; Botvin, Gilbert J

2006-01-01

To examine associations among adolescents' generated verbal strategies (ie, Simple No, Declarative Statements, Excuse, Alternatives) and underlying nonverbal assertiveness in 2 refusal situations: smoking and shoplifting. Sixth-grade urban minority students (N = 454) participated in videotaped role-play assessments of peer refusal skills. Differences were found by situation with students demonstrating greater use of Simple No in the smoking refusal and Alternatives in the shoplifting refusal. Nonverbal assertiveness was similar across situations and was associated with Declarative Statements, but only in the smoking refusal. Prevention programs should tailor refusal skills practice to cover multiple situations.

Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Shared Decision Making in Intensive Care Units: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement

PubMed Central

Kon, Alexander A.; Davidson, Judy E.; Morrison, Wynne; Danis, Marion; White, Douglas B.

2015-01-01

Objectives Shared decision-making (SDM) is endorsed by critical care organizations, however there remains confusion about what SDM is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define SDM, recommend when SDM should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills. Methods The American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of ACCM and ATS were included in the statement. Main Results Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) Definition: Shared decision-making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make health care decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient’s values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a SDM process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their “default” approach a SDM process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies. Conclusions Patient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate. PMID:26509317

Shared Decision Making in ICUs: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.

PubMed

Kon, Alexander A; Davidson, Judy E; Morrison, Wynne; Danis, Marion; White, Douglas B

2016-01-01

Shared decision making is endorsed by critical care organizations; however, there remains confusion about what shared decision making is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define shared decision making, recommend when shared decision making should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills. The American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society were included in the statement. Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) DEFINITION: Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make healthcare decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a shared decision making process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their "default" approach a shared decision making process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable, including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies. Patient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate.

76 FR 27381 - Agency Information Collection (Financial Statement) Activity Under OMB Review

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-05-11

... (Financial Statement) Activity Under OMB Review AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of... . Please refer to ``OMB Control No. 2900-0047.'' SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Financial Statement, VA.../assumers meet the creditworthiness requirements. The data is also used to determine a borrower's financial...

30 CFR 706.5 - Responsibility.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... statement of employment and financial interests and supplements, if any, filed by each employee to determine...) Certify on each statement that review has been made, that prohibited financial interests if any, have been... to assist with the operational duties associated with filing and reviewing financial statements; (6...

o'Peer: open peer review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Brewer, J. H.

2014-12-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2009-01-01

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

Reflections of a CHAMPUS-APA peer reviewer.

PubMed

Parlour, R R

1986-02-01

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

Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2012-01-01

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

The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

PubMed Central

Saper, Clifford B; Maunsell, John HR

2009-01-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

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

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

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-10-24

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

Peer Review Undergoing Revitalization

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sawchuk, Stephen

2009-01-01

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

Peer-review: An IOP Publishing Perspective

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Smith, Timothy

2015-03-01

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

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

PubMed

Edwards, Marc T

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-06-01

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

Peering into peer-review at GigaScience

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Deveugele, Myriam; Silverman, Jonathan

2017-11-01

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

A study of the review and comment phase of the environmental impact statement : draft and negative.

DOT National Transportation Integrated Search

1972-01-01

This study examined the agencies that review the environmental impact statements (EIS) prepared on highway projects and was an attempt to shed light on the functions, personnel, and problems of the offices that saw the statements. The report covered ...

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

PubMed

Purtell, D L

1990-11-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-04-09

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

Clinical peer review program self-evaluation for US hospitals.

PubMed

Edwards, Marc T

2010-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-07-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Callaham, Michael L; Tercier, John

2007-01-01

Background Peer review is considered crucial to the selection and publication of quality science, but very little is known about the previous experiences and training that might identify high-quality peer reviewers. The reviewer selection processes of most journals, and thus the qualifications of their reviewers, are ill defined. More objective selection of peer reviewers might improve the journal peer review process and thus the quality of published science. Methods and Findings 306 experienced reviewers (71% of all those associated with a specialty journal) completed a survey of past training and experiences postulated to improve peer review skills. Reviewers performed 2,856 reviews of 1,484 separate manuscripts during a four-year study period, all prospectively rated on a standardized quality scale by editors. Multivariable analysis revealed that most variables, including academic rank, formal training in critical appraisal or statistics, or status as principal investigator of a grant, failed to predict performance of higher-quality reviews. The only significant predictors of quality were working in a university-operated hospital versus other teaching environment and relative youth (under ten years of experience after finishing training). Being on an editorial board and doing formal grant (study section) review were each predictors for only one of our two comparisons. However, the predictive power of all variables was weak. Conclusions Our study confirms that there are no easily identifiable types of formal training or experience that predict reviewer performance. Skill in scientific peer review may be as ill defined and hard to impart as is “common sense.” Without a better understanding of those skills, it seems unlikely journals and editors will be successful in systematically improving their selection of reviewers. This inability to predict performance makes it imperative that all but the smallest journals implement routine review ratings systems to routinely monitor the quality of their reviews (and thus the quality of the science they publish). PMID:17411314

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

PubMed

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

2017-07-01

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

Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation

PubMed Central

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

2011-01-01

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

IRIS Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

Successful peer review of courses: a case study.

PubMed

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

1998-03-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2008-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hutchings, Pat

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

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

DOT National Transportation Integrated Search

2001-05-01

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

78 FR 58611 - Agency Information Collection (Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance Statement) Activity Under OMB Review

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-09-24

... Mortgage Life Insurance Statement) Activity Under OMB Review AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration... INFORMATION: Title: Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance Statement, VA Form 29-8636. OMB Control Number: 2900-0212...-8636 to decline Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI) or to provide information upon which the...

77 FR 11547 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-02-27

... Request; Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Whole Grain Labeling Statements on Food Packages... and title ``Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Whole Grain Labeling Statements on Food... review and clearance. Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Whole Grain Labeling Statements on Food...

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

PubMed

Biddle, Chuck

2011-10-01

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

2017 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report

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

None, None

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2008-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Guthrie, Susan; Ghiga, Ioana; Wooding, Steven

2017-01-01

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

Peer Review: Structured, Informal, Confidential, Helpful!

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cassidy, Alice; Lee, Jack

2011-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kim, Soo Hyon

2015-01-01

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

Using Peer Review to Improve Student Writing in Business Courses

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Rieber, Lloyd J.

2006-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

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

The Great Fossil Fiasco: Teaching about Peer Review.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gift, Nancy; Krasny, Marianne

2003-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

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

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

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-09-24

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cakir, Mustafa; Carlsen, William S.

2007-01-01

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

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

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

Not Available

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

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

EPA Science Inventory

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

Peer Review: The CHAMPUS Program.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Stricker, George

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-01

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

Non-Responsive Feeding Practices, Unhealthy Eating Behaviors, and Risk of Child Overweight and Obesity in Southeast Asia: A Systematic Review

PubMed Central

Cristina Lindsay, Ana; Sitthisongkram, Somporn; Greaney, Mary L.; Wallington, Sherrie F.; Ruengdej, Praewrapee

2017-01-01

Childhood obesity is increasing dramatically in many Southeast Asian countries, and becoming a significant public health concern. This review summarizes the evidence on associations between parental feeding practices, child eating behaviors, and the risk of overweight and obesity in Southeast Asian children 2–12 years old. We systematically searched five electronic academic/research (PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest Nursing, Medline, and CINAHL) databases using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2000 and December 2016. Fourteen observational studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Reviewed studies were examined separately for preschool- and school-aged children and revealed that non-responsive parental feeding practices and unhealthy child eating behaviors were associated with a risk of child overweight and obesity in several Southeast Asian countries. Nonetheless, due to the small number of identified studies (n = 14) and because only about half of the Southeast Asian countries (Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, the Philippines, and Malaysia) were represented (5/11) in the examined studies, additional research is needed to further understand the factors associated with childhood obesity among children in Southeast Asia to develop interventions that are tailored to the specific needs of Southeast Asian countries and designed to address practices and behaviors that may promote childhood obesity. PMID:28422081

Non-Responsive Feeding Practices, Unhealthy Eating Behaviors, and Risk of Child Overweight and Obesity in Southeast Asia: A Systematic Review.

PubMed

Lindsay, Ana Cristina; Sitthisongkram, Somporn; Greaney, Mary L; Wallington, Sherrie F; Ruengdej, Praewrapee

2017-04-19

Childhood obesity is increasing dramatically in many Southeast Asian countries, and becoming a significant public health concern. This review summarizes the evidence on associations between parental feeding practices, child eating behaviors, and the risk of overweight and obesity in Southeast Asian children 2-12 years old. We systematically searched five electronic academic/research (PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest Nursing, Medline, and CINAHL) databases using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2000 and December 2016. Fourteen observational studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Reviewed studies were examined separately for preschool- and school-aged children and revealed that non-responsive parental feeding practices and unhealthy child eating behaviors were associated with a risk of child overweight and obesity in several Southeast Asian countries. Nonetheless, due to the small number of identified studies ( n = 14) and because only about half of the Southeast Asian countries (Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, the Philippines, and Malaysia) were represented (5/11) in the examined studies, additional research is needed to further understand the factors associated with childhood obesity among children in Southeast Asia to develop interventions that are tailored to the specific needs of Southeast Asian countries and designed to address practices and behaviors that may promote childhood obesity.

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

PubMed

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

2018-04-07

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

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

PubMed

Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W; Saitz, Richard

2015-02-01

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

Alzheimer's disease dietary supplements in websites.

PubMed

Palmour, Nicole; Vanderbyl, Brandy L; Zimmerman, Emma; Gauthier, Serge; Racine, Eric

2013-12-01

Consumer demand for health information and health services has rapidly evolved to capture and even propel the movement to online health information seeking. Seventeen percent (52 million) of health information internet users will look for information about memory loss, dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) (Fox Pew Internet & American life project: Online health search. Report. Pew Research Center. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Online-Health-Search-2006.aspx 2006, Pew Research Center. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/HealthTopics.aspx 2011). We examined the content of the 25 most frequently retrieved websites marketing AD dietary supplements. We found that the majority of websites and their products claimed AD-related benefits, including improvement and enhancement of function, treatment for AD, prevention of AD, maintenance of function, delayed progression of AD, and decreased symptoms. Supplements were described as effective, natural, powerful or strong, dependable and pure or of high quality. Peer reviewed references to proper scientific studies were infrequent on websites. Statements highlighting the risks of dietary supplements were as common as statements mitigating or minimizing these risks. Different strategies were used to promote supplements such as popular appeals and testimonials. Further enforcement of relevant policy is needed and preparation of clinicians to deal with requests of patients and caregivers is indicated.

Baccalaureate nursing students' perspectives of peer tutoring in simulation laboratory, a Q methodology study.

PubMed

Li, Ting; Petrini, Marcia A; Stone, Teresa E

2018-02-01

The study aim was to identify the perceived perspectives of baccalaureate nursing students toward the peer tutoring in the simulation laboratory. Insight into the nursing students' experiences and baseline data related to their perception of peer tutoring will assist to improve nursing education. Q methodology was applied to explore the students' perspectives of peer tutoring in the simulation laboratory. A convenience P-sample of 40 baccalaureate nursing students was used. Fifty-eight selected Q statements from each participant were classified into the shape of a normal distribution using an 11-point bipolar scale form with a range from -5 to +5. PQ Method software analyzed the collected data. Three discrete factors emerged: Factor I ("Facilitate or empower" knowledge acquisition), Factor II ("Safety Net" Support environment), and Factor III ("Mentoring" learn how to learn). The findings of this study support and indicate that peer tutoring is an effective supplementary strategy to promote baccalaureate students' knowledge acquisition, establishing a supportive safety net and facilitating their abilities to learn in the simulation laboratory. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Christoffersen, Katherine O'Donnell

2015-01-01

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

Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high-impact surgical journals.

PubMed

Chapman, S J; Drake, T M; Bolton, W S; Barnard, J; Bhangu, A

2017-02-01

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement aims to optimize the reporting of systematic reviews. The performance of the PRISMA Statement in improving the reporting and quality of surgical systematic reviews remains unclear. Systematic reviews published in five high-impact surgical journals between 2007 and 2015 were identified from online archives. Manuscripts blinded to journal, publication year and authorship were assessed according to 27 reporting criteria described by the PRISMA Statement and scored using a validated quality appraisal tool (AMSTAR, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Comparisons were made between studies published before (2007-2009) and after (2011-2015) its introduction. The relationship between reporting and study quality was measured using Spearman's rank test. Of 281 eligible manuscripts, 80 were published before the PRISMA Statement and 201 afterwards. Most manuscripts (208) included a meta-analysis, with the remainder comprising a systematic review only. There was no meaningful change in median compliance with the PRISMA Statement (19 (i.q.r. 16-21) of 27 items before versus 19 (17-22) of 27 after introduction of PRISMA) despite achieving statistical significance (P = 0·042). Better reporting compliance was associated with higher methodological quality (r s  = 0·70, P < 0·001). The PRISMA Statement has had minimal impact on the reporting of surgical systematic reviews. Better compliance was associated with higher-quality methodology. © 2016 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Opening Doors to Cultural Diversity

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Vidmar, Lou Ann

2007-01-01

The artwork created by David Hammons titled "The Door," is a glass in wood door that shows the words "Admissions Office" on it in reverse. There is a black shadow image of a person peering in. This powerful statement of inequality reflected the frustration of African-Americans trying to get into colleges and universities during…

Implementation of Web-Based Argumentation in Facilitating Elementary School Students to Learn Environmental Issues

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Wang, T. H.

2014-01-01

This research develops a Web-based argumentation system named the Web-based Interactive Argumentation System (WIAS). WIAS can provide teachers with the scaffolding for argumentation instruction. Students can propose their statements, collect supporting evidence and share and discuss with peers online. This research adopts a quasi-experimental…

Being Online Peer Supported: Experiences from a Work-Based Learning Programme

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Altinay Aksal, Fahriye; Altinay, Zehra; De Rossi, Gazivalerio; Isman, Aytekin

2012-01-01

Problem Statement: Work-based learning programmes have become an increasingly popular way of fulfilling the desire for life-long learning; multi-dimensional work-based learning modes have recently played a large role in both personal and institutional development. The peculiarity of this innovative way of learning derives from the fact that…

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

PubMed

Geithner, Christina A; Pollastro, Alexandria N

2016-03-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Beazidou, Eleftheria; Botsoglou, Kafenia

2016-01-01

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

Peer Response to L2 Student Writing: Patterns and Expectations

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Abdalla Salih, Abdel Rahman

2013-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Nguyen, Huy; Xiong, Wenting; Litman, Diane

2017-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brammer, Charlotte; Rees, Mary

2007-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Goodrich, Andrew

2018-01-01

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

Unmanned Maritime Systems Incremental Acquisition Approach

DTIC Science & Technology

2016-12-01

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

Guidance on Noncorticosteroid Systemic Immunomodulatory Therapy in Noninfectious Uveitis: Fundamentals Of Care for UveitiS (FOCUS) Initiative.

PubMed

Dick, Andrew D; Rosenbaum, James T; Al-Dhibi, Hassan A; Belfort, Rubens; Brézin, Antoine P; Chee, Soon Phaik; Davis, Janet L; Ramanan, Athimalaipet V; Sonoda, Koh-Hei; Carreño, Ester; Nascimento, Heloisa; Salah, Sawsen; Salek, Sherveen; Siak, Jay; Steeples, Laura

2018-05-01

An international, expert-led consensus initiative to develop systematic, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of noninfectious uveitis in the era of biologics. The availability of biologic agents for the treatment of human eye disease has altered practice patterns for the management of noninfectious uveitis. Current guidelines are insufficient to assure optimal use of noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory agents. An international expert steering committee comprising 9 uveitis specialists (including both ophthalmologists and rheumatologists) identified clinical questions and, together with 6 bibliographic fellows trained in uveitis, conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol systematic review of the literature (English language studies from January 1996 through June 2016; Medline [OVID], the Central Cochrane library, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, BIOSIS, and Web of Science). Publications included randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies with sufficient follow-up, case series with 15 cases or more, peer-reviewed articles, and hand-searched conference abstracts from key conferences. The proposed statements were circulated among 130 international uveitis experts for review. A total of 44 globally representative group members met in late 2016 to refine these guidelines using a modified Delphi technique and assigned Oxford levels of evidence. In total, 10 questions were addressed resulting in 21 evidence-based guidance statements covering the following topics: when to start noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory therapy, including both biologic and nonbiologic agents; what data to collect before treatment; when to modify or withdraw treatment; how to select agents based on individual efficacy and safety profiles; and evidence in specific uveitic conditions. Shared decision-making, communication among providers and safety monitoring also were addressed as part of the recommendations. Pharmacoeconomic considerations were not addressed. Consensus guidelines were developed based on published literature, expert opinion, and practical experience to bridge the gap between clinical needs and medical evidence to support the treatment of patients with noninfectious uveitis with noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory agents. Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed Central

Guthrie, Susan; Ghiga, Ioana; Wooding, Steven

2018-01-01

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

Young People Smokers' Reactions on Peer Influence Not to Smoke.

PubMed

Harakeh, Zeena; van Nijnatten, Carolus H C J

2016-11-09

Peers exert influence not to smoke but little is yet known on how this affects young people's behavior and cognitions. This experimental study investigates the impact of two types of peer influence not to smoke on the verbalized attitudes and responses of daily-smoking young people. Two conditions were conducted: 1) a peer confederate stating three times that s/he had quit smoking and was glad to have done so (covert peer influence); 2) a peer confederate making similar statements, but urging to quit smoking (overt peer influence). The participant performed a music task with the peer in order to disguise the true nature of the experiment. Thirty-one daily-smoking young people (16-24 years) participated; 44 responses in the overt and 34 responses in the covert condition were analyzed in a discourse analysis. The participants in the covert condition were more elaborative about smoking, i.e., taking an active role in a dialogue about the experiences of the peer or the participant in quitting smoking while in the overt condition participants showed more passive resistance, i.e., not showing an intention to follow the advice but avoid causing the peer embarrassment or discomfort. Open resistance, i.e., demonstration of being well-informed and indicating the redundancy of the advice, does not significantly differ in these two conditions but occurs, for both, primarily at the third discouragement. Overt and frequent discouragement seems to be less effective in stimulating young people to take an active role in the dialogue with their peers about smoking.

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

EPA Science Inventory

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