Science.gov

Sample records for peer reviewed journal

  1. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Ford, Emily

    2015-01-01

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

  3. Accelerated Peer-Review Journal Usage Technique for Undergraduates

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Wallace, J. D.

    2008-01-01

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

  4. Peer reviews and the role of a journal editor

    Technology Transfer Automated Retrieval System (TEKTRAN)

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

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

  6. Inuit Elderly: A Systematic Review of Peer Reviewed Journal Articles.

    PubMed

    Somogyi, Balvinder K; Barker, Melanie; MacLean, Calvin; Grischkan, Pamela

    2015-01-01

    Over the last century, Inuit have experienced rapid social changes that have greatly impacted their way of life, health, and intergenerational traditions. Although there is a growing body of research concerning Inuit youth, relatively little is known about elderly Inuit. In an effort to bridge this knowledge gap, a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles was conducted. This review identified a dearth of research on older Inuit, and highlighted limitations in service provision to this primarily rural and isolated population. Implications for policy and practice and recommendations for future research are also discussed.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cullen, David J.; Macaulay, Anne

    1992-01-01

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

  8. A new age of peer reviewed scientific journals

    PubMed Central

    Adler, John R.

    2012-01-01

    The principles of peer reviewed scientific publications date back two and one-half centuries to the origins of Medical Essays and Observations published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1731). This year (2012) is notable in that perhaps the most prestigious and best-known medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, crossed the second century mark. The methodologies of peer review have undeniably served medicine well and helped to usher in unimaginable advances in human health. Despite such illustrious history, the winds of change are in the air. PMID:23230526

  9. 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.

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

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

  11. 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

  12. Excessive and disproportionate advertising in peer-reviewed journals.

    PubMed

    Friedman, Lee S; Richter, Elihu D

    2006-01-01

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

  13. Peer review at the Health Information and Libraries Journal.

    PubMed

    Grant, Maria J

    2014-12-01

    At its best, peer review can mean receiving constructive feedback to help you make the most of your writing. At the Health Information and Libraries Journal, we strive to make the peer review a positive process for both authors and referees. We adopt a process of double-blind peer review. To receive two reviews in a timely manner, three referees are initially invited for each article submitted. The referees are asked to submit their review noting errors, areas of ambiguity or clarification required before the editor and editorial team consider the manuscript ready for publication. As with most journals, it's unlikely that your writing will be accepted in its original form; a typical outcome will be for a recommendation for major or minor revisions. This is good! It means the editorial team has seen something of likely interest to their readership and wants to help you develop it to a publishable standard. There can be a surprising amount of development and change in a manuscript from original submission through to publication. While you may be experienced in your field, you may not have much experience of writing for publication. As a referee, you get an intriguing insight into the shape of manuscripts in their original form.

  14. Problems faced by editors of peer reviewed medical journals.

    PubMed

    Jawaid, Shaukat A

    2004-01-01

    Forty-six medical and dental journals are published from Pakistan of which only 29 are currently recognized by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council. Only a few are peer reviewed. Six are indexed in Medline while EMBASE Excerpta Medica and World Health Organization Index Medicus for Eastern Mediterranean Region cover others. Editors of the peer reviewed medical journals are faced with numerous problems, which relate to the authors. Some of these are: shortage of quality of manuscripts, poor quality of reviewers, problems with indexation in international indexing services particularly Medline, duplicate submission and authorship and lastly, financial problems. Patronage from the Pharma industry is the major source of revenue which itself has serious implications. Editing a medical journal is a very stressful job and the editors have to work under too many pressures. A lot of useful data is presented at medical conferences, but a vast majority of it remains unpublished for various reasons, which adversely affects the citation rate from scientists from the developing third world countries in the world of medical literature. A few lectures on medical writing and research methodology to final year medical students will expose them to the art of medical writing. Specialty organizations can be persuaded to have a session on medical writing at their conferences, which will be extremely helpful not only to the potential new authors but also others, thereby improving the quality of their manuscripts. In addition to regular seminars, workshops for authors, reviewers and training courses for editors, subscribing to local medical journals by healthcare professionals and libraries are some of the measures that will help improve the situation to a great extent.

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2011-01-01

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

  16. How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

    PubMed Central

    Lee, Alexander D.; Green, Bart N.; Johnson, Claire D.; Nyquist, Julie

    2010-01-01

    Purpose: To describe and discuss the processes used to write scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals and to provide a recommended strategy and book appraisal worksheet to use when conducting book reviews. Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature was conducted in June 2009 using a combination of controlled vocabulary and truncated text words to capture articles relevant to writing scholarly book reviews for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Results: The initial search identified 839 citations. Following the removal of duplicates and the application of selection criteria, a total of 78 articles were included in this review including narrative commentaries (n = 26), editorials or journal announcements (n = 25), original research (n = 18), and journal correspondence pieces (n = 9). Discussion: Recommendations for planning and writing an objective and quality book review are presented based on the evidence gleaned from the articles reviewed and from the authors' experiences. A worksheet for conducting a book review is provided. Conclusions: The scholarly book review serves many purposes and has the potential to be an influential literary form. The process of publishing a successful scholarly book review requires the reviewer to appreciate the book review publication process and to be aware of the skills and strategies involved in writing a successful review. PMID:20480015

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Porter, Stephen R.

    2007-01-01

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

  18. Effectiveness of a reference accuracy strategy for peer-reviewed journal articles.

    PubMed

    Speck, Kirsten E; St Pierre Schneider, Barbara

    2013-01-01

    Dissemination of information through peer-reviewed journal articles is an important requirement of success in academia. Despite the importance of publishing articles, about 25% to 45% of articles published in nursing journals have at least 1 reference error in the reference list. The authors discuss the implementation and outcomes of an internal copyeditor strategy aimed at reducing reference inaccuracy in faculty-authored journal articles.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Paltridge, Brian

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Forrester, M B

    2016-07-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Forrester, M B

    2016-07-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Eysenbach, Gunther

    2004-09-30

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

  3. 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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Widanski, Bozena Barbara; Courtright-Nash, Debra

    2006-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2012-01-01

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

  6. 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.

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

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

  8. 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

  9. 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

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

    PubMed

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-06-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fischman, Josh

    2012-01-01

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

  13. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-10-01

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

  14. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-07-01

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

  15. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-09-01

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

  16. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-08-01

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

  17. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-11-01

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

  18. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-12-01

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

  19. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-02-01

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

  20. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-01-01

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

  1. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-08-01

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

  2. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-06-01

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

  3. Publication patterns of the American Society of Pediatric Neurosurgeons. Is there support among members for peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgical journals?

    PubMed

    Dias, M S

    1998-03-01

    The American Society of Pediatric Neurosurgeons (ASPN) has expressed a commitment to have all of its members' qualifying research efforts published in peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgical journals such as Pediatric Neurosurgery. To test this commitment, citations from January 1985 through December 1994 were analyzed for all 76 current members of the ASPN. The citations were divided into those of general or adult neurosurgical interest, and those of pediatric neurosurgical interest based upon title, key words, and/or abstract. Each pediatric neurosurgical citation was further classified by topic, and by the type of journal in which it appeared (pediatric neurosurgical, general or adult neurosurgical, and other pediatric or adult journal, subspecialty journal, or basic science journal). A total of 1,887 individual author citations were identified during the study period; of these, 1,586 citations (84%) were classified as pediatric neurosurgical citations. These included 1,391 citations from peer-reviewed publications and 195 citations from Concepts in Pediatric Neurosurgery. As a society, the ASPN published only one third of its citations in peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgery journals; the remainder were cited in general neurosurgical or other journals. Even when only citations from neurosurgical journals (in which pediatric neurosurgeons were more likely to be primary authors and therefore to have more control over the journal of publication) were analyzed, less than 50% of citations appeared in peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgery journals. Nearly three quarters of ASPN members failed to provide even a modest commitment--publishing 51% or more of their pediatric citations in peer-reviewed pediatric neurosurgical journals. When the analysis was again limited to only those citations published in neurosurgery journals, over half of the members failed this '51% rule'. These results suggest the need for a firmer commitment from ASPN members to publish in peer-reviewed

  4. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2013-12-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2013-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2013-08-21

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

  8. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-11-01

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

  9. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-10-01

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

  10. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-01-01

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

  11. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-03-01

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

  12. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-11-01

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

  13. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-12-01

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

  14. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-02-01

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

  15. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2015-12-01

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

  16. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-02-01

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

  17. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Deonandan, Raywat; Patel, Premal; Winterbottom, Robyn

    2012-01-01

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

  19. 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…

  20. 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…

  1. Thanking our peer reviewers

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kumashiro, Kevin K.

    2005-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Colomer, Mª Àngels

    2016-01-01

    We apply a novel mistake index to assess trends in the proportion of corrections published between 1993 and 2014 in Nature, Science and PNAS. The index revealed a progressive increase in the proportion of corrections published in these three high-quality journals. The index appears to be independent of the journal impact factor or the number of items published, as suggested by a comparative analyses among 16 top scientific journals of different impact factors and disciplines. A more detailed analysis suggests that the trend in the time-to-correction increased significantly over time and also differed among journals (Nature 233 days; Science 136 days; PNAS 232 days). A detailed review of 1,428 errors showed that 60% of corrections were related to figures, authors, references or results. According to the three categories established, 34.7% of the corrections were considered mild, 47.7% moderate and 17.6% severe, also differing among journals. Errors occurring during the printing process were responsible for 5% of corrections in Nature, 3% in Science and 18% in PNAS. The measurement of the temporal trends in the quality of scientific manuscripts can assist editors and reviewers in identifying the most common mistakes, increasing the rigor of peer-review and improving the quality of published scientific manuscripts. PMID:26893961

  4. From Dissertation to Publication: Converting Doctoral Research into a Peer-Reviewed Journal Article

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rodriquez-Kiino, Diane

    2012-01-01

    "The Journal of Applied Research in the Community College" (JARCC) actively seeks scholarly submissions on community colleges that originate from doctoral dissertations. Understanding the scope and complexity of community and junior colleges nationally requires multiple vantage points. Newly minted doctorates and doctoral candidates can provide a…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Tuten, Holly; Temesvari, Lesly

    2013-01-01

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

  6. Evaluation for citation metrics and peer reviewer acknowledgments

    PubMed Central

    Green, Bart N.

    2016-01-01

    This editorial discusses the indexing systems that include the Journal of Chiropractic Education, reflects on the increased international participation in chiropractic education scholarly meetings and peer review, and acknowledges the editorial board and peer reviewers for the journal. PMID:27557431

  7. Peer-review thoughts

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Barnes, Bill; Goodman, Maurice

    2016-03-01

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

  8. Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2014-06-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Navalta, James W.; Lyons, T. Scott

    2010-01-01

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

  10. The "Peer" in "Peer Review"

    USGS Publications Warehouse

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

    2011-01-01

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ausloos, Marcel

    2015-11-01

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

  12. Evaluative Language in Peer Review Referee Reports

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fortanet, Inmaculada

    2008-01-01

    Most international journals and conferences currently use the peer review system to ensure the quality of their contributions. Among the various types of peer review, the "blind" and the "anonymous" review seem to be the most common. Reviewers, or referees, usually write reports anonymously to indicate to authors what they should change in their…

  13. PEER REVIEW PROGRAM

    SciTech Connect

    MOGHISSI, A ALAN; LOVE, BETTY R; STRAJA, SORIN R

    2007-09-29

    The Institute for Regulatory Science (RS) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) jointly estab lished a peer-review program. As the program evolved, four types of review were established. A process for stakeholder participation in peer review eetings was also developed. While a committee established by the ASME provided oversight to the peer-review process, the RSI managed the day-to-day operations of peer review panels. In addition to the reports resulting from peer review of specific projects, several documents were prepared to facilitate the review process, all of which were widely distributed.

  14. 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…

  15. An analysis of abstracts presented to the College on Problems of Drug Dependence meeting and subsequent publication in peer review journals

    PubMed Central

    Valderrama-Zurián, Juan Carlos; Bolaños-Pizarro, Máxima; Bueno-Cañigral, Francisco Jesús; Álvarez, F Javier; Ontalba-Ruipérez, José Antonio; Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael

    2009-01-01

    Background Subsequent publication rate of abstracts presented at meetings is seen as an indicator of the interest and quality of the meeting. We have analyzed characteristics and rate publication in peer-reviewed journals derived from oral communications and posters presented at the 1999 College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) meeting. Methods All 689 abstracts presented at the 1999 CPDD meeting were reviewed. In order to find the existence of publications derived from abstracts presented at that meeting, a set of bibliographical searches in the database Medline was developed in July 2006. Information was gathered concerning the abstracts, articles and journals in which they were published. Results 254 out of 689 abstracts (36.9%) gave rise to at least one publication. The oral communications had a greater likelihood of being published than did the posters (OR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.80-3.55). The average time lapse to publication of an article was 672.97 days. The number of authors per work in the subsequent publications was 4.55. The articles were published in a total of 84 journals, of which eight were indexed with the subject term Substance-Related Disorders. Psychopharmacology (37 articles, 14.5%) was the journal that published the greatest number of articles subsequent to the abstracts presented at the 1999 CPDD meeting. Conclusion One out of every three abstracts presented to the 1999 CPDD meeting were later published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Medline. The subsequent publication of the abstracts presented in the CPDD meetings should be actively encouraged, as this maximizes the dissemination of the scientific research and therefore the investment. PMID:19889211

  16. 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…

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-01-01

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

  19. 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.

  20. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.

    PubMed

    Felthous, Alan R; Wettstein, Robert M

    2014-01-01

    Peer reviewers have been called the gatekeepers of science. For journal publications in forensic psychiatry, as well as other disciplines, the purposes of peer review are to assist in the selection of manuscripts to publish, improve the quality of manuscripts before their publication, and promote the fairness of the process. In this article, we examine, in particular, characteristics of high-quality peer reviewers, selection of peer reviewers, recruitment and retention of peer reviewers, desired quality of peer-reviewer ratings, and the value of peer review. We conclude with specific, albeit largely untested, recommendations for improvements in peer review of forensic mental health publications. PMID:25187283

  1. Peer Review Undergoing Revitalization

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sawchuk, Stephen

    2009-01-01

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

  2. Fairness in peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Adams, Bob

    2014-06-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Hrynaszkiewicz, Iain; Cockerill, Matthew J

    2012-09-07

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

  5. EERE Peer Review Guide

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

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

  6. Issues in Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sawamura, Mark H.

    2001-01-01

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

  7. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2012-11-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Kurdi, Madhuri S

    2015-08-01

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

  9. 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…

  10. Suggestions to Improve Social Work Journal Editorial and Peer-Review Processes: The San Antonio Response to the Miami Statement

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Holden, Gary; Thyer, Bruce A.; Baer, Judith; Delva, Jorge; Dulmus, Catherine N.; Shanks, Trina Williams

    2008-01-01

    Interest in and concern about scholarly communications through social work journals seem to have increased recently. One indicator of this concern was the publication of the Miami statement. A Society for Social Work and Research Presidential Task Force was created to continue work on these issues. This article discusses the work of one…

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ausloos, Marcel; Nedic, Olgica; Dekanski, Aleksandar

    2016-08-01

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

  12. 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.

  13. MELCOR Peer Review

    SciTech Connect

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

    1992-03-01

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

  14. Water Peer Review

    SciTech Connect

    2014-05-02

    All programs with the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) are required to undertake rigorous, objective peer review of their funded projects on a yearly basis in order to ensure and enhance the management, relevance, effectiveness, and productivity of those projects.

  15. 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…

  16. NIH Peer Review

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

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

  17. Further thoughts on peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Cottey, Alan; noamsoker

    2016-04-01

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

  18. Further thoughts on peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Cottey, Alan; noamsoker

    2016-04-01

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

  19. Peer Review in the Classroom.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William W.

    2002-01-01

    Explains the importance of peer assessment in professional life and describes a course using peer review processes to teach modeling in natural resource management. Uses a typical scientific research protocol and assigns students to review peer proposals considering their expertise and area of interest. Presents guidelines for proposal review,…

  20. Who Is Writing? Author Affiliation across Peer-Reviewed Journals of Emotional or Behavioral Disorders, 2000-2011

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Schoenfeld, Naomi A.; Janney, Donna M.; Rekart, Jerome L.

    2013-01-01

    The importance of practitioner participation in identifying and maintaining use of best educational practice is well established; however, little is known about the ways in which practitioners contribute to the development and dissemination of those practices within the field of emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD). This review examines…

  1. Publications and the peer review system

    Technology Transfer Automated Retrieval System (TEKTRAN)

    The peer review process as it relates to scientific publications in entomological journals is facing a number of serious issues that must be addressed. Among those issues are the increasing submissions from international authors writing in English as a second or third language, manuscripts lacking s...

  2. Peer review of biomedical manuscripts: an update.

    PubMed

    Ludbrook, John

    2003-09-01

    There have been published at least two major sets of contributions to the matter of peer review of manuscripts since my last article on this topic. In one, the merits of truly open peer review, in which the names of authors and their affiliations are revealed to reviewers, and the names of reviewers to authors, are extolled. The other contribution is not so original, in that it exhorts biomedical investigators and authors to consult with professional statisticians. But the vigorous correspondence that followed was interesting. I have come down strongly in favour of open peer review for all biomedical journals. However, I have also warned investigators and authors that statisticians often do not agree and, sometimes, violently disagree. I suggest that it is time a prospective, comparative study of statistical reviewers and their reviews should be carried out.

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

    SciTech Connect

    Warner, J. S.

    2010-01-01

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

  4. CONTAIN independent peer review

    SciTech Connect

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

    1995-01-01

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

  5. 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…

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

    PubMed

    Stahel, Philip F; Moore, Ernest E

    2014-09-26

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

  7. Editorial behaviors in peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2016-01-01

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

  8. 2011 OBP Peer Review Portal

    SciTech Connect

    2012-01-04

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

  9. Journalism and Institutional Review Boards

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dash, Leon

    2007-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Humble, Aine M.; Sharp, Elizabeth

    2012-01-01

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

  11. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... OF DEFENSE CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Information 215.270 Peer Reviews. Agency officials shall conduct Peer Reviews...

  12. Science, Policy, and Peer Review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Kennedy, D.

    2006-12-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

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

  14. 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.

  15. 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…

  16. 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

  17. 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

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

    PubMed

    Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara; Adeli, Khosrow

    2014-10-01

    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

  19. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

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

  20. 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...

  1. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

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

  2. The Dedisciplining of Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Frodeman, Robert; Briggle, Adam

    2012-01-01

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

  3. A quick guide to writing a solid peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Nicholas, Kimberly A.; Gordon, Wendy S.

    2011-07-01

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

  4. Independent Peer Reviews

    SciTech Connect

    2012-03-16

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

  5. 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…

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

    PubMed

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

    2003-01-01

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

  7. 2009 Water Power Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Murphy, Michael; Higgins, Mark; Reed, Mike

    2011-04-01

    This report contains the findings of the 2009 Water Power Peer Review Panel, as well as the Water Power Program's responses to those findings. This Peer Review focused on the Program's marine and hydrokinetic energy projects.

  8. Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing.

    PubMed

    Guilford, W H

    2001-12-01

    Many undergraduate and graduate students understand neither the process of scientific writing nor the significance of peer review. In response, some instructors have created writing assignments that teach or mimic parts of the scientific publishing process. However, none fully reproduced peer review and revision of papers together with the writing and publishing process from research to final, accepted draft. In addition, most have been instituted at the graduate rather than undergraduate level. We present a detailed method for teaching undergraduate students the full scientific publishing process, including anonymous peer review, during the process of writing a "term paper." The result is a review article in the format for submission to a major scientific journal. This method has been implemented in the course Cell and Molecular Biology for Engineers at the University of Virginia. Use of this method resulted in improved grades, much higher quality in the final manuscript, greater objectivity in grading, and improved understanding of the importance of peer review.

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-06-01

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

  10. Appendix G: Peer review nondisclosure agreement

    SciTech Connect

    None, None

    2009-01-18

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

  11. Reviewing post-publication peer review

    PubMed Central

    Knoepfler, Paul

    2015-01-01

    Post-publication peer review (PPPR) is transforming how the life sciences community evaluates published manuscripts and data. Unsurprisingly, however, PPPR is experiencing growing pains, and some elements of the process distinct from standard pre-publication review remain controversial. I discuss the rapid evolution of PPPR, its impact, and the challenges associated with it. PMID:25851694

  12. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

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

  13. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

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

  14. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

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

  15. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

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

  16. 48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

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

  17. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

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

  18. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

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

  19. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  20. 7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

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

  1. 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...

  2. 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 ...

  3. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

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

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. Timely deposition of macromolecular structures is necessary for peer review

    PubMed Central

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

    2013-01-01

    Most of the macromolecular structures in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), which are used daily by thousands of educators and scientists alike, are determined by X-ray crystallography. It was examined whether the crystallographic models and data were deposited to the PDB at the same time as the publications that describe them were submitted for peer review. This condition is necessary to ensure pre-publication validation and the quality of the PDB public archive. It was found that a significant proportion of PDB entries were submitted to the PDB after peer review of the corresponding publication started, and many were only submitted after peer review had ended. It is argued that clear description of journal policies and effective policing is important for pre-publication validation, which is key in ensuring the quality of the PDB and of peer-reviewed literature. PMID:24311569

  7. Reflective Journals: A Review of the Literature

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lindroth, James T.

    2015-01-01

    The use of reflective journals has been identified as an effective tool to promote reflection in preservice teachers. This review of literature provides the reader with an understanding of the various ways journals are used and assessed in teacher education programs. The findings of this review outline the use of reflective journals on topics such…

  8. Peer Review of Launch Environments

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Wilson, Timmy R.

    2011-01-01

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

  9. The Multiple Faces of Peer Review in Science Education

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Tobin, Kenneth

    2002-04-01

    I use autobiographical narratives to describe and analyse my involvement in peer review activities in science education and to illustrate their historical, social and cultural constitution. I explore ways in which peer review and science education have interrelated in 30-plus years in which I have been a science educator. I employ cultural sociology and activity theory to identify patterns of coherence and coexisting contradictions that create tensions able to catalyse improvements in science education. I argue that early career science educators need a gradual induction into peer review activities, preferably increasing their effectiveness by coparticipating with more experienced colleagues. Also, I critically examine my roles as a peer reviewer, within various contexts that include being an editor of journals and a book series, an examiner of dissertations and an advisor of graduate students, and as a reviewer of applications for tenure and promotion. In so doing I probe power relationships between the reviewer and the reviewed and explore the possibility that peer review is hegemonic. Finally, I present strategies for science educators to reach a collective understanding of how to enact peer review equitably.

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

    PubMed

    Faggion, C M

    2016-02-26

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

  11. 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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

  13. 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…

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

    PubMed

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

    2012-10-01

    Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being "filtered out" or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses. PMID:23054375

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. Peering into peer-review at GigaScience.

    PubMed

    Edmunds, Scott C

    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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-01-01

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

  19. Sealed source peer review plan

    SciTech Connect

    Feldman, Alexander; Leonard, Lee; Burns, Ron

    2009-01-01

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

  20. Avoiding currently unavoidable conflicts of interest in medical publishing by transparent peer review.

    PubMed

    Gleicher, Norbert

    2013-05-01

    The medical literature frequently addresses potential conflicts of interest, involving scientists and authors. Conflicts involving editorial offices of medical journals, have, however, only rarely been subject to discussion. The biggest opportunity for editorial conflicts presents during peer review. This commentary, therefore, argues in favour of changes in peer review. Improved and more transparent peer review will quite automatically avoid most potential conflicts of interest in medical publishing, including those currently widely considered unavoidable.

  1. Using Peer Reviews to Examine Micropolitics and Disciplinary Development of Engineering Education: A Case Study

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Beddoes, Kacey

    2014-01-01

    This article presents a case study of the peer review process for a feminist article submitted to an engineering education journal. It demonstrates how an examination of peer review can be a useful approach to further understanding the development of feminist thought in education fields. Rather than opposition to feminist thought per se, my…

  2. Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sims, Gerald K.

    1989-01-01

    A peer review process similar to that used by scientific journals which can be applied to class work is presented. Stressed is the advantage of using peer review when writing skills are a priority but instructor time is limited. Guidelines and examples of comments are provided. (CW)

  3. Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network

    PubMed Central

    Lee, Christopher

    2011-01-01

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

  4. Physical Review: a family of journals

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Sprouse, Gene

    2013-03-01

    The expansion of research in physics in the last 100 years has been reflected in the expansion of the Physical Review(PR). Reviews of Modern Physics was the first ``new'' journal, starting in 1929. Physical Review Letters commenced in 1958, and was the first ``letters'' type of journal for important new results in all fields. By 1970 the Physical Review itself had grown so large that it was necessary to separate it by field into manageable volumes: PRA, PRB, PRC and PRD, and subsequently PRE, which was split off from PRA. More recently, two Special Topics journals for accelerator physics and physics education were pioneers of the open access business model, and the newest member of the family, Physical Review X, continues this trend. PRX is broad scope and very selective, setting it well above many of the new open access journals with a review standard of ``not incorrect.'' Some possible future directions for the Physical Review journals will be discussed.

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2016-01-01

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

  6. 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…

  7. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders reviewer acknowledgement 2013

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Contributing reviewers We thank all of our reviewers who have contributed to the journal in volume 5 (2013). High quality and timely reviews are critical to the overall quality of the journal. We are committed to providing a unique and important outlet for scholarship regarding neurodevelopmental disorders and are indebted to the outstanding reviewers who have contributed their time over the last year in helping us to reach this goal. PMID:24472142

  8. 2006 Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    Each year hydrogen and fuel cell projects funded by DOE's Hydrogen Program are reviewed for their merit during an Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting. The 2006 Annual Merit Review, held May 16-19, 2006 in Arlington, Va., showcased approximately 250 projects. Principal investigators presented their project status and results in oral and poster presentations, which are available in the 2006 Annual Merit Review Proceedings. A panel of more than 150 community experts peer reviewed two-t

  9. 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...

  10. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  11. 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...

  12. 28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

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

  13. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  14. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

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

  15. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

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

  16. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

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

  17. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

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

  18. Predatory Publishing, Questionable Peer Review, and Fraudulent Conferences

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Open-access is a model for publishing scholarly, peer-reviewed journals on the Internet that relies on sources of funding other than subscription fees. Some publishers and editors have exploited the author-pays model of open-access, publishing for their own profit. Submissions are encouraged through widely distributed e-mails on behalf of a growing number of journals that may accept many or all submissions and subject them to little, if any, peer review or editorial oversight. Bogus conference invitations are distributed in a similar fashion. The results of these less than ethical practices might include loss of faculty member time and money, inappropriate article inclusions in curriculum vitae, and costs to the college or funding source. PMID:25657363

  19. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences.

    PubMed

    Bowman, John D

    2014-12-15

    Open-access is a model for publishing scholarly, peer-reviewed journals on the Internet that relies on sources of funding other than subscription fees. Some publishers and editors have exploited the author-pays model of open-access, publishing for their own profit. Submissions are encouraged through widely distributed e-mails on behalf of a growing number of journals that may accept many or all submissions and subject them to little, if any, peer review or editorial oversight. Bogus conference invitations are distributed in a similar fashion. The results of these less than ethical practices might include loss of faculty member time and money, inappropriate article inclusions in curriculum vitae, and costs to the college or funding source.

  20. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health PUBLIC 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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 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...

  4. 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...

  5. The power of nursing peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2014-11-01

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

  6. Timely deposition of macromolecular structures is necessary for peer review

    SciTech Connect

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

    2013-12-01

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

  7. The role of peer assessment and peer review in nursing.

    PubMed

    Gopee, N

    With the implementation of clinical governance and professional self-regulation, substantial responsibility is devolved on to clinical nurses. Central to these two concepts is accountability for practice. We are accountable for our professional competence and knowledge to various parties such as the professional statutory body, the employer, society as well as ourselves. Although self-assessment provides each individual with a medium for ascertaining his/her own level of performance and, therefore, identifying his/her learning needs, peer review and peer assessment provide healthy means for obtaining feedback and external perceptions. They also bring with them several other benefits and meet other recommended professional requirements. Peer review is an intrinsic component of clinical governance, and it can be initiated and implemented at one-to-one, departmental or organizational level.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lakshmi, B. Samrajya

    2014-01-01

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

  9. Procedures for Peer Review of Grant Applications

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    US Department of Education, 2006

    2006-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Snell, Richard R

    2015-01-01

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

  11. Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers

    PubMed Central

    Snell, Richard R.

    2015-01-01

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

  12. Understanding Peer Review of Scientific Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Association of American Universities, 2011

    2011-01-01

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

  13. Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game

    PubMed Central

    Goldstone, Robert L.; Helbing, Dirk

    2016-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-07-26

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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. Examining Marketing Journals' Publication Process and Reviewer Practices

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Seiler, Vicky L.; Reisenwitz, Timothy H.; Schibrowsky, John A.

    2011-01-01

    This study examines reviewer practices at 11 marketing journals. The results for the top three journals are compared to eight comparable journals that are typically considered to be non-top-tier journals. The results suggest that the reviewers and the review processes at the top journals differ significantly from those of the non-top-tier…

  18. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  19. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

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

  20. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  1. 28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ucko, Daniel

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

  3. EERE Peer Review Guide - August 2004

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    Provides guidance in establishing formal in-progress peer review that provides intellectually fair expert evaluation of EERE research, development, demonstration, & deployment (supporting business administration) programs, both retrospective and pr

  4. 2013 Bioenergy Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    None, None

    2014-02-01

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

  5. Geothermal Technologies Program Overview - Peer Review Program

    SciTech Connect

    Milliken, JoAnn

    2011-06-06

    This Geothermal Technologies Program presentation was delivered on June 6, 2011 at a Program Peer Review meeting. It contains annual budget, Recovery Act, funding opportunities, upcoming program activities, and more.

  6. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors.

    PubMed

    Newton, Douglas P

    2010-05-01

    Peer review gives research a stamp of approval, but the reviews themselves can be flawed. This is potentially serious for the writer, the journal, and journal user. This study describes shortcomings of the peer review process and condenses them into an explanatory framework involving situational, personal, social, and ethical factors. Some proposals to improve matters are impractical and may make them worse. Some data is offered which illustrates the problem and suggests a potential solution. Informed editors who avoid mechanical approaches engage cautiously and critically with reviews and guard against bias, even in themselves, could make a significant difference.

  7. 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

  8. Credibility, peer review, and Nature, 1945–1990

    PubMed Central

    Baldwin, Melinda

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2011-11-01

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

  10. 2005 Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    Each year hydrogen and fuel cell projects funded by DOE's Hydrogen Program are reviewed for their merit during an Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting. The 2005 Annual Merit Review was held May 23-25, 2005 in Arlington, VA

  11. 2004 Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    Each year hydrogen and fuel cell projects funded by DOE's Hydrogen Program are reviewed for their merit during an Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting. The 2004 Annual Merit Review was held May 24-27, 2004 in Philadelphia, PA

  12. Procedures for Peer Review of Reports

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    US Department of Education, 2006

    2006-01-01

    Under the Education Sciences Reform Act, all research, statistics, and evaluation reports conducted by, or supported through, the Institute shall be subject to rigorous peer review before being published or otherwise made available to the public. Prior to review and approval by the NCEE Commissioner, NCEE reports are reviewed internally by the…

  13. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  14. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Management of peer reviews. 34.110 Section 34.110 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.110 Management of peer reviews. A technical support contractor may assist in...

  15. 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...

  16. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Management of peer reviews. 34.110 Section 34.110 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.110 Management of peer reviews. A technical support contractor may assist in...

  17. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review methods. 34.105 Section 34.105 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.105 Peer review methods. (a) For both competitive and noncompetitive applications,...

  18. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

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

  19. 38 CFR 77.10 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

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

  20. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Management of peer reviews. 34.110 Section 34.110 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.110 Management of peer reviews. A technical support contractor may assist in...

  1. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kumar, Prashant; Rafiq, Imran; Imam, Boulent

    2011-01-01

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

  3. 2013 Geothermal Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Geothermal Technologies Office

    2014-01-01

    Geothermal Technologies Office conducted its annual program peer review in April of 2013. The review provided an independent, expert evaluation of the technical progress and merit of GTO-funded projects. Further, the review was a forum for feedback and recommendations on future GTO strategic planning. During the course of the peer review, DOE-funded projects were evaluated for 1) their contribution to the mission and goals of the GTO and 2) their progress against stated project objectives. Principal Investigators (PIs) came together in sessions organized by topic “tracks” to disseminate information, progress, and results to a panel of independent experts as well as attendees.

  4. Geothermal Technologies Program 2011 Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Hollett, Douglas; Stillman, Greg

    2011-06-01

    On June 6-10, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP or the Program) conducted its annual program peer review in Bethesda, Maryland. In accordance with the EERE Peer Review Guide, the review provides an independent, expert evaluation of the strategic goals and direction of the program and is a forum for feedback and recommendations on future program planning. The purpose of the review was to evaluate DOE-funded projects for their contribution to the mission and goals of the Program and to assess progress made against stated objectives.

  5. Using a peer review exercise to teach students the value of the peer review process

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Cook, G. W.; Cook, H. M.

    2015-12-01

    The peer review process is integral to legitimate scientific study. Undergraduate students in geoscience classes often have a poor understanding of the process and specifically do not understand what constitutes peer-reviewed literature. This becomes especially apparent in situations where students are asked to write research-oriented papers or essays that make use of peer-reviewed scientific sources. Often, they believe that news articles and online sources such as blogs constitute valid (peer-reviewed) scientific sources. We make use of a relatively simple in-class exercise in our introductory geoscience classes that teaches students the necessity of the review process and educates them about the true nature and value of peer-reviewed literature. It also reinforces an understanding of the scientific method in the context of conducting literature-based research. Students report that they are better equipped to conduct research using scientific literature as a result of participating in the exercise.

  6. 'Peer review' for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies.

    PubMed

    Das, A K

    2016-04-01

    Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring quality control of scientific manuscripts published in any journal. The traditional double blind peer review, although a time-tested method, has come under increasing criticism in the face of emerging trends in the review process with the primary concern being the delays in completion of the review process. Other issues are the inability to detect errors/fraud, lack of transparency, lack of reliability, potential for bias, potential for unethical practices, lack of objectivity, inconsistencies amongst reviewers, lack of recognition and motivation of reviewers. Alternative options to classical peer review being propagated are: open review, immediate self-publication using preprint servers, nonselective review focusing primarily on the scientific content, and post-publication review. These alternative review processes, however, may suffer from the inability to validate quality control. In addition, anecdotal instances of peer review frauds are being reported more often than earlier. Suggested means to ensure quality of peer review process includes:(a) each journal to have its own database of reviewers, (b) verification of email IDs of reviewers provided by authors along with details of their institutions, (c) ensure credibility of reviewers before requesting for review, (d) check for plagiarism at the editorial level, (e) editors to distinguish between a good review from a possible biased/bad review, and (f) give recognition for reviewers once in a year. To conclude, quickness of review and publication should not dictate the scientific publication process at the cost of quality of contents. PMID:27257328

  7. [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.

  8. A Peer Review Training Workshop: Coaching Students to Give and Evaluate Peer Feedback

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lam, Ricky

    2010-01-01

    Trained peer review, as illustrated in a plethora of peer review or peer response scholarship, has a positive effect on students' writing in general and on improved revision quality in particular (Berg, 1999; Hu, 2005; Min, 2006; Paulus, 1999; Stanley, 1992). From these studies, it is evident that trained peer feedback does have a significant role…

  9. Use of Trial Register Information during the Peer Review Process

    PubMed Central

    Mathieu, Sylvain; Chan, An-Wen; Ravaud, Philippe

    2013-01-01

    Introduction Evidence in the medical literature suggests that trial registration may not be preventing selective reporting of results. We wondered about the place of such information in the peer-review process. Method We asked 1,503 corresponding authors of clinical trials and 1,733 reviewers to complete an online survey soliciting their views on the use of trial registry information during the peer-review process. Results 1,136 authors (n = 713) and reviewers (n = 423) responded (37.5%); 676 (59.5%) had reviewed an article reporting a clinical trial in the past 2 years. Among these, 232 (34.3%) examined information registered on a trial registry. If one or more items (primary outcome, eligibility criteria, etc.) differed between the registry record and the manuscript, 206 (88.8%) mentioned the discrepancy in their review comments, 46 (19.8%) advised editors not to accept the manuscript, and 8 did nothing. The reviewers' reasons for not using the trial registry information included a lack of registration number in the manuscript (n = 132; 34.2%), lack of time (n = 128; 33.2%), lack of usefulness of registered information for peer review (n = 100; 25.9%), lack of awareness about registries (n = 54; 14%), and excessive complexity of the process (n = 39; 10.1%). Conclusion This survey revealed that only one-third of the peer reviewers surveyed examined registered trial information and reported any discrepancies to journal editors. PMID:23593154

  10. Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review.

    PubMed

    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.

  11. Nurse Participation in Medical Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Orme, June Y.; Lindbeck, Rosemary S.

    1974-01-01

    The Utah Professional Review Organization (UPRO) enables nurse-coordinators to conduct an ongoing evaluation of the quality of patient care, to upgrade care through physician-sponsored continuing education programs, and to limit care cost, in a medical peer review program. (DS)

  12. From SSWR to Peer-Reviewed Publication: How Many Live and How Many Die?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Perron, Brian E.; Taylor, Harry Owen; Vaughn, Michael G.; Grogan-Kaylor, Andrew; Ruffolo, Mary C.; Spencer, Michael

    2011-01-01

    The purpose of this study was to estimate how many presentations at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) are subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. A 30% random sample of abstracts presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of SSWR was reviewed. To determine publication status of the presentations, the authors…

  13. Peer Review, Bourdieu and Honour: Connecting Chinese and Australian Intellectual Projects

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Singh, Michael; Han, Jinghe

    2010-01-01

    The reviews of papers for refereed journals are rarely a source of exhilaration, only occasionally a pleasure and frequently dispiriting. Using peer reviews of research containing Chinese concepts, this paper explores different ways of thinking about knowledge, its evaluation and transfer. Bourdieu's concepts of fields of power, position taking,…

  14. Assessing the Quality of Feedback in the Peer-Review Process

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dobele, A. R.

    2015-01-01

    The feedback provided to authors by reviewers as part of a double-blind peer-review process was examined for two Australian conferences, one special international edition book and six international special edition journals (originating in the UK). The research sought to identify consistency of decision-making and the effectiveness of feedback for…

  15. Real-time peer review: an innovative feature to an evidence-based practice conference.

    PubMed

    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.

  16. 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

  17. 2012 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Zayas, Jose; Higgins, Mark

    2012-06-01

    This report summarizes the proceedings of the 2012 Wind Program Peer Review, the goals of which were to review and evaluate the strategy and goals of the Wind Program; review and evaluate the progress and accomplishments of the program's projects funded in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and FY 2011; and foster interactions among the national laboratories, industry, and academic institutions conducting research and development on behalf of the program.

  18. 2007 Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    Each year hydrogen and fuel cell projects funded by DOE's Hydrogen Program are reviewed for their merit during an Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting. The 2007 Annual Merit Review, held May 15-18, 2007 in Washington, D.C., showcased approximately 300 projects. Hydrogen and fuel cell principal investigators representing the offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science presented their project status and results in oral and poster presen

  19. 2008 Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    Each year hydrogen and fuel cell projects funded by DOE's Hydrogen Program are reviewed for their merit during an Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting. The 2008 Annual Merit Review, held June 9-13, 2008 in Arlington, Va., showcased nearly 300 projects. Hydrogen and fuel cell principal investigators representing the offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science presented their project status and results in oral and poster presentations,

  20. Private Journals versus Public Blogs: The Impact of Peer Readership on Low-Stakes Reflective Writing

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Foster, Drew

    2015-01-01

    This article isolates and observes the impact of peer readership on low-stakes reflective writing assignments in two large Introduction to Sociology classes. Through a comparative content analysis of over 2,000 private reflective journal entries and semipublic reflective blog posts, I find that both practices produce distinct forms of reflection.…

  1. Journal between Peer Learners: An Innovative Project to Motivate EFL Writers

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Wang, Xiaohong; Shen, Lei; Lu, Xiao

    2016-01-01

    Writing is one of the most challenging skills for many EFL learners to master. It is also considered to be the most difficult to teach. To motivate students to write more without burdening teachers with additional rating work, college English teachers at a university in China introduced a journal project. Peer learners were paired anonymously and…

  2. 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…

  3. Appreciation of Peer Reviewers for 2014

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Baratoux, David; Hauck, Steven A., II; Stanley, Sabine; Wieczorek, Mark A.

    2015-03-01

    Scientific publishing relies heavily on the process of peer review to ensure that the most well-founded and clearly described science is communicated to our colleagues and beyond. Papers published in JGR Planets benefit from the time, effort, and talents of the reviewers who provide thoughtfully considered advice on each manuscript. This role is critical to the advancement of planetary science as these reviews lead to even clearer and higher-quality papers. In 2014, papers submitted to JGR Planets were the beneficiaries of more than 520 reviews provided by 340 members of the planetary science community. To everyone who volunteers their time and intellect to peer reviewing, thank you for helping us share the best science possible.

  4. Geothermal Technologies Office 2012 Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2013-04-01

    On May 7-10, 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Geothermal Technologies Office conducted its annual program peer review in Westminster, CO. In accordance with the EERE Peer Review Guide, the review provides an independent, expert evaluation of the strategic goals and direction of the office and is a forum for feedback and recommendations on future office planning. The purpose of the review was to evaluate DOE-funded projects for their contribution to the mission and goals of the office and to assess progress made against stated objectives. Project scoring results, expert reviewer comments, and key findings and recommendations are included in this report.

  5. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2014

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Montanari, Alberto; Bahr, Jean; Blöschl, Günter; Cai, Ximing; Mackay, D. Scott; Michalak, Anna; Rajaram, Harihar; Sander, Graham

    2015-08-01

    During 2014 Water Resources Research benefited from the voluntary effort of 2103 reviewers. Their constructive and professional effort was instrumental for publishing high-quality contributions thereby supporting the development of our knowledge of water resources. The contribution of the reviewers is instrumental to science for reaching the target of benefiting humanity. Editors and Associate Editors of Water Resources Research are grateful to the reviewers for their talented, unselfish, and continuous support to the journal.

  6. 7 CFR 3405.16 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3405.16 Section... to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, CSREES will, upon request... reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be made available to respective...

  7. 7 CFR 3406.23 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3406.23 Section... Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request.... Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be...

  8. 7 CFR 3405.16 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3405.16 Section... to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request... reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be made available to respective...

  9. 7 CFR 3405.16 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3405.16 Section... Supplementary Information § 3405.16 Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced.... Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be...

  10. 7 CFR 3406.23 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3406.23 Section... Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request.... Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be...

  11. 7 CFR 3406.23 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3406.23 Section... Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, CSREES will, upon request.... Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be...

  12. 7 CFR 3405.16 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3405.16 Section... to peer review information. After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request... reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be made available to respective...

  13. 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…

  14. Peer Review Methods for ESL Writing Improvement

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Soares, Colleen J.

    2004-01-01

    This teacher research shows how peer reviews change draft papers. In the majority of cases, final papers improved in content. The study analyzes data collected from 40 intermediate/advanced nonnative speakers of English enrolled in freshman composition for international students at a large private university. It also examines student reflections…

  15. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

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

  16. 48 CFR 201.170 - Peer Reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

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

  17. Student Reflection and Learning through Peer Reviews

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Boase-Jelinek, Daniel; Parker, Jenni; Herrington, Jan

    2013-01-01

    This paper describes lessons learnt whilst using an online peer review system in an undergraduate unit for pre-service teachers. In this unit, students learn to use information technologies as part of their future teaching practice. The unit aims to foster graduates who become lifelong reflective educators by providing opportunities to explore and…

  18. Learning To Assess Students Using Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Pond, Keith; Ul-Haq, Rehan

    1997-01-01

    Peer Review is described as an assessment methodology that allows students to provide input into the assessment procedure through evaluating each others' performance in out-of-class learning activities, with control of the final grade remaining with the teacher. Responses of 51 students illustrate strengths and weaknesses of the approach. (SLD)

  19. 2009 Biomass Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Ferrell, John

    2009-12-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program‘s 2009 peer review meeting, held on July 14–15, 2009, in Arlington, Virginia. The document also includes summary information from the six separate platform reviews conducted between March and April 2009 in the Washington, D.C., and Denver, Colorado, areas. The platform reviews provide evaluations of the program‘s projects in applied research, development, and demonstration as well as analysis and deployment activities. The July program peer review was an evaluation of the program‘s overall strategic planning, management approach, priorities across research areas, and resource allocation.

  20. IRIS Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium (Peer Review Plan)

    EPA Science Inventory

    EPA is conducting a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of hexavalent chromium that will appear on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database.

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

    USGS Publications Warehouse

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

    2015-01-01

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

  2. 2014 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2014-10-01

    The Wind Program Peer Review Meeting was held March 24-28, 2014 in Arlington, VA. Principle investigators from the Energy Department, National Laboratories, academic, and industry representatives presented the progress of their DOE-funded research. This report documents the formal, rigorous evaluation process and findings of nine independent reviewers who examined the technical, scientific, and business results of Wind Program funded projects, as well as the productivity and management effectiveness of the Wind Program itself.

  3. 2014 Water Power Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2014-08-18

    The Water Power Peer Review Meeting was held February 24-28, 2014 in Arlington, VA. Principle investigators from the Energy Department National Laboratories, academic, and industry representatives presented the progress of their DOE-funded research. This report documents the formal, rigorous evaluation process and findings of nine independent reviewers who examined the technical, scientific, and business results of 96 projects of the Water Power Program, as well as the productivity and management effectiveness of the Water Power Program itself.

  4. Testing the rebound peer review concept.

    PubMed

    Olson, Kenneth R

    2013-07-01

    This invited Editorial addresses the rescue of the article by Xue et al. "Hydrogen sulfide treatment promotes glucose uptake by increasing insulin receptor sensitivity and ameliorates kidney lesions in type 2 diabetes." The work was rejected by the standard peer review system and subsequently rescued via the Rebound Peer Review mechanism offered by Antioxidants and Redox Signaling (Antoxid Redox Signal 16: 293-296, 2012). The open reviewers rescuing the work were Jin-Song Bian, Samuel Dudley, Hideo Kimura, and Xian Wang. The initial article was reviewed by six reviewers who had valid concerns; they recommended extensive revision and additional experiments. In the subsequent two iterations, the authors nearly doubled the number of experiments and made substantial revisions. However, several reviewers were still not satisfied, and the authors requested the rebound pathway. The open reviewers, selected by the authors and experts in hydrogen sulfide biology, diabetes, and cardiovascular physiology, added a broad perspective to the review process. They acknowledged the anonymous reviewer's concerns, but felt that the merits of the study were sufficient to recommend acceptance. The open reviewers also identified several situations where the recommendations of the anonymous reviewers and the author's attempts to rectify them were moot, given the available methodology and present state of the field. From this perspective, the rebound track was a success; it rescued an article that otherwise would have been rejected and will stimulate further discussion and research in this area. Whether or not there are more efficient ways to accomplish, this remains to be determined. PMID:23425024

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

    PubMed Central

    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 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis. 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 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers. 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. PMID:27508056

  6. 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 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis. 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 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers. 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. PMID:27508056

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-10-01

    The transition from residency to independent practice presents unique challenges for physicians. New attending physicians often have unmet learning needs in non-clinical domains. An attending physician is an independent medical practitioner, sometimes referred to as a staff physician or consultant. Peer mentorship has been explored as an alternative to traditional mentorship to meet the learning needs of new attendings. In this article, the authors describe how a journal club for general internal medicine fellowship graduates helped ease the transition by facilitating peer mentorship. Journal club members were asked to bring two things to each meeting: a practice-changing journal article, and a 'transition to practice' discussion topic such as a diagnostic dilemma, billing question, or a teaching challenge. Discussions fell into three broad categories that the authors have termed: trading war stories, measuring up, and navigating uncharted waters. It is likely that physicians have a strong need for peer mentorship in the first few years after the transition from residency, and a journal club or similar discussion group may be one way to fulfil this. PMID:27631332

  8. 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…

  9. Peer review practicalities in clinical medicine

    PubMed Central

    Metcalfe, Matthew J; Farrant, MAL; Farrant, JM

    2010-01-01

    Peer review processes in teaching requires a reviewer to observe a teacher’s practice in a planned manner. Conversation between the two enables the teacher to reflect on their own teaching, promoting self-improvement. Although a central part of the teaching process, and despite its crucial role in continuing professional development, peer review is not widely practiced in hospital settings. This article explains the process and its benefits. Practical implementations of the process in busy clinical settings are suggested. Its evaluation and incorporation into undergraduate learning and postgraduate clinical practice are described. With enthusiastic support for colleagues and allowances for its implementation, it should become part of the regular teaching practice, improving the quality of teaching delivered. PMID:23745062

  10. 7 CFR 3406.23 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3406.23 Section... PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3406.23 Access to peer review information. After final decisions have... the peer reviewers, will be made available to the respective principal investigator/project...

  11. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 3 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Peer review panel. 205.509 Section 205.509 Agriculture... PROVISIONS NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Accreditation of Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The Administrator shall establish a peer review panel pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5...

  12. 7 CFR 3400.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 3400.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review...

  13. 7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 3411.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members...

  14. 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…

  15. Raman spectroscopy peer review report

    SciTech Connect

    Winkelman, W.D.; Eberlein, S.J.

    1994-09-01

    The Hanford Site in eastern Washington includes 177 underground storage tanks (UST), which contain waste materials produced during the production of nuclear fuels. The materials in the tanks must be characterized to support the retrieval, processing, and final disposition of the waste. Characterization is currently performed by removing waste samples for analyses in a hot cell or laboratory. A review of the Hanford Raman Spectroscopy Program was held in Richland on March 23 and 24, 1994. A team of principal investigators and researchers made presentations that covered both technical and programmatic aspects of the Hanford Site Raman work. After these presentations and discussions, the review panel met in a closed session to formalize a list of findings. The reviewers agreed that Raman spectroscopy is an excellent method to attack the tank waste characterization and screening problems that were presented. They agreed that there was a good chance that the method would be successful as presently envisioned. The reviewers provided the following primary recommendations: evaluation a laser with wavelength in the near infrared; provide optical filters at or near the sampling end of the fiber-optic probe; develop and implement a strategy for frequent calibration of the system; do not try to further increase Raman resolution at the expense of wavelength range; clearly identify and differentiate between requirements for providing a short-term operational system and requirements for optimizing a system for long-term field use; and determine the best optical configuration, which may include reduced fiber-optic diameter and/or short focal length and low F-number spectrographs.

  16. Factors Associated with Social Interactions between Deaf Children and Their Hearing Peers: A Systematic Literature Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Batten, Georgina; Oakes, Peter M.; Alexander, Tim

    2014-01-01

    Research indicates that deaf children can have marked social difficulties compared with their hearing peers. Factors that influence these social interactions need to be reviewed to inform interventions. A systematic search of 5 key databases and 3 specialized journals identified 14 papers that met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of…

  17. Collaborative learning through formative peer review: pedagogy, programs and potential

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Søndergaard, Harald; Mulder, Raoul A.

    2012-12-01

    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 pedagogical requirements for student peer review are likely to be discipline-specific, taking computer science and software engineering as an example. We then summarise what attributes are important for a modern generic peer review tool, and classify tools according to four prevalent emphases, using currently available, mature tools to illustrate each. We conclude by identifying some gaps in current understanding of formative peer review, and discuss how online tools for student peer review can help create opportunities to answer some of these questions.

  18. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2015

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Montanari, Alberto; Bahr, Jean; Blöschl, Günter; Cai, Ximing; Scott Mackay, D.; Michalak, Anna; Rajaram, Harihar; Sanchez-Vila, Xavier

    2016-04-01

    On behalf of the journal, AGU, and the scientific community, the editors would like to sincerely thank those who reviewed manuscripts for Water Resources Research in 2015. The hours reading and commenting on manuscripts not only improves the manuscripts themselves but it also increases the scientific rigor of future research in the field. Many of those listed below went beyond and reviewed three or more manuscripts for our journal, and those are indicated in italics. The refereeing contributions they made contributed to 3622 individual reviews of 1434 manuscripts. Thank you again. We look forward to a 2016 of exciting advances in the field and communicating those advances to our community and to the broader public.

  19. Training Effects on Computer-Mediated Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Liou, Hsien-Chin; Peng, Zhong-Yan

    2009-01-01

    The interactive functions of weblogs facilitate computer-mediated peer reviews for collaborative writing. As limited research has been conducted on examining the training effects of peer reviews on students' peer comments, their revision quality, and their perceptions when composing in weblogs, the present case study aims to fill the gap. Thirteen…

  20. 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…

  1. 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…

  2. QA REVIEWS: HOW THEY DIFFER FROM PEER REVIEWS

    EPA Science Inventory

    Research papers and reports written by scientists and engineers in the United States Environmental Protection Agency are reviewed by the agency's quality assurance staff. EPA papers and reports are subjected to peer reviews that check for the validity of conclusions and the gener...

  3. NIH Peer Review: Scored Review Criteria and Overall Impact

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lindner, Mark D.; Vancea, Adrian; Chen, Mei-Ching; Chacko, George

    2016-01-01

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. Funding decisions are made largely based on the outcome of a peer review process that is intended to provide a fair, equitable, timely, and unbiased review of the quality, scientific merit, and potential impact of the research. There have…

  4. 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…

  5. A Modestly Rewarding Proposal Concerning Peer Review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Helffrich, George

    2013-11-01

    I have been an academic journal editor for longer than seems sane. One of the most important resources upon which I rely in this work is the reviewer community. These largely overlooked heroes are the scrutineers of the scientific process by which hypotheses are generated and tested and their errors eliminated. Their efforts are a key step in the development of scientific knowledge from which society in general, and the readers of Eos in particular, benefit.

  6. Augmented Articles: The Future of Peer-Reviewed Publications?

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2015-08-01

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

  7. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    SciTech Connect

    Corradini, M.L. . Dept. of Nuclear Engineering); Dhir, V.K. Santa Monica, CA ); Haste, T.J. ); Heames, T.J. ); Jenks, R.P. ); Kelly, J.E. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM

    1993-01-01

    The SCDAP/RELAP5 code has been developed for best-estimate transient simulation of light-water-reactor coolant systems during severe accidents. The newest version of the code is SCDAP/RELAP5/MOD3. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decided that there was a need for a broad technical review of the code by recognized experts to determine overall technical adequacy, even though the code is still under development. For this purpose, an eight-member SCDAP/RELAP5 Peer Review Committee was organized, and the outcome of the review should help the NRC prioritize future code-development activity. Because the code is designed to be mechanistic, the Committee used a higher standard for technical adequacy than was employed in the peer review of the parametric MELCOR code. The Committee completed its review of the SCDAP/RELAP5 code, and the findings are documented in this report. Based on these findings, recommendations in five areas are provided: (1) phenomenological models, (2) code-design objectives, (3) code-targeted applications, (4) other findings, and (5) additional recommendations.

  8. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Program Summary Section

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

    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.

  9. A Model for Peer Review in Instructional Design.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Casey, Carl; And Others

    1996-01-01

    Describes an instructional design review process in which peers offer feedback through "structured walkthroughs." Discusses types of reviews, guidelines, and success factors, and summarizes a formal peer review structure developed and tested at Hewlett-Packard Company. Two tables present advantages and disadvantages of types of design reviews and…

  10. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Full Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

    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.

  11. Commercial Lighting Solutions, Webtool Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Jones, Carol C.; Meyer, Tracy A.

    2009-06-17

    The Commercial Lighting Solutions (CLS) project directly supports the U.S. Department of Energy’s Commercial Building Energy Alliance efforts to design high performance buildings. CLS creates energy efficient best practice lighting designs for widespread use, and they are made available to users via an interactive webtool that both educates and guides the end user through the application of the Lighting Solutions. This report summarizes the peer review of the beta version of the CLS webtool, which contains retail box lighting solutions. The methodology for the peer review process included data collection (stakeholder input), analysis of the comments, and organization of the input into categories for prioritization of the comments against a set of criteria. Based on this process, recommendations were developed about which feedback should be addressed for the release of version 1.0 of the webtool at the Lightfair conference in New York City in May 2009. Due to the volume of data (~500 comments) the methodology for addressing the peer review comments was central to the success of the ultimate goal of improving the tool. The comments were first imported into a master spreadsheet, and then grouped and organized in several layers. Solutions to each comment were then rated by importance and feasibility to determine the practicality of resolving the concerns of the commenter in the short-term or long-term. The rating system was used as an analytical tool, but the results were viewed thoughtfully to ensure that they were not the sole the factor in determining which comments were recommended for near-term resolution. The report provides a list of the top ten most significant and relevant improvements that will be made within the webtool for version 1.0 as well as appendices containing the short-term priorities in additional detail. Peer review comments that are considered high priority by the reviewers and the CLS team but cannot be completed for Version 1.0 are listed as

  12. A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials.

    PubMed

    Del Mar, Chris; Hoffmann, Tammy C

    2015-11-02

    Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task. This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into 'major' (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and 'minor' (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable. Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper's strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role.

  13. Music's Representation in Early Childhood Education Journals: A Literature Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bond, Vanessa L.

    2012-01-01

    In this review of literature, the author explored the representation of music in early childhood education researcher and practitioner journal articles. Thirty-eight pertinent journal articles were identified in a keyword search for "music" in eight journals. The search was limited to a 5-year period, 2005-2010. Article summaries were categorized…

  14. Editorial policies and background in editing Macedonian Medical Review and BANTAO journal.

    PubMed

    Spasovski, Goce

    2014-01-01

    Even in as small a country as R. Macedonia with limited resources allocated for science, there are many journals trying to establish good editorial practices and policies in publishing the scientific work achieved. Among the currently existing medical journals Macedonian Medical Review (MMR), ISSN 0025-1097, deserves to be elaborated as the oldest journal with continuous publication since its first appearance as the journal of the Macedonian Medical Association (MMA). Since its first issue, published in 1946, there has been an opus of some 4500 peer-reviewed published papers in more than 210 issues and some 80 supplements from various congresses and meetings. In this regard, great respect should be paid not only to the editorial boards, but also to the collaborators who have contributed to its successful continuity in all previous years. In line with the needs for further development of the journal and possibilities for access to world databases, the Editorial Board of MMR has made every effort to improve and modernize its work as well as the technical quality of the journal. Hence, MMA has signed a contract with De Gruyter Open as leading publisher of Open Access academic content for further improvement and promotion of the journal and facilitation of the Medline application, so we do hope for the further success of the journal. BANTAO Journal is published on behalf of the Balkan Cities Association of Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation and Artificial Organs (BANTAO), ISSN 1312-2517. The first issue was published in 2003, ten years after BANTAO was born. Its appearance was an extremely important event in the existence of BANTAO. The first official editor of the journal was Dimitar Nenov, Varna (2003-2005), followed by Ali Basci (Izmir, Turkey) and Goce Spasovski (Skopje, Macedonia) as editor-in-chief since 2009. Over the years, the Journal has been included in the EBSCO, DOAJ and SCOPUS/SCIMAGO databases. The journal is published biannually. Until now, 345

  15. Editorial policies and background in editing Macedonian Medical Review and BANTAO journal.

    PubMed

    Spasovski, Goce

    2014-01-01

    Even in as small a country as R. Macedonia with limited resources allocated for science, there are many journals trying to establish good editorial practices and policies in publishing the scientific work achieved. Among the currently existing medical journals Macedonian Medical Review (MMR), ISSN 0025-1097, deserves to be elaborated as the oldest journal with continuous publication since its first appearance as the journal of the Macedonian Medical Association (MMA). Since its first issue, published in 1946, there has been an opus of some 4500 peer-reviewed published papers in more than 210 issues and some 80 supplements from various congresses and meetings. In this regard, great respect should be paid not only to the editorial boards, but also to the collaborators who have contributed to its successful continuity in all previous years. In line with the needs for further development of the journal and possibilities for access to world databases, the Editorial Board of MMR has made every effort to improve and modernize its work as well as the technical quality of the journal. Hence, MMA has signed a contract with De Gruyter Open as leading publisher of Open Access academic content for further improvement and promotion of the journal and facilitation of the Medline application, so we do hope for the further success of the journal. BANTAO Journal is published on behalf of the Balkan Cities Association of Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation and Artificial Organs (BANTAO), ISSN 1312-2517. The first issue was published in 2003, ten years after BANTAO was born. Its appearance was an extremely important event in the existence of BANTAO. The first official editor of the journal was Dimitar Nenov, Varna (2003-2005), followed by Ali Basci (Izmir, Turkey) and Goce Spasovski (Skopje, Macedonia) as editor-in-chief since 2009. Over the years, the Journal has been included in the EBSCO, DOAJ and SCOPUS/SCIMAGO databases. The journal is published biannually. Until now, 345

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

    PubMed

    Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A; Dobránszki, Judit

    2015-01-01

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

  17. The Art of Reviewing Science Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Shepardson, Daniel P.; Britsch, Susan Jane

    2004-01-01

    Science journals are wonderful tools. They offer a glimpse into children's science understandings, and they are both diagnostic and pedagogically informative to teachers. Examining and reflecting on children's journal work lets teachers embed assessment in curriculum and instruction; however, effectively analyzing children's journal writing and…

  18. A Guide to the Peer Review Process for Clinicians.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Osman, Shelomo; Shueman, Sharon A.

    1988-01-01

    Explores legal requirements, ethical tenets, documentation standards and skills involved, and clinical implications of peer review by clinical social workers. Emphasizes provider participation in the review process to facilitate a positive review outcome. (Author/ABL)

  19. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Thermochemical Conversion Platform Summary

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

    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 Biomass Program Peer Review for the Thermochemical Platform, held on July 9th and 10th in Golden, Colorado.

  20. 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…

  1. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Feedstock Platform Summary

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

    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.

  2. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... and selection criteria to be followed in peer review for that program. In the case of competitive... required. Preapplications will be reviewed by qualified OJJDP staff to eliminate those pre-applications... both pre-applications and formal applications to the peer review process. (2) For...

  3. Stretched peer-review on unexpected results (GMOs).

    PubMed

    Myhr, A I

    2005-01-01

    Science is the basis for governance of risk from genetically modified organisms (GMO), and it is also a primary source of legitimacy for policy decision. However, recently the publication of unexpected results has caused controversies and challenged the way in which science should be performed, be published in scientific journals, and how preliminary results should be communicated. These studies have subsequently, after being accepted for publication within the peer-review process of leading scientific journals, been thoroughly re-examined by many actors active within the GMO debate and thereby drawn extensive media coverage. The publicized charges that the research involved does not constitute significant evidence or represent bad science have in fact deflected attention away from the important questions related to ecological and health risks raised by the research. In this paper, I will argue that unexpected findings may represent "early warnings." Although early warnings may not represent reality, such reports are necessary to inform other scientists and regulators, and should be followed up by further research to reveal the validity of the warnings. Furthermore, science that embraces robust, participatory and transparent approaches will be imperative in the future to reduce the present controversy surrounding GMO use and release.

  4. Reviewers for Journal of Power Sources January 2015 - March 2016

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-05-01

    The Editors and the publisher of Journal of Power Sources gratefully acknowledge the essential contribution of the following experts for their efforts in ensuring the continuing quality of the journal. The reviewers listed in boldface have reviewed twenty-five or more manuscripts. We regret any inadvertent omissions.

  5. Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report

    SciTech Connect

    BLOOMQUIST,DOUGLAS D.

    2000-12-01

    In 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, PL 103-62) was enacted. GPRA, which applies to all federal programs, has three components: strategic plans, annual performance plans, and metrics to show how well annual plans are being followed. As part of meeting the GRPA requirement in FY2000, a 14-member external peer review panel (the Garwin Committee) was convened on May 17-19, 2000 to review Sandia National Laboratories' Pulsed Power Programs as a component of the Performance Appraisal Process negotiated with the Department of Energy (DOE). The scope of the review included activities in inertial confinement fission (ICF), weapon physics, development of radiation sources for weapons effects simulation, x-ray radiography, basic research in high energy density physics (HEDP), and pulsed power technology research and development. In his charge to the committee, Jeffrey Quintenz, Director of Pulsed Power Sciences (1600) asked that the review be based on four criteria (1) quality of science, technology, and engineering, (2) programmatic performance, management, and planning, (3) relevance to national needs and agency missions, and (4) performance in the operation and construction of major research facilities. In addition, specific programmatic questions were posed by the director and by the DOE-Defense Programs (DP). The accompanying report, produced as a SAND document, is the report of the committee's findings.

  6. Do Latin American scientific journals follow dual-use review policies?

    PubMed

    Valles, Edith Gladys; Bernacchi, Adriana Silvina

    2014-01-01

    During the past decade, a number of journals have implemented dual-use policies in order to analyze whether the papers submitted for publication could raise concern because of the potential for misuse of their content. In this context, an analysis was performed on Latin American scientific journals to examine whether they apply formal written dual-use review policies and whether they inform their authors and reviewers about potentially sensitive issues in this area, as other international journals do. Peer-reviewed life sciences journals indexed in Latindex from Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Chile were analyzed. The Guide for Authors and the Instructions to Referees of 216 journals included in the Latindex catalogue (which means that they meet the best quality standards of the Latindex system) were screened for biosecurity-related information using the keywords biosecurity, biological weapons, and dual-use research of concern. Results showed that the screened publications had a total lack of dual-use review policies, even though some of them pointed out ethical behaviors to be followed related to authorship, plagiarism, simultaneous submission, research results misappropriation, ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, guiding principles for the care and use of animals in research, research standard violations, and reviewer bias, among others.

  7. Do Latin American scientific journals follow dual-use review policies?

    PubMed

    Valles, Edith Gladys; Bernacchi, Adriana Silvina

    2014-01-01

    During the past decade, a number of journals have implemented dual-use policies in order to analyze whether the papers submitted for publication could raise concern because of the potential for misuse of their content. In this context, an analysis was performed on Latin American scientific journals to examine whether they apply formal written dual-use review policies and whether they inform their authors and reviewers about potentially sensitive issues in this area, as other international journals do. Peer-reviewed life sciences journals indexed in Latindex from Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Chile were analyzed. The Guide for Authors and the Instructions to Referees of 216 journals included in the Latindex catalogue (which means that they meet the best quality standards of the Latindex system) were screened for biosecurity-related information using the keywords biosecurity, biological weapons, and dual-use research of concern. Results showed that the screened publications had a total lack of dual-use review policies, even though some of them pointed out ethical behaviors to be followed related to authorship, plagiarism, simultaneous submission, research results misappropriation, ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, guiding principles for the care and use of animals in research, research standard violations, and reviewer bias, among others. PMID:24693885

  8. Do Latin American Scientific Journals Follow Dual-Use Review Policies?

    PubMed Central

    Valles, Edith Gladys

    2014-01-01

    During the past decade, a number of journals have implemented dual-use policies in order to analyze whether the papers submitted for publication could raise concern because of the potential for misuse of their content. In this context, an analysis was performed on Latin American scientific journals to examine whether they apply formal written dual-use review policies and whether they inform their authors and reviewers about potentially sensitive issues in this area, as other international journals do. Peer-reviewed life sciences journals indexed in Latindex from Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Chile were analyzed. The Guide for Authors and the Instructions to Referees of 216 journals included in the Latindex catalogue (which means that they meet the best quality standards of the Latindex system) were screened for biosecurity-related information using the keywords biosecurity, biological weapons, and dual-use research of concern. Results showed that the screened publications had a total lack of dual-use review policies, even though some of them pointed out ethical behaviors to be followed related to authorship, plagiarism, simultaneous submission, research results misappropriation, ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, guiding principles for the care and use of animals in research, research standard violations, and reviewer bias, among others. PMID:24693885

  9. Ghost- and guest-authored pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies: abuse of academic integrity, the peer review system, and public trust.

    PubMed

    Flaherty, Dennis K

    2013-01-01

    Industry-sponsored ghost- and guest-authored clinical research publications are a continuing problem in medical journals. These communications are written by unacknowledged medical communication companies and submitted to peer-reviewed journals by academicians who may not have participated in the writing process. These publications, which are used for marketing purposes, usually underestimate the adverse effects and medical risks associated with the products evaluated. Since peer-reviewed data are used to develop health care paradigms, misleading information can have catastrophic effects. A failure to curb ghost and guest authorship will result in an erosion of trust in the peer-review system, academic research, and health care paradigms.

  10. The gatekeepers of modern physics: periodicals and peer review in 1920s Britain.

    PubMed

    Clarke, Imogen

    2015-03-01

    This essay analyzes the processes behind the publication of physics papers in two British journals in the 1920s: the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series A and the Philosophical Magazine. On the surface, it looked as though the Philosophical Magazine was managed very informally, while the Proceedings had in place a seemingly rigid system of committee approval and peer review. This essay shows, however, that in practice the two journals were both influenced by networks of expertise that afforded small groups of physicists considerable control over the content of these prestigious scientific publications. This study explores the nature of peer review, suggesting how a historical approach can contribute to contemporary debates. In studying these relationships, the essay also considers the interplay of "classical" and "modern" ideas and physicists in 1920s Britain and cautions against an anachronistic approach to this classification.

  11. Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.

    PubMed

    Walker, Richard; Barros, Beatriz; Conejo, Ricardo; Neumann, Konrad; Telefont, Martin

    2015-01-01

    Peer review is the "gold standard" for evaluating journal and conference papers, research proposals, on-going projects and university departments. However, it is widely believed that current systems are expensive, conservative and prone to various forms of bias. One form of bias identified in the literature is "social bias" linked to the personal attributes of authors and reviewers. To quantify the importance of this form of bias in modern peer review, we analyze three datasets providing information on the attributes of authors and reviewers and review outcomes: one from Frontiers - an open access publishing house with a novel interactive review process, and two from Spanish and international computer science conferences, which use traditional peer review. We use a random intercept model in which review outcome is the dependent variable, author and reviewer attributes are the independent variables and bias is defined by the interaction between author and reviewer attributes. We find no evidence of bias in terms of gender, or the language or prestige of author and reviewer institutions in any of the three datasets, but some weak evidence of regional bias in all three. Reviewer gender and the language and prestige of reviewer institutions appear to have little effect on review outcomes, but author gender, and the characteristics of author institutions have moderate to large effects. The methodology used cannot determine whether these are due to objective differences in scientific merit or entrenched biases shared by all reviewers. PMID:26594326

  12. Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study

    PubMed Central

    Walker, Richard; Barros, Beatriz; Conejo, Ricardo; Neumann, Konrad; Telefont, Martin

    2015-01-01

    Peer review is the "gold standard" for evaluating journal and conference papers, research proposals, on-going projects and university departments. However, it is widely believed that current systems are expensive, conservative and prone to various forms of bias. One form of bias identified in the literature is “social bias” linked to the personal attributes of authors and reviewers. To quantify the importance of this form of bias in modern peer review, we analyze three datasets providing information on the attributes of authors and reviewers and review outcomes: one from Frontiers - an open access publishing house with a novel interactive review process, and two from Spanish and international computer science conferences, which use traditional peer review. We use a random intercept model in which review outcome is the dependent variable, author and reviewer attributes are the independent variables and bias is defined by the interaction between author and reviewer attributes. We find no evidence of bias in terms of gender, or the language or prestige of author and reviewer institutions in any of the three datasets, but some weak evidence of regional bias in all three. Reviewer gender and the language and prestige of reviewer institutions appear to have little effect on review outcomes, but author gender, and the characteristics of author institutions have moderate to large effects. The methodology used cannot determine whether these are due to objective differences in scientific merit or entrenched biases shared by all reviewers. PMID:26594326

  13. Clinical Social Work and Peer Review: A Professional Leap Ahead.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Jackson, Josephine A.

    1987-01-01

    Clinical social work has recently become a part of national peer review systems. The development of peer review--an aspect of quality assurance--and its implementation by insurance carriers is discussed. Social workers' participation and courses designed to instruct social workers about dealing effectively with third-party payers are described.…

  14. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After...

  15. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After...

  16. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD... GRANTS PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3402.22 Access to peer review information. After...

  17. 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. PMID:3080412

  18. 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…

  19. 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)

  20. 7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 3411.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.11 Composition of peer review...

  1. 7 CFR 3401.13 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 3401.13 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding § 3401.13 Composition of peer review groups....

  2. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section 52h.4 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC... Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members...

  3. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section 52h.4 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC... Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members...

  4. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section 52h.4 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC... Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members...

  5. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section 52h.4 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC... Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members...

  6. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section 3415.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review...

  7. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section 3415.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review...

  8. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section 3415.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review...

  9. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section 3415.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review...

  10. "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. PMID:11526612

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

    PubMed Central

    Vyas, Dinesh; Cronin, Sean

    2016-01-01

    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. PMID:27517092

  12. 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.

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

    PubMed Central

    Borgert, Christopher J.; Mihaich, Ellen M.

    2012-01-01

    Background: 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. Objective: We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards. Method: We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations. Discussion: 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. Conclusions: 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. PMID:22343028

  14. 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

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

    PubMed

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

    2013-12-01

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

  16. 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

  17. The More You Know: The Impact of Publication and Peer-Review Experience on Psychology Graduate Students

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Doran, Jennifer M.; Somerville, William; Harlem-Siegel, Jessica; Steele, Howard

    2014-01-01

    The New School Psychology Bulletin (NSPB) is a peer-reviewed journal operated by clinical psychology graduate students. Forty-four members of the editorial board and 27 authors were surveyed before and after working with NSPB. Results of the survey demonstrated that experience with the publication process resulted in quantitative decreases in…

  18. Perceptions of Peer Review Using Cloud-Based Software

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Andrichuk, Gjoa

    2016-01-01

    This study looks at the change in perception regarding the effect of peer feedback on writing skills using cloud-based software. Pre- and post-surveys were given. The students peer reviewed drafts of five sections of scientific reports using Google Docs. While students reported that they did not perceive their writing ability improved by being…

  19. Peer Mentoring for Health Behavior Change: A Systematic Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

  20. Facilitating Improved Writing among Students through Directed Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Crossman, Joanne M.; Kite, Stacey L.

    2012-01-01

    This study contributes to scant empirical investigation of peer critique of writing among heterogeneously grouped native and nonnative speakers of English, now commonplace in higher education. This mixed-methods study investigated the use of directed peer review to improve writing among graduate students, the majority of whom were nonnative…

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Somerville, R. C.

    2003-12-01

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

  2. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... information, or conferences, must be reviewed by a peer review panel that consists of a majority of non... 34 Education 2 2011-07-01 2010-07-01 true What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52... composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists...

  3. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... information, or conferences, must be reviewed by a peer review panel that consists of a majority of non... 34 Education 2 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52... composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists...

  4. 34 CFR 350.52 - What is the composition of a peer review panel?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... information, or conferences, must be reviewed by a peer review panel that consists of a majority of non... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the composition of a peer review panel? 350.52... composition of a peer review panel? (a) The Secretary selects as members of a peer review panel scientists...

  5. 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.

  6. Evidence-based practice, research, peer review, and publication.

    PubMed

    Gunn, I P

    1998-11-01

    For about a quarter of a century, concerns have been expressed about published biomedical research. It became more acute after some published research and broad dissemination was found fraudulent. With the emphasis now being placed on scientifically validated or evidence-based practice, it has become more imperative that clinical guidelines be based on credible information in our textbooks and research literature. Since the early 1990s, it has been found that much of the research in our electronic databases does not meet quality standards and often is irrelevant, calling into questions problems with peer review, including the selection and publication process of our journals. This column is devoted to calling attention to these problems not only to CRNAs and other researchers, but also to the consumers of research who often use it to make changes in their practice. It also calls attention to the CRNA community about the movement toward calls for greater accountability in practice, both as to quality and cost, from which the movement toward evidence-based practice, the identification and benchmarking of best practices, and the development and implementation of clinical practice guideline has evolved. To feel ownership in anesthesia-related clinical practice guidelines, CRNAs must become involved in their development and implementation. PMID:9866493

  7. The Peer Education Approach in Adolescents- Narrative Review Article

    PubMed Central

    Abdi, Fatemeh; Simbar, Masoumeh

    2013-01-01

    Abstract Adolescence is an important stage of human life span, which crucial developmental processes occur. Since peers play a critical role in the psychosocial development of most adolescents, peer education is currently considered as a health promotion strategy in adolescents. Peer education is defined as a system of delivering knowledge that improves social learning and provides psychosocial support. As identifying the outcomes of different educational approaches will be beneficial in choosing the most effective programs for training adolescents, the present article reviewed the impact of the peer education approach on adolescents. In this review, databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, ISI, and Iranian databases, from 1999 to 2013, were searched using a number of keywords. Peer education is an effective tool for promoting healthy behaviors among adolescents. The development of this social process depends on the settings, context, and the values and expectations of the participants. Therefore, designing such programs requires proper preparation, training, supervision, and evaluation. PMID:26171331

  8. Challenges in the Ethical Review of Peer Support Interventions

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

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

  9. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Standards, Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT PROVISIONS NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Accreditation of Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel....

  10. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health. In addition to specifying substantive and procedural matters related to the peer review process, the “Guideline” addresses such...

  11. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health. In addition to specifying substantive and procedural matters related to the peer review process, the “Guideline” addresses such...

  12. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health. In addition to specifying substantive and procedural matters related to the peer review process, the “Guideline” addresses such...

  13. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health. In addition to specifying substantive and procedural matters related to the peer review process, the “Guideline” addresses such...

  14. The JSC Engineering Directorate Product Peer Review Process

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Jenks, Kenneth C.

    2009-01-01

    The JSC Engineering Directorate has developed a Product Peer Review process in support of NASA policies for project management and systems engineering. The process complies with the requirements of NPR 7120.5, NPR 7123.1 and NPR 7150.2 and follows the guidance in NASA/SP-2007-6105. This presentation will give an overview of the process followed by a brief demonstration of an actual peer review, with audience participation.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2011-01-01

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

  16. 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…

  17. A Critical Review of Some Ecological Studies on Scientific Journals

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Yamazaki, Shigeaki

    There have been hot discussions about the number and the rate of growth of scientific journals. The purpose of this review is intended to provide a critical assessment of those ecological studies on scientific journals. In 1961, Price presented his famous graph curve, and noted that rate of growth of journals had been fairly consisted at 5 per cent annum for nearly 300 years. But Price's graph curve has some primary error, and the author suggest to examine carefully his study. There is another problem that the loose definition of scientific journals is used. The author try to give a clear definition on the term ‘scientific journals’, and try to reestimate historically the growth rate in numbers of current scientific journals, referring several reliable studies previously conducted. The Author's estimation is about 1.85 per cent a year from the last of 18 century.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Stigmar, Martin

    2016-01-01

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

  19. Dual-use review policies of biomedical research journals.

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Barner, Dionne D; Dinse, Gregg E

    2011-03-01

    To address biosecurity issues, government agencies, academic institutions, and professional societies have developed policies concerning the publication of "dual-use" biomedical research-that is, research that could be readily applied to cause significant harm to the public, the environment, or national security. We conducted an e-mail survey of life science journals to determine the percentage that have a dual-use policy. Of the 155 journals that responded to our survey (response rate 39%), only 7.7% stated that they had a written dual-use policy and only 5.8% said they had experience reviewing dual-use research in the past 5 years. Among the potential predictors we investigated, the one most highly associated with a journal having a written dual-use policy was membership in the Nature Publishing Group (positive association). When considered individually, both previous experience with reviewing dual-use research and the journal's impact factor appeared to be positively associated with having a written dual-use policy, but only the former remained significant after adjusting for publishing group. Although preventing the misuse of scientific research for terrorist or criminal purposes is an important concern, few biomedical journals have dual-use review policies. Journals that are likely to review research that raises potential dual-use concerns should consider developing dual-use policies.

  20. Biomass Program 2007 Peer Review - Integrated Biorefinery Platform Summary

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

    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 Integrated Biorefinery Platform Review held on August 13-15, 2007 in Golden, Colorado.

  1. Final Report: Fourth Peer Review of the CMAQ Model

    EPA Science Inventory

    The CMAQ Model External Peer Review Panel conducted a two and a half day review view on June 27, 28, and 29, 2011. This report summarizes its findings, and follows other reviews conducted in 2004, 2005, and 2006 [Amar et al., 2004; 2005 and 2007].

  2. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400... INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities. Scientific peer review is an evaluation of...

  3. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Scientific peer review for research activities. 3400... INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees § 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities. Scientific peer review is an evaluation of...

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. Medical students as peer tutors: a systematic review

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

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

  8. 2013 Building Technologies Office Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2013-11-01

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

  9. Quality of Pharmaceutical Advertisements in Medical Journals: A Systematic Review

    PubMed Central

    Othman, Noordin; Vitry, Agnes; Roughead, Elizabeth E.

    2009-01-01

    Background Journal advertising is one of the main sources of medicines information to doctors. Despite the availability of regulations and controls of drug promotion worldwide, information on medicines provided in journal advertising has been criticized in several studies for being of poor quality. However, no attempt has been made to systematically summarise this body of research. We designed this systematic review to assess all studies that have examined the quality of pharmaceutical advertisements for prescription products in medical and pharmacy journals. Methods and Findings Studies were identified via searching electronic databases, web library, search engine and reviewing citations (1950 – February 2006). Only articles published in English and examined the quality of information included in pharmaceutical advertisements for prescription products in medical or pharmacy journals were included. For each eligible article, a researcher independently extracted the data on the study methodology and outcomes. The data were then reviewed by a second researcher. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. The data were analysed descriptively. The final analysis included 24 articles. The studies reviewed advertisements from 26 countries. The number of journals surveyed in each study ranged from four to 24 journals. Several outcome measures were examined including references and claims provided in advertisements, availability of product information, adherence to codes or guidelines and presentation of risk results. The majority of studies employed a convenience-sampling method. Brand name, generic name and indications were usually provided. Journal articles were commonly cited to support pharmaceutical claims. Less than 67% of the claims were supported by a systematic review, a meta-analysis or a randomised control trial. Studies that assessed misleading claims had at least one advertisement with a misleading claim. Two studies found that less than 28% of claims

  10. Genetics and Peer Relations: A Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brendgen, Mara

    2012-01-01

    Researchers have become increasingly interested in uncovering how genetic factors work together with the peer environment in influencing development. This article offers an overview of the state of knowledge. It first describes the different types of gene-environment correlations (rGE) and gene-environment interactions (GxE) that are of relevance…

  11. Rewarding Peer Reviewers: Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication

    PubMed Central

    2015-01-01

    This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts. PMID:25829801

  12. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.

    PubMed

    Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Gerasimov, Alexey N; Voronov, Alexander A; Kitas, George D

    2015-04-01

    This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts.

  13. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.

    PubMed

    Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Gerasimov, Alexey N; Voronov, Alexander A; Kitas, George D

    2015-04-01

    This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts. PMID:25829801

  14. Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty

    SciTech Connect

    Jagsi, Reshma; Bennett, Katherine Egan; Griffith, Kent A.; DeCastro, Rochelle; Grace, Calley; Holliday, Emma; Zietman, Anthony L.

    2014-08-01

    Purpose: Peer reviewers' knowledge of author identity may influence review content, quality, and recommendations. Therefore, the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (“Red Journal”) implemented double-blinded peer review in 2011. Given the relatively small size of the specialty and the high frequency of preliminary abstract presentations, we sought to evaluate attitudes, the efficacy of blinding, and the potential impact on the disposition of submissions. Methods and Materials: In May through August 2012, all Red Journal reviewers and 1 author per manuscript completed questionnaires regarding demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of success of blinding. We also evaluated correlates of the outcomes of peer review. Results: Questionnaires were received from 408 authors and 519 reviewers (100%). The majority of respondents favored double blinding; 6% of authors and 13% of reviewers disagreed that double blinding should continue in the Red Journal. In all, 50% of the reviewers did not suspect the identity of the author of the paper that they reviewed; 19% of reviewers believed that they could identify the author(s), and 31% suspected that they could. Similarly, 23% believed that they knew the institution(s) from which the paper originated, and 34% suspected that they did. Among those who at least suspected author identity, 42% indicated that prior presentations served as a clue, and 57% indicated that literature referenced did so. Of those who at least suspected origin and provided details (n=133), 13% were entirely incorrect. Rejection was more common in 2012 than 2011, and submissions from last authors with higher H-indices (>21) were more likely to survive initial review, without evidence of interactions between submission year and author gender or H-index. Conclusions: In a relatively small specialty in which preliminary research presentations are common and occur in a limited number of venues, reviewers are often familiar with

  15. Independent peer review of nuclear safety computer codes

    SciTech Connect

    Boyack, B.E.; Jenks, R.P.

    1993-02-01

    A structured process of independent computer code peer review has been developed to assist the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the US Department of Energy in their nuclear safety missions. This paper focuses on the process that evolved during recent reviews of NRC codes.

  16. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ..., including 42 CFR part 2. The reviewers shall examine the following: (1) Admission criteria/intake process; (2) Assessments; (3) Treatment planning, including appropriate referral, e.g., prenatal care and... 45 Public Welfare 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Independent peer review. 96.136 Section...

  17. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ..., including 42 CFR Part 2. The reviewers shall examine the following: (1) Admission criteria/intake process; (2) Assessments; (3) Treatment planning, including appropriate referral, e.g., prenatal care and... 45 Public Welfare 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Independent peer review. 96.136 Section...

  18. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ..., including 42 CFR Part 2. The reviewers shall examine the following: (1) Admission criteria/intake process; (2) Assessments; (3) Treatment planning, including appropriate referral, e.g., prenatal care and... 45 Public Welfare 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Independent peer review. 96.136 Section...

  19. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

    PubMed

    Walker, Richard; Rocha da Silva, Pascal

    2015-01-01

    "Classical peer review" has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. Based on an initial literature review, we construct a sample of 82 channels of scientific communication covering all forms of review identified by the survey, and analyze the review mechanisms used by each channel. We identify two major trends: the rapidly expanding role of preprint servers (e.g., ArXiv) that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, and the growth of "non-selective review," focusing on papers' scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty. Other potentially important developments include forms of "open review," which remove reviewer anonymity, and interactive review, as well as new mechanisms for post-publication review and out-of-channel reader commentary, especially critical commentary targeting high profile papers. One of the strongest findings of the survey is the persistence of major differences between the peer review processes used by different disciplines. None of these differences is likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. The most likely scenario for the coming years is thus continued diversification, in which different review mechanisms serve different author, reader, and publisher needs. Relatively little is known about the impact of these innovations on the problems they address. These are important questions for future quantitative research. PMID:26074753

  20. A Study of Technical Engineering Peer Reviews at NASA

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Chao, Lawrence P.; Tumer, Irem Y.; Bell, David G.

    2003-01-01

    This report describes the state of practices of design reviews at NASA and research into what can be done to improve peer review practices. There are many types of reviews at NASA: required and not, formalized and informal, programmatic and technical. Standing project formal reviews such as the Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the technical, engineering peer reviews that support teams' work on such projects are informal, some times ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. The goal of this work is to identify best practices and lessons learned from NASA's experience, supported by academic research and methodologies to ultimately improve the process. This research has determined that the organization, composition, scope, and approach of the reviews impact their success. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) can identify key areas of concern before or in the reviews. Product definition tools like the Project Priority Matrix, engineering-focused Customer Value Chain Analysis (CVCA), and project or system-based Quality Function Deployment (QFD) help prioritize resources in reviews. The use of information technology and structured design methodologies can strengthen the engineering peer review process to help NASA work towards error-proofing the design process.

  1. Calibrated peer review assignments for the earth sciences

    USGS Publications Warehouse

    Rudd, J.A.; Wang, V.Z.; Cervato, C.; Ridky, R.W.

    2009-01-01

    Calibrated Peer Review ??? (CPR), a web-based instructional tool developed as part of the National Science Foundation reform initiatives in undergraduate science education, allows instructors to incorporate multiple writing assignments in large courses without overwhelming the instructor. This study reports successful implementation of CPR in a large, introductory geology course and student learning of geoscience content. For each CPR assignment in this study, students studied web-based and paper resources, wrote an essay, and reviewed seven essays (three from the instructor, three from peers, and their own) on the topic. Although many students expressed negative attitudes and concerns, particularly about the peer review process of this innovative instructional approach, they also recognized the learning potential of completing CPR assignments. Comparing instruction on earthquakes and plate boundaries using a CPR assignment vs. an instructional video lecture and homework essay with extensive instructor feedback, students mastered more content via CPR instruction.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2012-01-01

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

  3. 75 FR 18205 - Notice of Peer Review Meeting for the External Peer Review Drafts of Two Documents on Using...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-04-09

    ... Probabilistic Methods To Enhance the Role of Risk Analysis in Decision-Making AGENCY: Environmental Protection... announcing that Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review... to review two draft documents entitled, ``Using Probabilistic Methods to Enhance the Role of...

  4. Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data

    PubMed Central

    Kratz, John Ernest; Strasser, Carly

    2015-01-01

    Data “publication” seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ∼ 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences– asking what expectations“data publication” raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data’s documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published data. PMID:25706992

  5. Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data.

    PubMed

    Kratz, John Ernest; Strasser, Carly

    2015-01-01

    Data "publication" seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ∼ 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences- asking what expectations"data publication" raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data's documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published data.

  6. On the pitfalls of peer review

    PubMed Central

    van Gunsteren, Wilfred

    2015-01-01

    The review process of academic, scientific research and its basic tenets is considered, thereby distinguishing between (i) reviewing of manuscripts to be published in the scientific literature, (ii) reviewing of research proposals to be financed by funding agencies, (iii) reviewing of educational or research institutions with respect to their proper functioning, and (iv) reviewing of scientists with the aim of appointing or tenuring faculty. PMID:26675931

  7. 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.

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

    PubMed Central

    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. PMID:26913193

  9. 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. PMID:26913193

  10. Zeitschriftenschau. Lernziel: Kommunikation (Review of Journals. Teaching Goal: Communication)

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Zielsprache Franzosisch, 1975

    1975-01-01

    Reviews four articles on communicative competence as a goal of study, chosen from 1974-75 issues of four journals. Topics discussed include: Setting goals, ascertaining levels of achievement in communication, possibility of sectioning groups according to ability, and actualizing communicative activity in the classroom. (Text is in German.)…

  11. 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 ...

  12. Peer-supported review of teaching: an evaluation.

    PubMed

    Thampy, Harish; Bourke, Michael; Naran, Prasheena

    2015-09-01

    Peer-supported review (also called peer observation) of teaching is a commonly implemented method of ascertaining teaching quality that supplements student feedback. A large variety of scheme formats with rather differing purposes are described in the literature. They range from purely formative, developmental formats that facilitate a tutor's reflection of their own teaching to reaffirm strengths and identify potential areas for development through to faculty- or institution-driven summative quality assurance-based schemes. Much of the current literature in this field focuses within general higher education and on the development of rating scales, checklists or observation tools to help guide the process. This study reports findings from a qualitative evaluation of a purely formative peer-supported review of teaching scheme that was implemented for general practice clinical tutors at our medical school and describes tutors' attitudes and perceived benefits and challenges when undergoing observation. PMID:26808793

  13. Peer review of the trusted software methodology

    SciTech Connect

    Chisholm, G.H.; Gannon, J.D. |; Kemmerer, R.A. |; McHugh, J. |

    1994-02-01

    The review and analysis of the Trusted Software Methodology (TSM) by a panel of experts in various areas of computer science, computer security, and engineering are reported. The approach to the conduct of the review is described, and a brief introduction to the TSM is provided. The findings from the review fall into three categories: achievements, desirable additions, and changes. In addition, several recommendations are made with respect to application of the TSM within the purview of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

  14. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2015

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Becker, Thorsten W.; Blichert-Toft, Janne; Lee, Cin-Ty; Paytan, Adina; Faul, Ulrich; Yokoyama, Yusuke

    2016-06-01

    The editorial and scientific publishing process relies on the sustained work of volunteer reviewers, and evaluating the interdisciplinary and broad interest papers published in G-Cubed can be a particular challenge. As Editors and Associated Editors, we are therefore hugely appreciative of the efforts of our reviewers and would like to thank and acknowledge them in this editorial. G-Cubed published 252 manuscripts out of 472 submissions in 2015, and for this, we were able to rely on the efforts of 712 dedicated reviewers. Their names are listed below; in italics are those 41 who provided three or more reviews(!). A big thank you from the G-Cubed team!

  15. Letter of Appreciation to 2004 Journal of Optical Networking Reviewers

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2005-02-01

    The international scientific and engineering professions rely on the work of countless reviewers to ensure the quality of the research published in technical journals. Like all such journals, JON benefits from the tireless efforts of these volunteers. Below is a list of 2004 JON reviewers who have agreed to have their names published. We sincerely thank these reviewers, as well as those not listed, for their assistance to JON and praise them for their dedication to their profession. The system simply would not work without them. Charalambos Anastassiou Ivan Andonovic Nirwan Ansari Chris Bintjas Martin Birk Zoran Bojkovic Xiren Cao Yang Cao Calvin C.K. Chan Yongmao Chang Yang Chen Kwok-Wai Cheung Nim-Kwan Cheung Su Fong Chien Wilson Chu Yun Chung Tibor Cinkler Ignacio de Miguel Jiun S. Deng Jitender Deogun H.J.S. Dorren Mark Feuer Samrat Ganguly

  16. Peer Review: The Importance of Education for Best Practice

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Goldberg, Lynette R.; Parham, Douglas F.; Coufal, Kathy L.; Maeda, Masako; Scudder, Rosalind R.; Sechtem, Phillip R.

    2010-01-01

    The effectiveness of teaching is expected by an increasingly skeptical public that wants those in higher education to contain costs, increase access, and teach in ways that make sure students learn. An integral and under-used component of documenting teaching effectiveness is peer review. A framework for best practice to ensure a systematic and…

  17. Peer Review in a Primary Care Education Program.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Aronson, Mark; And Others

    1982-01-01

    In a peer evaluation system, faculty and residents have regular small group conferences to review each other's performance. Physicians, residents, and nurses participate in the discussion when controversy or disagreement arises. In addition to having an educational function, the conference system promotes collegial relationships. Didacticism is…

  18. Peer Reviewing Preservice Teachers of Christian Higher Education

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Buchanan, Michael T.

    2011-01-01

    This study investigated the contributions peer review makes to the formation of preservice teachers of religious education within the context of Christian higher education. The participants were postgraduate students undertaking a preservice teacher training course at Australian Catholic University, Australia (Melbourne campus). Those training to…

  19. NIH Mulls Ways to Lure Back Veteran Peer Reviewers

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brainard, Jeffrey

    2008-01-01

    Not long ago, academic scientists welcomed calls from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) asking them to volunteer as peer reviewers. Many were glad for the opportunity to help distribute billions of dollars in federal biomedical-research grants even though the service required a big time commitment--the equivalent of one month a year to…

  20. Constructing the Components of a Lab Report Using Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Berry, David E.; Fawkes, Kelli L.

    2010-01-01

    A protocol that emphasizes lab report writing using a piecemeal approach coupled with peer review is described. As the lab course progresses, the focus of the report writing changes sequentially through the abstract and introduction, the discussion, and the procedure. Two styles of lab programs are presented. One style rotates the students through…

  1. Teacher Immediacy: Reflections on a Peer Review of Teaching Scheme

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nixon, Sarah; Vickerman, Philip; Maynard, Carol

    2010-01-01

    Using a qualitative approach drawing on the experiences of four HE lecturers, this study provides an exploration of and insights into a peer review of teaching (PRT) scheme, which focused on teacher immediacy and communication skills. Within the United Kingdom, limited research has been undertaken in relation to teacher immediacy even though…

  2. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 52h.4 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PROJECTS § 52h.4... training and experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, or upon their qualifications...

  3. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL...

  4. Portfolio Peer Review: A Tool for Program Change.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Fleak, Sandra K.; Romine, Jeff; Gilchrist, Neil

    2003-01-01

    To achieve cultural change in a business management/accounting department, annual peer review of faculty portfolios documenting teaching, advising, service, and scholarship was instituted. The process improved the department's alignment with the university's mission. Scholarly productivity quadrupled from 1998-2001. Portfolio assessment had little…

  5. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 3 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Peer review panel. 205.509 Section 205.509 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Standards, Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION...

  6. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 3 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Peer review panel. 205.509 Section 205.509 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Standards, Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION...

  7. 7 CFR 3400.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 3400.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications... their training and experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account...

  8. 7 CFR 3400.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 3400.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications... their training and experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account...

  9. 7 CFR 3401.13 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 3401.13 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for... their training or experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account...

  10. 7 CFR 3400.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 3400.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications... their training and experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account...

  11. 7 CFR 3401.13 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 3401.13 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for... their training or experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account...

  12. 7 CFR 3401.13 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 3401.13 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for... their training or experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account...

  13. 7 CFR 3400.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 3400.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications... their training and experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account...

  14. 7 CFR 3401.13 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 3401.13 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for... their training or experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account...

  15. Enhancing Proof Writing via Cross-Institutional Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Ernst, Dana C.; Hodge, Angie; Schultz, Andrew

    2015-01-01

    In the Spring of 2011, two of the authors of this paper taught number theory courses at their respective institutions. Twice during the semester, students in each class submitted proofs of two to three theorems to be peer reviewed by students in the other class. Each student wrote anonymous and formal referee reports of the submitted theorems,…

  16. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3415.11 Section 3415.11 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH...

  17. Investigating Mandatory Peer Review of Teaching In Schools

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brix, Jacinta; Grainger, Peter; Hill, Angela

    2014-01-01

    Accountability agendas are influencing the secondary education sector in Australian schools. Analysis of student achievement, student feedback mechanisms and personal reflection are forming part of these agendas as methods of teacher evaluation. Additionally, and more recently, teacher evaluation through "peer review" is emerging as a…

  18. Doing More with Less: Effective Research and Peer Review

    EPA Science Inventory

    This short discourse is an excerpt from the Founders Award address presented by Dr. Ankley last fall at the Annual SETAC meeting in Tampa, FL. In it he discusses the importance of knowing when to quit pursuing a line of research, and the importance of peer review.

  19. Development of Student Writing in Biochemistry Using Calibrated Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hartberg, Yasha; Gunersel, Adalet Baris; Simspon, Nancy J.; Balester, Valerie

    2008-01-01

    This study investigating the effectiveness of Calibrated Peer Review (CPR )[TM] in a senior-level biochemistry class had three purposes: to (a) compare the CPR process for feedback with TA-generated feedback in improving students' ability to write scientific abstracts; (b) compare CPR results for males and females; and (c) observe whether CPR…

  20. Peer Reviewers' Dilemmas: Values Antinomies when Evaluating Higher Education Institutions

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Patry, Jean-Luc; Gastager, Angela

    2012-01-01

    Whenever evaluations are done, there are antinomies of interests both within and between stakeholders. To account for such antinomies, taxonomy has been developed which will be presented and discussed using the peer review processes in university evaluations as example. The taxonomy contains four dimensions: a) seven values domains are…

  1. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 3 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Peer review panel. 205.509 Section 205.509 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Standards, Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT PROVISIONS NATIONAL ORGANIC...

  2. Collaborative Learning through Formative Peer Review with Technology

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Eaton, Carrie Diaz; Wade, Stephanie

    2014-01-01

    This paper describes a collaboration between a mathematician and a compositionist who developed a sequence of collaborative writing assignments for calculus. This sequence of developmentally appropriate assignments presents peer review as a collaborative process that promotes reflection, deepens understanding, and improves exposition. First, we…

  3. Position paper - peer review and design verification of selected activities

    SciTech Connect

    Stine, M.D.

    1994-09-01

    Position Paper to develop and document a position on the performance of independent peer reviews on selected design and analysis components of the Title I (preliminary) and Title II (detailed) design phases of the Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility project.

  4. Peer Review of Assessment Network: Supporting Comparability of Standards

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Booth, Sara; Beckett, Jeff; Saunders, Cassandra

    2016-01-01

    Purpose: This paper aims to test the need in the Australian higher education (HE) sector for a national network for the peer review of assessment in response to the proposed HE standards framework and propose a sector-wide framework for calibrating and assuring achievement standards, both within and across disciplines, through the establishment of…

  5. Instructors' Uses, Experiences, Thoughts and Suggestions regarding Calibrated Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Gunersel, Adalet Baris; Simpson, Nancy J.

    2010-01-01

    This paper presents a qualitative study conducted with faculty members who participated in a project funded by the National Science Foundation focusing on student development with Calibrated Peer Review (CPR)[TM], a web-based tool created to promote writing and critical-thinking skills. The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of…

  6. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review. Sustainability

    SciTech Connect

    Eng, Alison Goss

    2012-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2011 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program’s Sustainability Platform Review meeting.

  7. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Analysis

    SciTech Connect

    Haq, Zia

    2012-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2011 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program’s Analysis Platform Review meeting.

  8. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review. Infrastructure

    SciTech Connect

    Lindauer, Alicia

    2012-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2011 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program’s Infrastructure Platform Review meeting.

  9. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Algae

    SciTech Connect

    Yang, Joyce

    2012-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2011 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program’s Algae Platform Review meeting.

  10. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Feedstock

    SciTech Connect

    McCann, Laura

    2012-02-01

    This document summarizes the recommendations and evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2011 U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program’s Feedstock Platform Review meeting.

  11. Open Review in Science Journals Gets Mixed Reviews

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brown, Susan

    2007-01-01

    This article reports an open-access journal from the Public Library of Science that has begun an online publication, offering all readers the opportunity to post comments. The site is in trial status, but registered readers will soon be able to rate each article on merit. The idea is that the best papers will bubble to the top; the wisdom of the…

  12. DOE EERE Standard Operating Procedure Peer Review Best Practice and Procedures

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

    Objective review and advice from peers - peer review - provides managers, staff, and researchers with a powerful and effective tool for enhancing the management, relevance, effectiveness, and productivity of all of the EERE research, development

  13. Systematic reviews in context: highlighting systematic reviews relevant to Africa in the Pan African Medical Journal

    PubMed Central

    Wiysonge, Charles Shey; Kamadjeu, Raoul; Tsague, Landry

    2016-01-01

    Health research serves to answer questions concerning health and to accumulate facts (evidence) required to guide healthcare policy and practice. However, research designs vary and different types of healthcare questions are best answered by different study designs. For example, qualitative studies are best suited for answering questions about experiences and meaning; cross-sectional studies for questions concerning prevalence; cohort studies for questions regarding incidence and prognosis; and randomised controlled trials for questions on prevention and treatment. In each case, one study would rarely yield sufficient evidence on which to reliably base a healthcare decision. An unbiased and transparent summary of all existing studies on a given question (i.e. a systematic review) tells a better story than any one of the included studies taken separately. A systematic review enables producers and users of research to gauge what a new study has contributed to knowledge by setting the study’s findings in the context of all previous studies investigating the same question. It is therefore inappropriate to initiate a new study without first conducting a systematic review to find out what can be learnt from existing studies. There is nothing new in taking account of earlier studies in either the design or interpretation of new studies. For example, in the 18th century James Lind conducted a clinical trial followed by a systematic review of contemporary treatments for scurvy; which showed fruits to be an effective treatment for the disease. However, surveys of the peer-reviewed literature continue to provide empirical evidence that systematic reviews are seldom used in the design and interpretation of the findings of new studies. Such indifference to systematic reviews as a research function is unethical, unscientific, and uneconomical. Without systematic reviews, limited resources are very likely to be squandered on ill-conceived research and policies. In order to

  14. Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review

    PubMed Central

    Kornhaber, Rachel Anne; McLean, Loyola M; Baber, Rodney J

    2015-01-01

    Health professionals publishing within the field of health sciences continue to experience issues concerning appropriate authorship, which have clinical, ethical, and academic implications. This integrative review sought to explore the key issues concerning authorship from a bioethical standpoint, aiming to explore the key features of the authorship debate. Studies were identified through an electronic search, using the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus databases of peer-reviewed research, published between 2009 and 2014, limited to English language research, with search terms developed to reflect the current issues of authorship. From among the 279 papers identified, 20 research papers met the inclusion criteria. Findings were compiled and then arranged to identify themes and relationships. The review incorporated a wide range of authorship issues encompassing equal-credited authors, honorary (guest/gift) and ghost authorship, perception/experiences of authorship, and guidelines/policies. This review suggests that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) recommended guidelines for authorship are not reflected in current authorship practices within the domain of health sciences in both low-and high-impact-factor journals. This devaluing of the true importance of authorship has the potential to affect the validity of authorship, diminish the real contributions of the true authors, and negatively affect patient care. PMID:26257520

  15. Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review.

    PubMed

    Kornhaber, Rachel Anne; McLean, Loyola M; Baber, Rodney J

    2015-01-01

    Health professionals publishing within the field of health sciences continue to experience issues concerning appropriate authorship, which have clinical, ethical, and academic implications. This integrative review sought to explore the key issues concerning authorship from a bioethical standpoint, aiming to explore the key features of the authorship debate. Studies were identified through an electronic search, using the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus databases of peer-reviewed research, published between 2009 and 2014, limited to English language research, with search terms developed to reflect the current issues of authorship. From among the 279 papers identified, 20 research papers met the inclusion criteria. Findings were compiled and then arranged to identify themes and relationships. The review incorporated a wide range of authorship issues encompassing equal-credited authors, honorary (guest/gift) and ghost authorship, perception/experiences of authorship, and guidelines/policies. This review suggests that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) recommended guidelines for authorship are not reflected in current authorship practices within the domain of health sciences in both low-and high-impact-factor journals. This devaluing of the true importance of authorship has the potential to affect the validity of authorship, diminish the real contributions of the true authors, and negatively affect patient care.

  16. Scholarly Electronic Journals: Economic and Technical Issues.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Ganesh, Tirupalavanam G.; Glass, Gene V.; Andrews, Sandra; Middleton, James A.; Jennings, Tara A.; Leavy, Aisling

    This paper discusses scholarly communication and the emergence of electronic journals. Scholarly electronic journals are expanding their influence. Currently, about 70 peer-reviewed scholarly journals in education are freely available through the World Wide Web. Wider access to scholarship, new possibilities inherent in the electronic medium, and…

  17. Reviewer acknowledgement 2013

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Contributing reviewers A peer-reviewed journal would not survive without the generous time and insightful comments of the reviewers, whose efforts often go unrecognized. Journal of Medical Case Reports has been blessed by the support of highly-qualified peer reviewers, and the Editor-in-Chief, Michael Kidd, and staff of the journal would like to show their appreciation by thanking the following for their invaluable assistance with review of manuscripts for the journal in Volume 8 (2013). PMID:24447881

  18. Training Students to Become Successful Peer Reviewers

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Min, Hui-Tzu

    2005-01-01

    Vague feedback and misinterpretation of writers' intentions on the reviewers' part have been found to be two major reasons why most of their comments are disregarded during writers' revision in one EFL writing class. To resolve this problem, a training was conducted to coach these students to generate more specific comments. Four characteristics…

  19. 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…

  20. 7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 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....

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. 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...

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. 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....

  10. 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…

  11. Stakeholder Perspectives on Citation and Peer-Based Rankings of Higher Education Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Wilkins, Stephen; Huisman, Jeroen

    2015-01-01

    The purpose of this article is to identify and discuss the possible uses of higher education journal rankings, and the associated advantages and disadvantages of using them. The research involved 40 individuals--lecturers, university managers, journal editors and publishers--who represented a range of stakeholders involved with research into…

  12. What Works in Writing with Peer Response? A Review of Intervention Studies with Children and Adolescents

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hoogeveen, Mariëtte; van Gelderen, Amos

    2013-01-01

    Peer response is viewed as an important aspect of writing instruction. Several meta-studies indicated that peer response is effective. However, these studies did not focus on the specific aspects of peer response that made it effective. The present review analyzes the effects of instructional factors accompanying peer response in 26 studies on…

  13. A Review of the Effects of Peer Tutoring on Students with Mild Disabilities in Secondary Settings

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Stenhoff, Donald M.; Lignugaris/Kraft, Benjamin

    2007-01-01

    Researchers reviewed 20 articles on peer tutoring research in secondary settings and addressed demographics of tutors and tutees, content areas in which peer tutors were employed, tutor training required for implementing effective tutoring programs, and the effects of peer tutoring on tutee performance. Generally, peer tutoring in secondary…

  14. An Analysis of Peer-Submitted and Peer-Reviewed Answer Rationales, in an Asynchronous Peer Instruction Based Learning Environment

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bhatnagar, Sameer; Lasry, Nathaniel; Desmarais, Michel; Dugdale, Michael; Whittaker, Chris; Charles, Elizabeth S.

    2015-01-01

    This paper reports on an analyis of data from a novel "Peer Instruction" application, named DALITE. The Peer Instruction paradigm is well suited to take advantage of peer-input in web-based learning environments. DALITE implements an asynchronous instantiation of peer instruction: after submitting their answer to a multiple-choice…

  15. Pulsed power peer review committee report.

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    2004-08-01

    As part of meeting the GRPA (Government Performance and Results Act) requirements and to provide input to Sandia's annual Performance Evaluation Assessment Report (PEAR) to the National Nuclear Security Administration in FY2004, a 14-member external review committee chaired by Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece was convened by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) on May 4-6, 2004 to review Sandia National Laboratories' Pulsed Power Programs. The scope of the review included activities in high energy density physics (HEDP), inertial confinement fusion (ICF), radiation/weapon physics, the petawatt laser initiative (PW) and fast ignition, equation-of state studies, radiation effects science and lethality, x-ray radiography, ZR development, basic research and pulsed power technology research and development, as well as electromagnetics and work for others. In his charge to the Committee, Dr. Jeffrey P. Quintenz, Director of Pulsed Power Sciences (Org. 1600) asked that the evaluation and feedback be based on three criteria: (1) quality of technical activities in science, technology, and engineering, (2) programmatic performance, management, and planning, and (3) relevance to national needs and agency missions. In addition, the director posed specific programmatic questions. The accompanying report, produced as a SAND document, is the report of the Committee's finding.

  16. Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions

    PubMed Central

    Eysenbach, Gunther; Powell, John; Englesakis, Marina; Rizo, Carlos; Stern, Anita

    2004-01-01

    Objective To compile and evaluate the evidence on the effects on health and social outcomes of computer based peer to peer communities and electronic self support groups, used by people to discuss health related issues remotely. Design and data sources Analysis of studies identified from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, Electronics and Communications Abstracts, Computer and Information Systems Abstracts, ERIC, LISA, ProQuest Digital Dissertations, Web of Science. Selection of studies We searched for before and after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies, or studies with control groups; evaluating health or social outcomes of virtual peer to peer communities, either as stand alone interventions or in the context of more complex systems with peer to peer components. Main outcome measures Peer to peer interventions and co-interventions studied, general characteristics of studies, outcome measures used, and study results. Results 45 publications describing 38 distinct studies met our inclusion criteria: 20 randomised trials, three meta-analyses of n of 1 trials, three non-randomised controlled trials, one cohort study, and 11 before and after studies. Only six of these evaluated “pure” peer to peer communities, and one had a factorial design with a “peer to peer only” arm, whereas 31 studies evaluated complex interventions, which often included psychoeducational programmes or one to one communication with healthcare professionals, making it impossible to attribute intervention effects to the peer to peer community component. The outcomes measured most often were depression and social support measures; most studies did not show an effect. We found no evidence to support concerns over virtual communities harming people. Conclusions No robust evidence exists of consumer led peer to peer communities, partly because most peer to peer communities have been evaluated only in conjunction with more complex interventions or

  17. Commercial Lighting Solutions Webtool Peer Review Report, Office Solutions

    SciTech Connect

    Beeson, Tracy A.; Jones, Carol C.

    2010-02-01

    The Commercial Lighting Solutions (CLS) project directly supports the U.S. Department of Energy’s Commercial Building Energy Alliance efforts to design high performance buildings. CLS creates energy efficient best practice lighting designs for widespread use, and they are made available to users via an interactive webtool that both educates and guides the end user through the application of the Lighting Solutions. This report summarizes the peer review of the CLS webtool for offices. The methodology for the peer review process included data collection (stakeholder input), analysis of the comments, and organization of the input into categories for prioritization of the comments against a set of criteria. Based on this process, recommendations were developed for the release of version 2.0 of the webtool at the Lightfair conference in Las Vegas in May 2010. The report provides a list of the top ten most significant and relevant improvements that will be made within the webtool for version 2.0 as well as appendices containing the comments and short-term priorities in additional detail. Peer review comments that are considered high priority by the reviewers and the CLS team but cannot be completed for Version 2.0 are listed as long-term recommendations.

  18. Safety Assessment for Explosive Risk (SAFER) peer review report.

    SciTech Connect

    Heimdahl, Olaf E. R.; LaHoud, Paul; Chapman, Leon Darrel

    2004-08-01

    At the direction of the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB), a Peer Review Team was established to review the status of development of the risk-based explosives safety siting process and criteria as currently implemented in the software 'Safety Assessment for Explosive Risk (SAFER)' Version 2.1. The objective of the Peer Review Team was to provide an independent evaluation of the components of the SAFER model, the ongoing development of the model and the risk assessment process and criteria. This peer review report addressed procedures; protocols; physical and statistical science algorithms; related documents; and software quality assurance, validation and verification. Overall, the risk-based method in SAFER represents a major improvement in the Department of Defense (DoD) approach to explosives safety management. The DDESB and Risk Based Explosives Safety Criteria Team (RBESCT) have made major strides in developing a methodology, which over time may become a worldwide model. The current status of all key areas of the SAFER code has been logically developed and is defensible. Continued improvement and refinement can be expected as implementation proceeds. A consistent approach to addressing and refining uncertainty in each of the primary areas (probability of event, consequences of event and exposure) will be a very beneficial future activity.

  19. An approach to peer review in forensic pathology.

    PubMed

    Sims, D Noel; Langlois, Neil E I; Byard, Roger W

    2013-07-01

    Peer review in forensic pathology has been a long time in evolution but may provide a very useful mechanism to check for, and to correct, errors, in addition to establishing an important educative vehicle for pathologists. A process is reported that has been established at our institution that involves both informal peer review in the mortuary and formal auditing of a set number of cases. Every autopsy case is discussed at a daily meeting of pathologists before a provisional cause of death is released. In addition, one in ten cases including all homicides, deaths in custody, suspicious and paediatric cases, and randomly selected additional cases undergo formal auditing by a second pathologist. Finally, administrative staff check the completed report. This formalized process, in a jurisdiction where autopsies are usually performed by only one pathologist, has been extremely useful in standardizing autopsy reports and in enabling pathologists to discuss cases and associated issues on a regular basis. PMID:23756506

  20. Community Engagement in Research: Frameworks for Education and Peer Review

    PubMed Central

    Palermo, Ann-Gel S.

    2010-01-01

    Community engagement in research may enhance a community's ability to address its own health needs and health disparities issues while ensuring that researchers understand community priorities. However, there are researchers with limited understanding of and experience with effective methods of engaging communities. Furthermore, limited guidance is available for peer-review panels on evaluating proposals for research that engages communities. The National Institutes of Health Director's Council of Public Representatives developed a community engagement framework that includes values, strategies to operationalize each value, and potential outcomes of their use, as well as a peer-review framework for evaluating research that engages communities. Use of these frameworks for educating researchers to create and sustain authentic community–academic partnerships will increase accountability and equality between the partners. PMID:20558798

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2009-01-01

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

  2. 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

  3. Can Nightmares Become Sweet Dreams? Peer Review in the Wake of a Systemwide Administrative Mandate.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Langsam, Deborah M.; Dubois, Philip L.

    1996-01-01

    In 1993, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte's governing board mandated peer evaluation for nontenured faculty. Participants in the American Association for Higher Education's peer review project feared the mandate would taint efforts to introduce faculty to collegial approaches to peer review. However, negative fallout from the mandate…

  4. 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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Edwards, Lisa M.; Pedrotti, Jennifer Teramoto

    2008-01-01

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

  6. AB 1007 Full Fuel Cycle Analysis (FFCA) Peer Review

    SciTech Connect

    Rice, D; Armstrong, D; Campbell, C; Lamont, A; Gallegos, G; Stewart, J; Upadhye, R

    2007-01-19

    LLNL is a participant of California's Advanced Energy Pathways (AEP) team funded by DOE (NETL). At the AEP technical review meeting on November 9, 2006. The AB 1007 FFCA team (Appendix A) requested LLNL participate in a peer review of the FFCA reports. The primary contact at the CEC was McKinley Addy. The following reports/presentations were received by LLNL: (1) Full Fuel Cycle Energy and Emissions Assumptions dated September 2006, TIAX; (2) Full Fuel cycle Assessment-Well to Tank Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts dated December 2006, TIAX; and (3) Full Fuel Cycle Analysis Assessment dated October 12, 2006, TIAX.

  7. References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature

    PubMed Central

    Hladkowicz, Emily S; Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E; Ufholz, Lee-Anne; Postonogova, Tatyana; Shin, Eunkyung; Boet, Sylvain

    2014-01-01

    Objectives To examine indexed health science journals to evaluate the prevalence of Wikipedia citations, identify the journals that publish articles with Wikipedia citations, and determine how Wikipedia is being cited. Design Bibliometric analysis. Study selection Publications in the English language that included citations to Wikipedia were retrieved using the online databases Scopus and Web of Science. Data sources To identify health science journals, results were refined using Ulrich’s database, selecting for citations from journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase. Using Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, 2011 impact factors were collected for all journals included in the search. Data extraction Resulting citations were thematically coded, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results 1433 full text articles from 1008 journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase with 2049 Wikipedia citations were accessed. The frequency of Wikipedia citations has increased over time; most citations occurred after December 2010. More than half of the citations were coded as definitions (n=648; 31.6%) or descriptions (n=482; 23.5%). Citations were not limited to journals with a low or no impact factor; the search found Wikipedia citations in many journals with high impact factors. Conclusions Many publications are citing information from a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone, although permanent, evidence based sources are available. We encourage journal editors and reviewers to use caution when publishing articles that cite Wikipedia. PMID:24603564

  8. Good science, deceptive science, and fraud, plus a brief discussion of peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Lundquist, Marjorie

    2011-03-01

    What makes scientific publication different from other types of publication? Traditionally, it was that scientists published not only their conclusions, but also their data (which enabled others wanting to re-evaluate the data to do so). Publishing their data helped keep scientists honest. In the mid-20th century the policies of scientific journals changed, partly because very large data sets were being evaluated via computer. Many (but not all) scientific journals paid homage to scientific tradition by establishing archives for data serving as the basis for published scientific papers, while only a description of the study and the conclusions were published in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. This set the stage for scientific deception and scientific fraud, which became widespread in certain fields of study during the latter part of the 20th century. Indeed, some organizations were established that appeared to be legitimate scientific societies, but in fact existed for the purpose of promoting the incorrect evaluation of scientific data and publishing deceptive studies masquerading as sound scientific studies. The field of medicine has also become more science than art, with its current emphasis on ``evidence-based medicine.'' The different types of scientific deceit/fraud are identified, and a lifetime of experience with the correction of scientific error, plus encounters with scientific deception and scientific fraud, is summarized.

  9. 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.

  10. Publishing corruption discussion: predatory journalism.

    PubMed

    Jones, James W; McCullough, Laurence B

    2014-02-01

    Dr Spock is a brilliant young vascular surgeon who is up for tenure next year. He has been warned by the chair of surgery that he needs to increase his list of publications to assure passage. He has recently had a paper reviewed by one of the top journals in his specialty, Journal X-special, with several suggestions for revision. He received an e-mail request for manuscript submission from a newly minted, open access, Journal of Vascular Disease Therapy, which promises a quick and likely favorable response for a fee. What should be done? A. Send the paper to another peer reviewed journal with the suggested revisions. B. Resubmit the paper to Journal X-special. C. Submit to the online journal as is to save time. D. Submit to the online journal and another regular journal. E. Look for another job.

  11. Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training

    DOE PAGES

    Sattler, David N.; McKnight, Patrick E.; Naney, Linda; Mathis, Randy

    2015-06-15

    In this study, we developed and evaluated a brief training program for grant reviewers that aimed to increase inter-rater reliability, rating scale knowledge, and effort to read the grant review criteria. Enhancing reviewer training may improve the reliability and accuracy of research grant proposal scoring and funding recommendations. Seventy-five Public Health professors from U.S. research universities watched the training video we produced and assigned scores to the National Institutes of Health scoring criteria proposal summary descriptions. For both novice and experienced reviewers, the training video increased scoring accuracy (the percentage of scores that reflect the true rating scale values), inter-ratermore » reliability, and the amount of time reading the review criteria compared to the no video condition. The increase in reliability for experienced reviewers is notable because it is commonly assumed that reviewers—especially those with experience—have good understanding of the grant review rating scale. Our findings suggest that both experienced and novice reviewers who had not received the type of training developed in this study may not have appropriate understanding of the definitions and meaning for each value of the rating scale and that experienced reviewers may overestimate their knowledge of the rating scale. Lastly, the results underscore the benefits of and need for specialized peer reviewer training.« less

  12. Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training

    SciTech Connect

    Sattler, David N.; McKnight, Patrick E.; Naney, Linda; Mathis, Randy

    2015-06-15

    In this study, we developed and evaluated a brief training program for grant reviewers that aimed to increase inter-rater reliability, rating scale knowledge, and effort to read the grant review criteria. Enhancing reviewer training may improve the reliability and accuracy of research grant proposal scoring and funding recommendations. Seventy-five Public Health professors from U.S. research universities watched the training video we produced and assigned scores to the National Institutes of Health scoring criteria proposal summary descriptions. For both novice and experienced reviewers, the training video increased scoring accuracy (the percentage of scores that reflect the true rating scale values), inter-rater reliability, and the amount of time reading the review criteria compared to the no video condition. The increase in reliability for experienced reviewers is notable because it is commonly assumed that reviewers—especially those with experience—have good understanding of the grant review rating scale. Our findings suggest that both experienced and novice reviewers who had not received the type of training developed in this study may not have appropriate understanding of the definitions and meaning for each value of the rating scale and that experienced reviewers may overestimate their knowledge of the rating scale. Lastly, the results underscore the benefits of and need for specialized peer reviewer training.

  13. Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review.

    PubMed

    Barroga, Edward F

    2014-11-01

    Peer review is the pillar of the integrity of science communication. It is often beset with flaws as well as accusations of unreliability and lack of predictive validity. 'Rational cheating' by reviewers is a threat to the validity of peer review. It may diminish the value of good papers by unfavourable appraisals of the reviewers whose own works have lower scientific merits. This article analyzes the mechanics and defects of peer review and focuses on rational cheating in peer review, its implications, and options to restrain it.

  14. Subject Journal Review: Personnel Management and Industrial Psychology.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Herman, Georgianna

    1984-01-01

    This annotated bibliography lists 35 primary journals devoted to personnel management and industrial psychology in such categories as human resource planning, employee training, compensation, and employment law. History of the field, journal selection, journal specializations (for practitioners and academicians), journal indexing/abstracting,…

  15. 77 FR 19126 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: New Threshold for Peer Reviews of...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-03-30

    ... Register at 74 FR 37625 on July 29, 2009, to address the requirements for peer reviews of DoD solicitations... review phases and revises the threshold for peer reviews of noncompetitive procurements; Requires... section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not...

  16. From Conference to Journal

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    McCartney, Robert; Tenenberg, Josh

    2008-01-01

    Revising and extending conference articles for journal publication benefits both authors and readers. The new articles are more complete, and benefit from peer review, feedback from conference presentation, and greater editorial consistency. For those articles that are appropriate, we encourage authors to do this, and present two examples of such…

  17. A Content Analysis of Quantitative Research in Journal of Marital and Family Therapy: A 10-Year Review.

    PubMed

    Parker, Elizabeth O; Chang, Jennifer; Thomas, Volker

    2016-01-01

    We examined the trends of quantitative research over the past 10 years in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (JMFT). Specifically, within the JMFT, we investigated the types and trends of research design and statistical analysis within the quantitative research that was published in JMFT from 2005 to 2014. We found that while the amount of peer-reviewed articles have increased over time, the percentage of quantitative research has remained constant. We discussed the types and trends of statistical analysis and the implications for clinical work and training programs in the field of marriage and family therapy. PMID:26815008

  18. A Content Analysis of Quantitative Research in Journal of Marital and Family Therapy: A 10-Year Review.

    PubMed

    Parker, Elizabeth O; Chang, Jennifer; Thomas, Volker

    2016-01-01

    We examined the trends of quantitative research over the past 10 years in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (JMFT). Specifically, within the JMFT, we investigated the types and trends of research design and statistical analysis within the quantitative research that was published in JMFT from 2005 to 2014. We found that while the amount of peer-reviewed articles have increased over time, the percentage of quantitative research has remained constant. We discussed the types and trends of statistical analysis and the implications for clinical work and training programs in the field of marriage and family therapy.

  19. Peer review of HEDR uncertainty and sensitivity analyses plan

    SciTech Connect

    Hoffman, F.O.

    1993-06-01

    This report consists of a detailed documentation of the writings and deliberations of the peer review panel that met on May 24--25, 1993 in Richland, Washington to evaluate your draft report ``Uncertainty/Sensitivity Analysis Plan`` (PNWD-2124 HEDR). The fact that uncertainties are being considered in temporally and spatially varying parameters through the use of alternative time histories and spatial patterns deserves special commendation. It is important to identify early those model components and parameters that will have the most influence on the magnitude and uncertainty of the dose estimates. These are the items that should be investigated most intensively prior to committing to a final set of results.

  20. Cultural factors related to the peer review of teaching.

    PubMed

    Martsolf, D S; Dieckman, B C; Heiss, M A

    1998-01-01

    Since 1994, the American Association for Higher Education Peer Review of Teaching Project has sought to popularize the notion that teaching is both a scholarly activity and community property to be shared with and critiqued by the larger academic community. In order to accomplish these goals, each of the three academic units at the twelve participating universities developed a pilot project that conformed to its own institutional, academic unit, and disciplinary culture. At a large Midwestern university, the academic units of mathematics, history, and nursing developed different projects. Each of these projects took account of the unit's specific culture, and this fact helps to account, in large part, for each project's success.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Alderman, Pamela Lea McCloud

    2012-01-01

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

  2. Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2012

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

    There were 90 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2012, which is an 8% increase in the number of articles since 2011. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The editors are delighted to report that the 2011 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2012) has risen to 4.44, up from 3.72 for 2010 (as published in June 2011), a 20% increase. The 2011 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2009 and 2010 were cited on average 4.44 times in 2011. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is approximately 25%, and has been falling as the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication. PMID:24006874

  3. Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2011

    PubMed Central

    2012-01-01

    There were 83 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2011, which is an 11% increase in the number of articles since 2010. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The editors had been delighted with the 2010 JCMR Impact Factor of 4.33, although this fell modestly to 3.72 for 2011. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, we remain very pleased with the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years. Our acceptance rate is approximately 25%, and has been falling as the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors feel it is useful to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, which we feel would be useful, so that areas of interest from the previous year can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles [1]. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication. PMID:23158097

  4. 33 CFR 385.22 - Independent scientific review and external peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... RESTORATION PLAN CERP Implementation Processes § 385.22 Independent scientific review and external peer review... consultation with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, establish an independent scientific... toward achieving the natural system restoration goals of the Plan. Section 601(j) also directs that...

  5. 33 CFR 385.22 - Independent scientific review and external peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... RESTORATION PLAN CERP Implementation Processes § 385.22 Independent scientific review and external peer review... consultation with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, establish an independent scientific... toward achieving the natural system restoration goals of the Plan. Section 601(j) also directs that...

  6. Social Experiences with Peers and High School Graduation: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Veronneau, Marie-Helene; Vitaro, Frank

    2007-01-01

    This article reviews theoretical and empirical work on the relations between child and adolescent peer experiences and high school graduation. First, the different developmental models that guide research in this domain will be explained. Then, descriptions of peer experiences at the group level (peer acceptance/rejection, victimisation, and crowd…

  7. To Propose a Reviewer Dispatching Algorithm for Networked Peer Assessment System.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Liu, Eric Zhi-Feng

    2005-01-01

    Despite their increasing availability on the Internet, networked peer assessment systems (1-5) lack feasible automatic dispatching algorithm of student's assignments and ultimately inhibit the effectiveness of peer assessment. Therefore, this study presents a reviewer dispatching algorithm capable of supporting networked peer assessment system in…

  8. Peer-Led Interventions to Reduce HIV Risk of Youth: A Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Maticka-Tyndale, Eleanor; Barnett, Jessica Penwell

    2010-01-01

    One approach in HIV prevention programming targeting youth is to use peer leaders in what is referred to as peer education programming. This paper critically reviews and synthesizes the results and lessons learned from 24 evaluated peer-led programs with an HIV/AIDS risk reduction component that target youth in the communities where they live and…

  9. Children who are deaf or hard of hearing in inclusive educational settings: a literature review on interactions with peers.

    PubMed

    Xie, Yu-Han; Potměšil, Miloň; Peters, Brenda

    2014-10-01

    This review is conducted to describe how children who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH) interact with hearing peers in inclusive settings, illustrate the difficulties and challenges faced by them in interacting with peers, and identify effective interventions that promote their social interaction in inclusive education. A systematic search of databases and journals identified 21 papers that met the inclusion criteria. Two broad themes emerged from an analysis of the literatures, which included processes and outcomes of interactions with peers and intervention programs. The research indicates that children who are D/HH face great difficulties in communicating, initiating/entering, and maintaining interactions with hearing peers in inclusive settings. The co-enrollment and social skills training programs are considered to be effective interventions for their social interaction. Communication abilities and social skills of children who are D/HH, responses of children with normal hearing, and the effect of environment are highlighted as crucial aspects of social interactions. In addition, future research is needed to study the interaction between children who are D/HH and hearing peers in natural settings, at different stages of school life, as well as improving social interaction and establishing an inclusive classroom climate for children who are D/HH. PMID:25052819

  10. Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science

    PubMed Central

    Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus

    2012-01-01

    The two major functions of a scientific publishing system are to provide access to and evaluation of scientific papers. While open access (OA) is becoming a reality, open evaluation (OE), the other side of the coin, has received less attention. Evaluation steers the attention of the scientific community and thus the very course of science. It also influences the use of scientific findings in public policy. The current system of scientific publishing provides only journal prestige as an indication of the quality of new papers and relies on a non-transparent and noisy pre-publication peer-review process, which delays publication by many months on average. Here I propose an OE system, in which papers are evaluated post-publication in an ongoing fashion by means of open peer review and rating. Through signed ratings and reviews, scientists steer the attention of their field and build their reputation. Reviewers are motivated to be objective, because low-quality or self-serving signed evaluations will negatively impact their reputation. A core feature of this proposal is a division of powers between the accumulation of evaluative evidence and the analysis of this evidence by paper evaluation functions (PEFs). PEFs can be freely defined by individuals or groups (e.g., scientific societies) and provide a plurality of perspectives on the scientific literature. Simple PEFs will use averages of ratings, weighting reviewers (e.g., by H-index), and rating scales (e.g., by relevance to a decision process) in different ways. Complex PEFs will use advanced statistical techniques to infer the quality of a paper. Papers with initially promising ratings will be more deeply evaluated. The continual refinement of PEFs in response to attempts by individuals to influence evaluations in their own favor will make the system ungameable. OA and OE together have the power to revolutionize scientific publishing and usher in a new culture of transparency, constructive criticism, and

  11. Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.

    PubMed

    Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus

    2012-01-01

    The two major functions of a scientific publishing system are to provide access to and evaluation of scientific papers. While open access (OA) is becoming a reality, open evaluation (OE), the other side of the coin, has received less attention. Evaluation steers the attention of the scientific community and thus the very course of science. It also influences the use of scientific findings in public policy. The current system of scientific publishing provides only journal prestige as an indication of the quality of new papers and relies on a non-transparent and noisy pre-publication peer-review process, which delays publication by many months on average. Here I propose an OE system, in which papers are evaluated post-publication in an ongoing fashion by means of open peer review and rating. Through signed ratings and reviews, scientists steer the attention of their field and build their reputation. Reviewers are motivated to be objective, because low-quality or self-serving signed evaluations will negatively impact their reputation. A core feature of this proposal is a division of powers between the accumulation of evaluative evidence and the analysis of this evidence by paper evaluation functions (PEFs). PEFs can be freely defined by individuals or groups (e.g., scientific societies) and provide a plurality of perspectives on the scientific literature. Simple PEFs will use averages of ratings, weighting reviewers (e.g., by H-index), and rating scales (e.g., by relevance to a decision process) in different ways. Complex PEFs will use advanced statistical techniques to infer the quality of a paper. Papers with initially promising ratings will be more deeply evaluated. The continual refinement of PEFs in response to attempts by individuals to influence evaluations in their own favor will make the system ungameable. OA and OE together have the power to revolutionize scientific publishing and usher in a new culture of transparency, constructive criticism, and

  12. Peer Review of NRC Standardized Plant Analysis Risk Models

    SciTech Connect

    Anthony Koonce; James Knudsen; Robert Buell

    2011-03-01

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) Models underwent a Peer Review using ASME PRA standard (Addendum C) as endorsed by NRC in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.200. The review was performed by a mix of industry probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) experts and NRC PRA experts. Representative SPAR models, one PWR and one BWR, were reviewed against Capability Category I of the ASME PRA standard. Capability Category I was selected as the basis for review due to the specific uses/applications of the SPAR models. The BWR SPAR model was reviewed against 331 ASME PRA Standard Supporting Requirements; however, based on the Capability Category I level of review and the absence of internal flooding and containment performance (LERF) logic only 216 requirements were determined to be applicable. Based on the review, the BWR SPAR model met 139 of the 216 supporting requirements. The review also generated 200 findings or suggestions. Of these 200 findings and suggestions 142 were findings and 58 were suggestions. The PWR SPAR model was also evaluated against the same 331 ASME PRA Standard Supporting Requirements. Of these requirements only 215 were deemed appropriate for the review (for the same reason as noted for the BWR). The PWR review determined that 125 of the 215 supporting requirements met Capability Category I or greater. The review identified 101 findings or suggestions (76 findings and 25 suggestions). These findings or suggestions were developed to identify areas where SPAR models could be enhanced. A process to prioritize and incorporate the findings/suggestions supporting requirements into the SPAR models is being developed. The prioritization process focuses on those findings that will enhance the accuracy, completeness and usability of the SPAR models.

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

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    1988-07-01

    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.

  14. CoLab: A Collaborative Laboratory for Facilitating Code Reviews through a Peer-to-Peer Network

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kini, Shwetha

    2010-01-01

    CoLab is a collaborative tool for peer review of software programs for providing constructive feedback to first-time programmers. It targets two kinds of users: a trainer (who is the facilitator) and a trainee (whose programming skills have to be assessed and, if needed, improved). The tool provides real-time information on the reviewing ability…

  15. Reviewer Acknowledgement 2013

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Contributing reviewers A peer-reviewed journal would not survive without the generous time and insightful comments of the reviewers, whose efforts often go unrecognized. Trials has been blessed by the support of highly-qualified peer reviewers, and the Editors-in-Chief, Doug Altman, Curt Furberg and Jeremy Grimshaw, and staff of the journal would like to show their appreciation by thanking the following for their invaluable assistance with review of manuscripts for the journal in Volume 14 (2013).

  16. 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…

  17. 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…

  18. President's Column: Reflections on the Role of Peer Review in Competitions for Federal Research.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Anderson, Richard

    1983-01-01

    In the context of a controversial award decision by the National Institute of Education (which contradicted the Project Review Board's recommendation), discusses peer review in competitions for federal research grants. Concludes that the principle of peer review needs clarification and that federal contracting procedures are ill-suited to the…

  19. Publishing Aviation Research: An Interdisciplinary Review of Scholarly Journals.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Truitt, Lawrence J.; Kaps, Robert W.

    1995-01-01

    An ERIC search and key informant interviews were used to identify 26 journals that regularly publish aviation-related articles. The journals are in four categories: transportation management and economics, travel and tourism, aviation law, and interdisciplinary. (SK)

  20. 7 CFR 3401.12 - 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 RANGELAND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Applications for Funding § 3401.12 Establishment...