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.

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-08-17

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

Excessive and disproportionate advertising in peer-reviewed journals.

PubMed

Friedman, Lee S; Richter, Elihu D

2006-01-01

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

Imbalance in Individual Researcher's Peer Review Activities Quantified for Four British Ecological Society Journals, 2003-2010

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Forrester, M B

2016-07-01

Poison centers advance knowledge in the field of toxicology through publication in peer-review journals. This investigation describes the pattern of poison center-related publications. Cases were poison center-related research published in peer-review journals during 1995-2014. These were identified through searching the PubMed database, reviewing the tables of contents of selected toxicology journals, and reviewing abstracts of various national and international meetings. The following variables for each publication were identified: year of publication, journal, type of publication (meeting abstract vs. other, i.e. full article or letter to the editor), and the country(ies) of the poison center(s) included in the research. Of the 3147 total publications, 62.1% were meeting abstracts. There were 263 publications in 1995-1999, 536 in 2000-2004, 999 in 2005-2009, and 1349 in 2010-2014. The publications were in 234 different journals. The journals in which the highest number of research was published were Clinical Toxicology (69.7%), Journal of Medical Toxicology (2.2%), and Veterinary and Human Toxicology (2.1%). The research was reported from 62 different countries. The countries with the highest number of publications were the United States (67.9%), United Kingdom (6.5%), Germany (3.9%), France (2.5%), and Italy (2.4%). The number of publications increased greatly over the 20 years. Although the publications were in a large number of journals, a high proportion of the publications were in one journal. While the research came from a large number of countries, the preponderance came from the United States. © The Author(s) 2015.

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

PubMed

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

2015-09-29

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

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

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…

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

PubMed

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

2008-01-01

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

Peer review.

PubMed

Twaij, H; Oussedik, S; Hoffmeyer, P

2014-04-01

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

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

PubMed

Rigby, J; Cox, D; Julian, K

2018-01-01

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

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers.

PubMed

Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando

2018-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Barr, Matthew

2017-01-01

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

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…

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

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

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

Warner, J. S.

2010-01-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-02-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-04-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-05-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-03-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-07-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-06-10

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

Peer Review: Has It a Future?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Soh, Kay Cheng

2013-01-01

Although its history is short, peer review has fast become a fixture of journal publications acquiring the status of a ritual in the academia. Many relevant and important issues have been raised leading to doubts about the value of peer review. The advent of electronic publishing further threatens the future of peer review. For peer review to…

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

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

PubMed Central

2004-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Eysenbach, Gunther

2004-09-30

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-06-01

Published medical research influences health care providers and policy makers, guides patient management, and is based on the peer review process. Peer review should prevent publication of unreliable data and improve study reporting, but there is little evidence that these aims are fully achieved. In the blinded systems, authors and readers do not know the reviewers' identity. Moreover, the reviewers' reports are not made available to readers. Anonymous peer review poses an ethical imbalance toward authors, who are judged by masked referees, and to the medical community and society at large, in case patients suffer the consequences of acceptance of flawed manuscripts or erroneous rejection of important findings. Some general medical journals have adopted an open process, require reviewers to sign their reports, and links online pre-publication histories to accepted articles. This system increases editors' and reviewers' accountability and allows public scrutiny, consenting readers understand on which basis were decisions taken and by whom. Moreover, this gives credit to reviewers for their apparently thankless job, as online availability of signed and scored reports may contribute to researchers' academic curricula. However, the transition from the blind to the open system could pose problems to journals. Reviewers may be more difficult to find, and publishers or medical societies could resist changes that may affect editorial costs and journals' revenues. Nonetheless, also considering the risk of competing interests in the medical field, general and major specialty journals could consider testing the effects of open review on manuscripts regarding studies that may influence clinical practice. Copyright © 2016 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2001-05-01

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

Peer review and the publication process.

PubMed

Ali, Parveen Azam; Watson, Roger

2016-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

An important attribute of the traditional impact factor was the controversial 2-year citation window. So far, several scholars have proposed using different citation time windows for evaluating journals. However, there is no confirmation whether a longer citation time window would be better. How did the journal evaluation effects of 3IF, 4IF, and 6IF comparing with 2IF and 5IF? In order to understand these questions, we made a comparative study of impact factors with different citation time windows with the peer-reviewed scores of ophthalmologic journals indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database. The peer-reviewed scores of 28 ophthalmologic journals were obtained through a self-designed survey questionnaire. Impact factors with different citation time windows (including 2IF, 3IF, 4IF, 5IF, and 6IF) of 28 ophthalmologic journals were computed and compared in accordance with each impact factor's definition and formula, using the citation analysis function of the Web of Science (WoS) database. An analysis of the correlation between impact factors with different citation time windows and peer-reviewed scores was carried out. Although impact factor values with different citation time windows were different, there was a high level of correlation between them when it came to evaluating journals. In the current study, for ophthalmologic journals' impact factors with different time windows in 2013, 3IF and 4IF seemed the ideal ranges for comparison, when assessed in relation to peer-reviewed scores. In addition, the 3-year and 4-year windows were quite consistent with the cited peak age of documents published by ophthalmologic journals. Our study is based on ophthalmology journals and we only analyze the impact factors with different citation time window in 2013, so it has yet to be ascertained whether other disciplines (especially those with a later cited peak) or other years would follow the same or similar patterns. We designed the survey questionnaire

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

PubMed

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

2012-10-01

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

The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

PubMed Central

Saper, Clifford B; Maunsell, John HR

2009-01-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-03-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-05-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2017-11-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2017-10-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2017-09-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-02-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2017-12-01

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

Peer review statement

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-03-01

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

Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

Background An important attribute of the traditional impact factor was the controversial 2-year citation window. So far, several scholars have proposed using different citation time windows for evaluating journals. However, there is no confirmation whether a longer citation time window would be better. How did the journal evaluation effects of 3IF, 4IF, and 6IF comparing with 2IF and 5IF? In order to understand these questions, we made a comparative study of impact factors with different citation time windows with the peer-reviewed scores of ophthalmologic journals indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database. Methods The peer-reviewed scores of 28 ophthalmologic journals were obtained through a self-designed survey questionnaire. Impact factors with different citation time windows (including 2IF, 3IF, 4IF, 5IF, and 6IF) of 28 ophthalmologic journals were computed and compared in accordance with each impact factor’s definition and formula, using the citation analysis function of the Web of Science (WoS) database. An analysis of the correlation between impact factors with different citation time windows and peer-reviewed scores was carried out. Results Although impact factor values with different citation time windows were different, there was a high level of correlation between them when it came to evaluating journals. In the current study, for ophthalmologic journals’ impact factors with different time windows in 2013, 3IF and 4IF seemed the ideal ranges for comparison, when assessed in relation to peer-reviewed scores. In addition, the 3-year and 4-year windows were quite consistent with the cited peak age of documents published by ophthalmologic journals. Research Limitations Our study is based on ophthalmology journals and we only analyze the impact factors with different citation time window in 2013, so it has yet to be ascertained whether other disciplines (especially those with a later cited peak) or other years would follow the same or

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

PubMed Central

Pöschl, Ulrich

2012-01-01

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

Gender bias in scholarly peer review.

PubMed

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

2017-03-21

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

Gender bias in scholarly peer review

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

Peer Review 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

Peer Review of Best Practices

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2017-12-01

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

Peer-review: An IOP Publishing Perspective

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Smith, Timothy

2015-03-01

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

Writing Quality Peer Reviews of Research Manuscripts

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Qi, Xingshun; Deng, Han; Guo, Xiaozhong

2017-08-01

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

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…

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.

The privilege and burden of peer review.

PubMed

Blume, Arthur W; Schmaling, Karen B

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-06-17

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

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

PubMed Central

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Park, Seong Ho; Kressel, Herbert Y

2018-05-28

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

Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review.

PubMed

Sandewall, Erik

2012-01-01

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

Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review

PubMed Central

Sandewall, Erik

2011-01-01

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

On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics.

PubMed

Andersen, Line Edslev

2017-01-01

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

Thank you to Virology Journal’s peer reviewers in 2012

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

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

Thank you to our 2016 peer reviewers

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2017-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2009-05-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-01-01

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

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

Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors.

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

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

PubMed

Weng, Naidong

2012-11-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Janke, Kristin K.; Traynor, Andrew P.

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2012-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Fischman, Mark G.

2014-01-01

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

Top reviewers for the Journal of Nuclear Materials 2016

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Was, Gary

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A

2017-04-01

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

Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy.

PubMed

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

2011-01-01

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

A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.

PubMed

Dadkhah, Mehdi; Kahani, Mohsen; Borchardt, Glenn

2017-08-15

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

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.

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

Peer-Reviewed Publication of Clinical Trials Completed for Pediatric Exclusivity

PubMed Central

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

2009-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

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

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

PubMed

Moher, David

2015-11-02

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

Publications and the peer review system

USDA-ARS?s Scientific Manuscript database

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

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

PubMed

Charlton, Bruce G

2004-01-01

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

How do I peer-review a scientific article?-a personal perspective.

PubMed

Lippi, Giuseppe

2018-02-01

Peer-review is an essential activity for the vast majority of credited scientific journals and represents the cornerstone for assessing the quality of potential publications, since it is substantially aimed to identify drawbacks or inaccuracies that may flaw the outcome or the presentation of scientific research. Since the importance of this activity is seldom underestimated by some referees, the purpose of this article is to present a personal and arbitrary perspective on how a scientific article should be peer-reviewed, offering a tentative checklist aimed to describe the most important criteria that should be considered. These basically include accepting the assignment only when the topic is in accordance with referee's background, disclosing potential conflicts of interest, checking availability and time according to size and complexity of the article, identifying the innovative value of the manuscript, providing exhaustive and clear comments, expressing disagreement with a fair and balanced approach, weighting revisions according to the importance of the journal, summarizing recommendations according to previous comments, maintaining confidentiality throughout and after the peer-review process. I really hope that some notions reported in this dissertation may be a guide or a help, especially for young scientists, who are willing to be engaged in peer-review activity for scientific journals.

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

PubMed

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

2014-11-01

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

Science and Technology Peer Review: GPRA

DTIC Science & Technology

2003-11-30

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

Where is the trust in the peer review dynamic?

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Ucko, Daniel

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

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

Top reviewers for the Journal of Nuclear Materials - 2017

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

2018-01-01

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

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…

How do I peer-review a scientific article?—a personal perspective

PubMed Central

2018-01-01

Peer-review is an essential activity for the vast majority of credited scientific journals and represents the cornerstone for assessing the quality of potential publications, since it is substantially aimed to identify drawbacks or inaccuracies that may flaw the outcome or the presentation of scientific research. Since the importance of this activity is seldom underestimated by some referees, the purpose of this article is to present a personal and arbitrary perspective on how a scientific article should be peer-reviewed, offering a tentative checklist aimed to describe the most important criteria that should be considered. These basically include accepting the assignment only when the topic is in accordance with referee’s background, disclosing potential conflicts of interest, checking availability and time according to size and complexity of the article, identifying the innovative value of the manuscript, providing exhaustive and clear comments, expressing disagreement with a fair and balanced approach, weighting revisions according to the importance of the journal, summarizing recommendations according to previous comments, maintaining confidentiality throughout and after the peer-review process. I really hope that some notions reported in this dissertation may be a guide or a help, especially for young scientists, who are willing to be engaged in peer-review activity for scientific journals. PMID:29610756

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…

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

DTIC Science & Technology

2004-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2004-04-01

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

The peer review process: a primer for JNIS readers.

PubMed

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

2017-07-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2012-01-01

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

Timely deposition of macromolecular structures is necessary for peer review

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

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

2013-12-01

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

Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

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

2016-01-01

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

Peer-reviewed articles on inclusive research: Do co-researchers with intellectual disabilities have a voice?

PubMed

Strnadová, Iva; Walmsley, Jan

2018-01-01

Inclusive research is increasingly common in intellectual disabilities research, but ways in which voice of co-researchers with intellectual disabilities is presented remain underexplored in the literature. The authors conducted a literature review and analysis of peer-reviewed journal articles reporting on inclusive research. The aim was to explore the ways the voices of co-researchers with intellectual disabilities are represented in published peer-reviewed journal articles. The findings indicate that there are a wide range of ways in which inclusive research projects are reported in peer-reviewed journals. However, the experiences, views and opinions of co-researchers are often either absent or very selectively reported. The article concludes that although inclusive research has proliferated in the 21st century, more attention needs to be paid to the ways in which the voices of co-researchers with intellectual disabilities are heard in formal academic contexts. Guidelines for future practice are offered. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

Thank You to Our 2017 Peer Reviewers

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2018-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

Validation of the CoRE Questionnaire for a Medical Journal Peer Review.

PubMed

Doi, Suhail A R; Salzman-Scott, Sherry A; Onitilo, Adedayo A

2016-01-01

If a peer review instrument asks concrete questions (defined as items that can only generate disagreement if reviewers have different degrees of expertise), then questionnaires could become more meaningful in terms of resolving subjectivity thus leading to more reviewer agreement. A concrete item questionnaire with well-chosen questions can also help resolve disagreement when reviewers have the same level of expertise. We have recently created the core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) questionnaire for which decision-threshold score levels have been created, but which have not been validated. This prospective validation of these thresholds for the CoRE questionnaire demonstrated strong agreement between reviewer recommendations and their reported score levels when tested prospectively at Clinical Medicine and Research. We conclude that using the CoRE questionnaire will help reduce peer reviewer disagreement. More importantly, when reviewer expertise varies, editors can more easily detect this and decide which opinion reflects the greater expertise.

Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game

PubMed Central

Goldstone, Robert L.; Helbing, Dirk

2016-01-01

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

Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game.

PubMed

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

2016-07-26

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-05-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-05-10

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

NASA Product Peer Review Process

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Jenks, Ken

2009-01-01

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

A Systematic Appraisal of Peer Review Guidelines for Special Education Journals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Maggin, Daniel M.; Chafouleas, Sandra M.; Berggren, Melissa; Sugai, George

2013-01-01

The evidence-based practice movement in special education has emphasized the use of the scientific process to assist with the identification of effective academic and behavioral strategies. An important but often overlooked aspect of this system is the peer review process in which manuscripts submitted for publication are reviewed by experts to…

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Porcher, Raphaël; Ravaud, Philippe; Trinquart, Ludovic

2016-01-01

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

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

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

PubMed

Willis, Malachi; Jozkowski, Kristen N

2018-02-01

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

Use of the Pelvic Organ Quantification System (POP-Q) in published articles of peer-reviewed journals.

PubMed

Boyd, Sarah S; O'Sullivan, David; Tulikangas, Paul

2017-11-01

The Pelvic Organ Quantification (POP-Q) system is a standardized technique used for staging POP. This study aimed to examine POP-Q use in peer-reviewed publications. Nine journals representative of urogynecology were reviewed for articles describing POP staging from January to December 2012 and 2015. Review articles, editorials, letters and articles with or without retractions in manuscript form were excluded. The primary outcome was frequency of POP-Q use. Secondary outcomes were POP-Q use by journal specialty, specialty of primary author, country of origin, and an anatomic definition of failure. Data were evaluated using chi-square tests. Results yielding p < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant. Two hundred and nineteen articles were reviewed. POP-Q was used in 88.4% in 2012 and 80% in 2015(not significant; p = 0.296). Urologists used the POP-Q least frequently, although its use was greater in 2015 (63.6%) than in 2012 (50%). In 2012, a definition for anatomic failure was present in 27% of articles; 23% of authors in the 2012 time frame reported using the POP-Q, and 17.8% used a specific POP-Q point. Between 2012 and 2015, the use of a specific point significantly decreased (17.8 vs. 7.8%, p = 0.033). POP-Q is the most common staging system used in published articles across studied subgroups. When used as an outcome measure, a greater number of authors use the recommended staging system rather than specific points.

Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Poorly cited articles in peer-reviewed cardiovascular journals from 1997 to 2007: analysis of 5-year citation rates.

PubMed

Ranasinghe, Isuru; Shojaee, Abbas; Bikdeli, Behnood; Gupta, Aakriti; Chen, Ruijun; Ross, Joseph S; Masoudi, Frederick A; Spertus, John A; Nallamothu, Brahmajee K; Krumholz, Harlan M

2015-05-19

The extent to which articles are cited is a surrogate of the impact and importance of the research conducted; poorly cited articles may identify research of limited use and potential wasted investments. We assessed trends in the rates of poorly cited articles and journals in the cardiovascular literature from 1997 to 2007. We identified original articles published in cardiovascular journals and indexed in the Scopus citation database from 1997 to 2007. We defined poorly cited articles as those with ≤5 citations in the 5 years following publication and poorly cited journals as those with >75% of journal content poorly cited. We identified 164 377 articles in 222 cardiovascular journals from 1997 to 2007. From 1997 to 2007, the number of cardiovascular articles and journals increased by 56.9% and 75.2%, respectively. Of all the articles, 75 550 (46.0%) were poorly cited, of which 25 650 (15.6% overall) had no citations. From 1997 to 2007, the proportion of poorly cited articles declined slightly (52.1%-46.2%, trend P<0.001), although the absolute number of poorly cited articles increased by 2595 (trend P<0.001). At a journal level, 44% of cardiovascular journals had more than three-fourths of the journal's content poorly cited at 5 years. Nearly half of all peer-reviewed articles published in cardiovascular journals are poorly cited 5 years after publication, and many are not cited at all. The cardiovascular literature and the number of poorly cited articles both increased substantially from 1997 to 2007. The high proportion of poorly cited articles and journals suggests inefficiencies in the cardiovascular research enterprise. © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.

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…

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…

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Somerville, R. C.

2003-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Credibility, peer review, and Nature, 1945–1990

PubMed Central

Baldwin, Melinda

2015-01-01

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

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.

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

Poorly Cited Articles in Peer-Reviewed Cardiovascular Journals from 1997–2007: Analysis of 5-Year Citation Rates

PubMed Central

Ranasinghe, Isuru; Shojaee, Abbas; Bikdeli, Behnood; Gupta, Aakriti; Chen, Ruijun; Ross, Joseph S.; Masoudi, Frederick; Spertus, John A.; Nallamothu, Brahmajee K.; Krumholz, Harlan M.

2015-01-01

Background The extent to which articles are cited is a surrogate of the impact and importance of the research conducted; poorly cited papers may identify research of limited use and potential wasted investments. We assessed trends in the rates of poorly cited articles and journals in the cardiovascular literature from 1997–2007. Methods and Results We identified original articles published in cardiovascular journals and indexed in the Scopus citation database from 1997–2007. We defined poorly cited articles as those with ≤5 citations in the 5 years following publication and poorly cited journals as those with >75% of journal content poorly cited. We identified 164,377 articles in 222 cardiovascular journals from 1997–2007. From 1997–2007, the number of cardiovascular articles and journals increased by 56.9% and 75.2% respectively. Of all the articles, 75,550 (46.0%) were poorly cited, of which 25,650 (15.6% overall) had no citations. From 1997–2007, the proportion of poorly cited articles declined slightly (52.1% to 46.2%, trend P<0.001), although the absolute number of poorly cited articles increased by 2,595 (trend P<0.001). At a journal level, 44% of cardiovascular journals had more than three quarters of the journal’s content poorly cited at 5 years. Conclusion Nearly half of all peer-reviewed articles published in cardiovascular journals are poorly cited 5 years after publication, and many are not cited at all. The cardiovascular literature, and the number of poorly cited articles, have both increased substantially from 1997–2007. The high proportion of poorly cited articles and journals suggest inefficiencies in the cardiovascular research enterprise. PMID:25812573

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

PubMed

Schmalbach, Cecelia E

2016-07-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Grimaldo, Francisco; Marušić, Ana

2018-01-01

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

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

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.

Improving Scientific Writing in Undergraduate Geosciences Degrees Through Peer Review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2016-12-01

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

What is open peer review? A systematic review.

PubMed

Ross-Hellauer, Tony

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Liesegang, Thomas J

2013-09-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

AQUATOX Peer Review Documents

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-07-01

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

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.

Peer review in forensic science.

PubMed

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

2017-08-01

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

Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication.

PubMed

Callaham, Michael L

2003-01-01

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

What is open peer review? A systematic review

PubMed Central

Ross-Hellauer, Tony

2017-01-01

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

JOURNAL CLUB: Assessment of Interobserver Variability in the Peer Review Process: Should We Agree to Disagree?

PubMed

Verma, Nupur; Hippe, Daniel S; Robinson, Jeffrey D

2016-12-01

Peer review is an important and necessary part of radiology. There are several options to perform the peer review process. This study examines the reproducibility of peer review by comparing two scoring systems. American Board of Radiology-certified radiologists from various practice environments and subspecialties were recruited to score deidentified examinations on a web-based PACS with two scoring systems, RADPEER and Cleareview. Quantitative analysis of the scores was performed for interrater agreement. Interobserver variability was high for both the RADPEER and Cleareview scoring systems. The interobserver correlations (kappa values) were 0.17-0.23 for RADPEER and 0.10-0.16 for Cleareview. Interrater correlation was not statistically significantly different when comparing the RADPEER and Cleareview systems (p = 0.07-0.27). The kappa values were low for the Cleareview subscores when we evaluated for missed findings (0.26), satisfaction of search (0.17), and inadequate interpretation of findings (0.12). Our study confirms the previous report of low interobserver correlation when using the peer review process. There was low interobserver agreement seen when using both the RADPEER and the Cleareview scoring systems.

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

The Potential of Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Johnson, Susan Moore; Fiarman, Sarah E.

2012-01-01

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

Reviewing Manuscripts for Biomedical Journals

PubMed Central

Garmel, Gus M

2010-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-06-01

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

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

PubMed

Reiner, Bruce I

2017-12-01

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

A 5-Year Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Journal Article Publications of Pharmacy Practice Faculty Members

PubMed Central

Spivey, Christina; Martin, Jennifer R.; Wyles, Christina; Ehrman, Clara; Schlesselman, Lauren S.

2012-01-01

Objectives. To evaluate scholarship, as represented by peer-reviewed journal articles, among US pharmacy practice faculty members; contribute evidence that may better inform benchmarking by academic pharmacy practice departments; and examine factors that may be related to publication rates. Methods. Journal articles published by all pharmacy practice faculty members between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010, were identified. College and school publication rates were compared based on public vs. private status, being part of a health science campus, having a graduate program, and having doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) faculty members funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Results. Pharmacy practice faculty members published 6,101 articles during the 5-year study period, and a pharmacy practice faculty member was the primary author on 2,698 of the articles. Pharmacy practice faculty members published an average of 0.51 articles per year. Pharmacy colleges and schools affiliated with health science campuses, at public institutions, with NIH-funded PharmD faculty members, and with graduate programs had significantly higher total publication rates compared with those that did not have these characteristics (p<0.006). Conclusion. Pharmacy practice faculty members contributed nearly 6,000 unique publications over the 5-year period studied. However, this reflects a rate of less than 1 publication per faculty member per year, suggesting that a limited number of faculty members produced the majority of publications. PMID:23049099

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-02-02

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

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.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Strnadová, Iva; Walmsley, Jan

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Deveugele, Myriam; Silverman, Jonathan

2017-11-01

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

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

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.

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 ...

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…

Towards an effective data peer review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Düsterhus, André; Hense, Andreas

2014-05-01

Peer review is an established procedure to ensure the quality of scientific publications and is currently used as a prerequisite for acceptance of papers in the scientific community. In the past years the publication of raw data and its metadata got increased attention, which led to the idea of bringing it to the same standards the journals for traditional publications have. One missing element to achieve this is a comparable peer review scheme. This contribution introduces the idea of a quality evaluation process, which is designed to analyse the technical quality as well as the content of a dataset. It bases on quality tests, which results are evaluated with the help of the knowledge of an expert. The results of the tests and the expert knowledge are evaluated probabilistically and are statistically combined. As a result the quality of a dataset is estimated with a single value only. This approach allows the reviewer to quickly identify the potential weaknesses of a dataset and generate a transparent and comprehensible report. To demonstrate the scheme, an application on a large meteorological dataset will be shown. Furthermore, potentials and risks of such a scheme will be introduced and practical implications for its possible introduction to data centres investigated. Especially, the effects of reducing the estimate of quality of a dataset to a single number will be critically discussed.

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2017-01-01

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

The "peer" in "peer review"

USGS Publications Warehouse

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

2011-01-01

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

Peering into peer-review at GigaScience.

PubMed

Edmunds, Scott C

2013-01-24

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

Peering into peer-review at GigaScience

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2007-05-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2005-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-06-13

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

The ethics of peer review in bioethics.

PubMed

Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

2014-10-01

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

Collaborative peer review process as an informal interprofessional learning tool: Findings from an exploratory study.

PubMed

Kwon, Jae Yung; Bulk, Laura Yvonne; Giannone, Zarina; Liva, Sarah; Chakraborty, Bubli; Brown, Helen

2018-01-01

Despite numerous studies on formal interprofessional education programes, less attention has been focused on informal interprofessional learning opportunities. To provide such an opportunity, a collaborative peer review process (CPRP) was created as part of a peer-reviewed journal. Replacing the traditional peer review process wherein two or more reviewers review the manuscript separately, the CPRP brings together students from different professions to collaboratively review a manuscript. The aim of this study was to assess whether the CPRP can be used as an informal interprofessional learning tool using an exploratory qualitative approach. Eight students from Counselling Psychology, Occupational and Physical Therapy, Nursing, and Rehabilitation Sciences were invited to participate in interprofessional focus groups. Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. Two key themes emerged, revealing that the CPRP created new opportunities for interprofessional learning and gave practice in negotiating feedback. The results reveal that the CPRP has the potential to be a valuable interprofessional learning tool that can also enhance reviewing and constructive feedback skills.

7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

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…

28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

How to run a successful Journal

PubMed Central

Jawaid, Shaukat Ali; Jawaid, Masood

2017-01-01

Publishing and successfully running a good quality peer reviewed biomedical scientific journal is not an easy task. Some of the pre-requisites include a competent experienced editor supported by a team. Long term sustainability of a journal will depend on good quality manuscripts, active editorial board, good quality of reviewers, workable business model to ensure financial support, increased visibility which will ensure increased submissions, indexation in various important databases, online availability and easy to use website. This manuscript outlines the logistics and technical issues which need to be resolved before starting a new journal and ensuring sustainability of a good quality peer reviewed journal. PMID:29492089

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

Role of online journals and peer-reviewed research

Treesearch

Robert L. Deal

2014-01-01

The recent explosion of online journals has lead some researchers, scientist and academics to reconsider their traditional venues for publishing research. These on-line journals have the potential for quickly disseminating research, but they also present lots of uncertainty, confusion, and pitfalls for researchers. Many academics search out journals with the high...

Peer Reviewers Learn from Giving Comments

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cho, Young Hoan; Cho, Kwangsu

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

Radiologist Peer Review by Group Consensus.

PubMed

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

2016-06-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Deppe, Arvid; Schmidt, Birgit

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-04-09

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

Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.

PubMed

van Rooyen, Susan; Delamothe, Tony; Evans, Stephen J W

2010-11-16

To see whether telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews of original research papers might be posted on the BMJ's website would affect the quality of their reviews. Randomised controlled trial. A large international general medical journal based in the United Kingdom. 541 authors, 471 peer reviewers, and 12 editors. Consecutive eligible papers were randomised either to have the reviewer's signed report made available on the BMJ's website alongside the published paper (intervention group) or to have the report made available only to the author-the BMJ's normal procedure (control group). The intervention was the act of revealing to reviewers-after they had agreed to review but before they undertook their review-that their signed report might appear on the website. The main outcome measure was the quality of the reviews, as independently rated on a scale of 1 to 5 using a validated instrument by two editors and the corresponding author. Authors and editors were blind to the intervention group. Authors rated review quality before the fate of their paper had been decided. Additional outcomes were the time taken to complete the review and the reviewer's recommendation regarding publication. 558 manuscripts were randomised, and 471 manuscripts remained after exclusions. Of the 1039 reviewers approached to take part in the study, 568 (55%) declined. Two editors' evaluations of the quality of the peer review were obtained for all 471 manuscripts, with the corresponding author's evaluation obtained for 453. There was no significant difference in review quality between the intervention and control groups (mean difference for editors 0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.17; for authors 0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.20). Any possible difference in favour of the control group was well below the level regarded as editorially significant. Reviewers in the intervention group took significantly longer to review (mean difference 25 minutes, 95% CI 3.0 to 47.0 minutes). Telling peer reviewers

Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective.

PubMed

Huisman, Janine; Smits, Jeroen

2017-01-01

To gain insight into the duration and quality of the scientific peer review process, we analyzed data from 3500 review experiences submitted by authors to the SciRev.sc website. Aspects studied are duration of the first review round, total review duration, immediate rejection time, the number, quality, and difficulty of referee reports, the time it takes authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript, and overall quality of the experience. We find clear differences in these aspects between scientific fields, with Medicine, Public health, and Natural sciences showing the shortest durations and Mathematics and Computer sciences, Social sciences, Economics and Business, and Humanities the longest. One-third of journals take more than 2 weeks for an immediate (desk) rejection and one sixth even more than 4 weeks. This suggests that besides the time reviewers take, inefficient editorial processes also play an important role. As might be expected, shorter peer review processes and those of accepted papers are rated more positively by authors. More surprising is that peer review processes in the fields linked to long processes are rated highest and those in the fields linked to short processes lowest. Hence authors' satisfaction is apparently influenced by their expectations regarding what is common in their field. Qualitative information provided by the authors indicates that editors can enhance author satisfaction by taking an independent position vis-à-vis reviewers and by communicating well with authors.

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…

28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

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

PubMed

Tushingham, Shannon; Fulkerson, Tiffany; Hill, Katheryn

2017-01-01

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

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…

28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-02-01

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

MELCOR Peer Review

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

Boyack, B.E.; Dhir, V.K.; Gieseke, J.A.

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 findingsmore » 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.« less

Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review.

PubMed

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

2017-06-01

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

Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

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

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

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

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/).

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

PubMed Central

Fulkerson, Tiffany; Hill, Katheryn

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Rosen, G M; Davison, G C

2001-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-10-01

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

Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials.

PubMed

Hopewell, Sally; Witt, Claudia M; Linde, Klaus; Icke, Katja; Adedire, Olubusola; Kirtley, Shona; Altman, Douglas G

2018-01-11

Selective reporting of outcomes in clinical trials is a serious problem. We aimed to investigate the influence of the peer review process within biomedical journals on reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses within reports of randomised trials. Each month, PubMed (May 2014 to April 2015) was searched to identify primary reports of randomised trials published in six high-impact general and 12 high-impact specialty journals. The corresponding author of each trial was invited to complete an online survey asking authors about changes made to their manuscript as part of the peer review process. Our main outcomes were to assess: (1) the nature and extent of changes as part of the peer review process, in relation to reporting of the primary outcome(s) and/or primary statistical analysis; (2) how often authors followed these requests; and (3) whether this was related to specific journal or trial characteristics. Of 893 corresponding authors who were invited to take part in the online survey 258 (29%) responded. The majority of trials were multicentre (n = 191; 74%); median sample size 325 (IQR 138 to 1010). The primary outcome was clearly defined in 92% (n = 238), of which the direction of treatment effect was statistically significant in 49%. The majority responded (1-10 Likert scale) they were satisfied with the overall handling (mean 8.6, SD 1.5) and quality of peer review (mean 8.5, SD 1.5) of their manuscript. Only 3% (n = 8) said that the editor or peer reviewers had asked them to change or clarify the trial's primary outcome. However, 27% (n = 69) reported they were asked to change or clarify the statistical analysis of the primary outcome; most had fulfilled the request, the main motivation being to improve the statistical methods (n = 38; 55%) or avoid rejection (n = 30; 44%). Overall, there was little association between authors being asked to make this change and the type of journal, intervention, significance of the

Peer-Reviewed Veterinary Journals From Arabic-Speaking Countries: A Systematic Review.

PubMed

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

The prevalence of diseases of foodborne and zoonotic origin in Arabic-speaking countries highlights the importance of collaboration between human and animal health professionals. However, accessibility of research and evidence-based practices in these countries is not well characterized. This brief report determines the availability of professional veterinary journals within the Arabic-speaking region. An electronic search using 6 databases assessed for publication period, activity status, and available languages incorporated all aspects of veterinary medicine and specialties. Among 29 veterinary journals identified, the oldest current publication originated 63 years ago, with 10 journals currently interrupted or ceased. All 19 currently active journals are available electronically as open access, with 8 also offered in paper format. Veterinary journals published within Arabic-speaking countries are predominantly produced in Egypt, Iraq, and Sudan. Electronic access is lacking compared with English-speaking countries, and there is a lack of journals with an Arabic-language option. The reasons associated with language options in veterinary publications are not immediately apparent, yet may highlight differences among public health, health education, and zoonotic professionals and the populations they serve. Veterinary journals in Arabic-speaking countries do not adequately represent the overall region and are limited in access. Further evaluation of regional culture and publisher preferences is indicated to identify new collaboration opportunities among health professionals and local stakeholders. Copyright © 2017 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

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

2012-10-01

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

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2012-12-01

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

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…

Virtual slides in peer reviewed, open access medical publication.

PubMed

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

2011-12-19

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

Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial

PubMed Central

Cortés, J; Ribera, J M; Cardellach, F; Selva-O’Callaghan, A; Kostov, B; García, L; Cirugeda, L; Altman, D G; González, J A; Sànchez, J A; Miras, F; Urrutia, A; Fonollosa, V; Rey-Joly, C; Vilardell, M

2011-01-01

Objective To investigate the effect of an additional review based on reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT on quality of manuscripts. Design Masked randomised trial. Population Original research manuscripts submitted to the Medicina Clínica journal from May 2008 to April 2009 and considered suitable for publication. Intervention Control group: conventional peer reviews alone. Intervention group: conventional review plus an additional review looking for missing items from reporting guidelines. Outcomes Manuscript quality, assessed with a 5 point Likert scale (primary: overall quality; secondary: average quality of specific items in paper). Main analysis compared groups as allocated, after adjustment for baseline factors (analysis of covariance); sensitivity analysis compared groups as reviewed. Adherence to reviewer suggestions assessed with Likert scale. Results Of 126 consecutive papers receiving conventional review, 34 were not suitable for publication. The remaining 92 papers were allocated to receive conventional reviews alone (n=41) or additional reviews (n=51). Four papers assigned to the conventional review group deviated from protocol; they received an additional review based on reporting guidelines. We saw an improvement in manuscript quality in favour of the additional review group (comparison as allocated, 0.25, 95% confidence interval –0.05 to 0.54; as reviewed, 0.33, 0.03 to 0.63). More papers with additional reviews than with conventional reviews alone improved from baseline (22 (43%) v eight (20%), difference 23.6% (3.2% to 44.0%), number needed to treat 4.2 (from 2.3 to 31.2), relative risk 2.21 (1.10 to 4.44)). Authors in the additional review group adhered more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews (average increase 0.43 Likert points (0.19 to 0.67)). Conclusions Additional reviews based on reporting guidelines improve manuscript quality, although the observed effect was smaller than

Testing the Rebound Peer Review Concept

PubMed Central

Choi, Augustine M.K.

2013-01-01

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

Decoupling the scholarly journal

PubMed Central

Priem, Jason; Hemminger, Bradley M.

2011-01-01

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

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…

Acknowledgement of reviewer services to the International Journal Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

van der Meer, Freek

2017-06-01

Peer review is the backbone of the scientific process. In 2016 a total of 866 scientist provided reviewer services for the International Journal Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. Frequent reviewers receive a recognition from the publisher in form of a Certificate of Outstanding Contribution in Reviewing and receive a 30 days free access to Scopus and ScienceDirect. More importantly they gain first hand insight into the latest developments in science as they are the first to read exciting new scientific papers. Nevertheless it is hard to find reviewers as the number of papers submitted to our journal has increased substantially over the last years and more remote sensing journals are put in the market each year. We are grateful to all those individuals that have devoted their precious time to reviewing papers for JAG. This has improved the quality of our communications which is well reflected in the number of citations our papers receive and the impact factor of the journal. JAG ranks third of all 28 remote sensing journals not the least because of the quality of the reviews we provide. As a token of our appreciation it is my pleasure to thank all reviewers that were active in 2016 on behalf of the editorial board, the associate editors, the Publisher and myself as Editor-in-Chief of JAG. To honor them we list all reviewers that provide four or more reviews in 2016:

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

PubMed

d'Othée, Bertrand Janne; Haskal, Ziv J

2013-10-01

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

On the Need for Quantitative Bias Analysis in the Peer-Review Process.

PubMed

Fox, Matthew P; Lash, Timothy L

2017-05-15

Peer review is central to the process through which epidemiologists generate evidence to inform public health and medical interventions. Reviewers thereby act as critical gatekeepers to high-quality research. They are asked to carefully consider the validity of the proposed work or research findings by paying careful attention to the methodology and critiquing the importance of the insight gained. However, although many have noted problems with the peer-review system for both manuscripts and grant submissions, few solutions have been proposed to improve the process. Quantitative bias analysis encompasses all methods used to quantify the impact of systematic error on estimates of effect in epidemiologic research. Reviewers who insist that quantitative bias analysis be incorporated into the design, conduct, presentation, and interpretation of epidemiologic research could substantially strengthen the process. In the present commentary, we demonstrate how quantitative bias analysis can be used by investigators and authors, reviewers, funding agencies, and editors. By utilizing quantitative bias analysis in the peer-review process, editors can potentially avoid unnecessary rejections, identify key areas for improvement, and improve discussion sections by shifting from speculation on the impact of sources of error to quantification of the impact those sources of bias may have had. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

[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.

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

PubMed

Cleaton-Jones, P

2008-03-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

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

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…

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.

The effect of peer review on mortality rates.

PubMed

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

2016-10-01

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

Peer Review: Promoting Efficient School District Operations

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hale, Jason S.

2010-01-01

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

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…

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

2015 Peer Review Report

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

None, None

In the spring and summer of 2015, the Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO or the Office) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) implemented an external peer review of the projects in its research, development and demonstration (RD&D) portfolio. The Office manages a diverse portfolio of technologies across the spectrum of applied RD&D within the dynamic context of changing budgets and Administration priorities. The Office portfolio is organized according to the biomass-to-bioenergy supply chain—from the feedstock source to the end user (see Figure 1)—with major focus on feedstock supply and biomass conversion. The 2015 Project Peer Review took place March 23-27,more » 2015, outside of Washington, D.C., in Alexandria, Virginia, and evaluated most of the publicly funded projects in BETO’s portfolio. The subsequent Program Management Review took place on June 25, 2015, in Washington, D.C., and provided an Office- level assessment of strategic planning and programmatic initiatives. The peer review process enables external stakeholders to provide feedback on the responsible use of taxpayer funding and develop recommendations for the most efficient and effective ways to accelerate the development of an advanced bioenergy industry. The planning and execution of these reviews was completed over the course of 10 months, and this report includes the results of both events.« less

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

PubMed

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

2017-09-15

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2017-01-01

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

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

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…

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

PubMed

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

2018-03-27

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

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

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-04-01

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

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

PubMed

Moustafa, Khaled

2015-08-01

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

Virtual slides in peer reviewed, open access medical publication

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

1996-11-30

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

Peer Review: Structured, Informal, Confidential, Helpful!

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cassidy, Alice; Lee, Jack

2011-01-01

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

The mechanisms underpinning peer support: a literature review.

PubMed

Watson, Emma

2017-12-20

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

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

PubMed

Maisonneuve, Hervé

2012-09-01

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

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…

Advanced Practitioners Are Peers in Trauma Performance Improvement Peer Review.

PubMed

Collins, Tara Ann; Sicoutris, Corinna P; McNicholas, Amanda; Krumrie, Nicole; Eddinger, Abby; Fernandez, Forrest B; Schwab, C William; Reilly, Patrick M; Kim, Patrick K

2016-01-01

Advanced practitioners (APs) have been successfully integrated into the clinical care of injured patients. Given the expanding role of APs in trauma care, we hypothesized that APs can perform Performance Improvement and Patient Safety (PIPS) peer review at a level comparable with trauma surgeons. For Phase 1, cases previously reviewed by a trauma surgeon were randomly selected by the PIPS coordinator and peer reviewed by an AP. The trauma surgeons' and APs' reviews were compared. For Phase 2, cases requiring concurrent review were peer reviewed by both an AP and an MD, who were blinded to each other's review. Both the APs' and trauma surgeons' reviews of the same medical record were presented at a bimonthly performance improvement (PI) meeting. In Phase 1, 46 PI cases were reviewed including 22 deaths. Trauma surgeons and APs had high concordance (96.0%) regarding appropriateness or inappropriateness of care (κ = 0.774). Among disagreements, APs were 3 times more likely than trauma surgeons to determine care to be inappropriate. Trauma surgeons and APs had similarly high concordance (95.5%) regarding preventability of mortality (κ = 0.861). In Phase 2, 38 PI cases were reviewed, including 31 deaths. Trauma surgeons and APs had high concordance (89.0%) regarding appropriateness or inappropriateness of care (κ = 0.585). Among disagreements, trauma surgeons and APs had similarly high concordance (86.2%) regarding preventability of mortality (κ = 0.266). We found that APs had high concordance with trauma surgeons regarding medical record reviews and are thus able to effectively review medical records for the purposes of PIPS.

Peer Review in Radiology: A Resident and Fellow Perspective.

PubMed

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

2016-02-01

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

Detailed prospective peer review in a community radiation oncology clinic.

PubMed

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

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

A re-audit of the use of definitions of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in peer-reviewed literature.

PubMed

Byard, Roger W; Lee, Vivian

2012-11-01

The use of different definitions of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) may make comparison of data among studies difficult. Fifty randomly selected papers dealing with SIDS that were published between 2010 and 2011 in peer-reviewed journals were reviewed to determine whether one of three internationally accepted definitions of SIDS had been either written in the text or referenced. A significant improvement in the use of definitions has occurred since 2005, with the percentage of papers either quoting or referencing a standard definition increasing by 26%, from 42 to 68%. The 1989 NICHD definition remained the most commonly used definition (35.1%) followed by the 2004 San Diego definition (26.3%). Although the percentage of papers where either no definition was provided or where an idiosyncratic or mis-cited definition was used fell 26%, from 58 to 32%, nearly one in three papers published on SIDS in peer-reviewed journals that were included in this study still did not cite a standard definition. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

Adolescence and early adulthood are critical periods for the development of mental disorders. Online peer-to-peer communication is popular among young people and may improve mental health by providing social support. Previous systematic reviews have targeted Internet support groups for adults with mental health problems, including depression. However, there have been no systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of online peer-to-peer support in improving the mental health of adolescents and young adults. The aim of this review was to systematically identify available evidence for the effectiveness of online peer-to peer support for young people with mental health problems. The PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane databases were searched using keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Retrieved abstracts (n=3934) were double screened and coded. Studies were included if they (1) investigated an online peer-to-peer interaction, (2) the interaction discussed topics related to mental health, (3) the age range of the sample was between 12 to 25 years, and (4) the study evaluated the effectiveness of the peer-to-peer interaction. Six studies satisfied the inclusion criteria for the current review. The studies targeted a range of mental health problems including depression and anxiety (n=2), general psychological problems (n=1), eating disorders (n=1), and substance use (tobacco) (n=2). The majority of studies investigated Internet support groups (n=4), and the remaining studies focused on virtual reality chat sessions (n=2). In almost all studies (n=5), the peer support intervention was moderated by health professionals, researchers or consumers. Studies employed a range of study designs including randomized controlled trials (n=3), pre-post studies (n=2) and one randomized trial. Overall, two of the randomized controlled trials were associated with a significant positive outcome in comparison to the control group at post-intervention. In the remaining four

Peer Review as a Strategy for Improving Students' Writing Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Baker, Kimberly M.

2016-01-01

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

Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in humans: characterising the research journal literature for systematic review.

PubMed

Mathie, Robert T; Hacke, Daniela; Clausen, Jürgen; Nicolai, Ton; Riley, David S; Fisher, Peter

2013-01-01

A new programme of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy will distinguish important attributes of RCT records, including: placebo controlled versus other-than-placebo (OTP) controlled; individualised versus non-individualised homeopathy; peer-reviewed (PR) versus non peer-reviewed (NPR) sources. (a) To outline the methods used to search and categorise the RCT literature; (b) to report details of the records retrieved; (c) to compare our retrieved records with those reported in two previous systematic reviews (Linde et al., 1997; Shang et al., 2005). Ten major electronic databases were searched for records published up to the end of 2011. A record was accepted for subsequent systematic review if it was a substantive report of a clinical trial of homeopathic treatment or prophylaxis in humans, randomised and controlled, and published in a PR or NPR journal. 489 records were potentially eligible: 226 were rejected as non-journal, minor or repeat publications, or lacking randomisation and/or controls and/or a 'homeopathic' intervention; 263 (164 PR, 99 NPR) were acceptable for systematic review. The 263 accepted records comprised 217 (137 PR, 80 NPR) placebo-controlled RCTs, of which 121 were included by, 66 were published after, and 30 were potentially eligible for, but not listed by, Linde or Shang. The 137 PR records of placebo-controlled RCTs comprise 41 on individualised homeopathy and 96 on non-individualised homeopathy. Our findings clarify the RCT literature in homeopathy. The 263 accepted journal papers will be the basis for our forthcoming programme of systematic reviews. Copyright © 2012 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

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

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…

Successful peer review of courses: a case study.

PubMed

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

1998-03-01

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

Problems and challenges of predatory journals.

PubMed

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

2018-05-05

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

Appendix G: Peer review nondisclosure agreement

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

None, None

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

Mentored peer reviewing for PhD faculty and students.

PubMed

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

2016-02-01

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

Making the First Cut: An Analysis of Academic Medicine Editors' Reasons for Not Sending Manuscripts Out for External Peer Review.

PubMed

Meyer, Holly S; Durning, Steven J; Sklar, David P; Maggio, Lauren A

2018-03-01

Manuscripts submitted to Academic Medicine (AM) undergo an internal editor review to determine whether they will be sent for external peer review. Increasingly, manuscripts are rejected at this early stage. This study seeks to inform scholars about common reasons for internal editor review rejections, increase transparency of the process, and provide suggestions for improving submissions. A mixed-methods approach was used to retrospectively analyze editors' free-text comments. Descriptive content analysis was performed of editors' comments for 369 manuscripts submitted between December 2014 and December 2015, and rejected prior to external peer review from AM. Comments were analyzed, categorized, and counted for explicit reasons for rejection. Nine categories of rejection reasons were identified: ineffective study question and/or design (338; 92%); suboptimal data collection process (180; 49%); weak discussion and/or conclusions (139; 37%); unimportant or irrelevant topic to the journal's mission (137; 37%); weak data analysis and/or presentation of results (120; 33%); text difficult to follow, to understand (89; 24%); inadequate or incomplete introduction (67; 18%); other publishing considerations (42; 11%); and issues with scientific conduct (20; 5%). Manuscripts had, on average, three or more reasons for rejection. Findings suggest that clear identification of a research question that is addressed by a well-designed study methodology on a topic aligned with the mission of the journal would address many of the problems that lead to rejection through the internal review process. The findings also align with research on external peer review.

Writing a journal article: guidance for novice authors.

PubMed

Price, Bob

2014-05-06

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

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…

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.

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

PubMed

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

2011-12-01

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

Water Peer Review

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

None

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.

Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Full Report

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

none,

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

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

PubMed

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

2014-01-01

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

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…

2017 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Report

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

None, None

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

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

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-12-01

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

48 CFR 201.170 - Peer Reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

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

48 CFR 201.170 - Peer Reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

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…

Biomedical journal speed and efficiency: a cross-sectional pilot survey of author experiences.

PubMed

Wallach, Joshua D; Egilman, Alexander C; Gopal, Anand D; Swami, Nishwant; Krumholz, Harlan M; Ross, Joseph S

2018-01-01

Although the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow, too expensive, too unreliable, and too static. In this feasibility study, we sought to survey corresponding authors of recently published clinical research studies on the speed and efficiency of the publication process. Web-based survey of corresponding authors of a 20% random sample of clinical research studies in MEDLINE-indexed journals with Ovid MEDLINE entry dates between December 1 and 15, 2016. Survey addressed perceived manuscript importance before first submission, approximate first submission and final acceptance dates, and total number of journal submissions, external peer reviews, external peer reviewers, and revisions requested, as well as whether authors would have considered publicly sharing their manuscript on an online platform instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal. Of 1780 surveys distributed, 27 corresponding authors opted out or requested that we stop emailing them and 149 emails failed (e.g., emails that bounced n  = 64, returned with an away from office message n  = 70, or were changed/incorrect n  = 15), leaving 1604 respondents, of which 337 completed the survey (21.0%). Respondents and non-respondents were similar with respect to study type and publication journals' impact factor, although non-respondent authors had more publications ( p  = 0.03). Among respondents, the median impact factor of the publications' journal was 2.7 (interquartile range (IQR), 2.0-3.6) and corresponding authors' median h-index and number of publications was 9 (IQR, 3-20) and 27 (IQR, 10-77), respectively. The median time from first submission to journal acceptance and publication was 5 months (IQR, 3-8) and 7 months (IQR, 5-12), respectively. Most respondents (62.0%, n  = 209) rated the importance of their research as a 4 or 5 (5-point

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…

7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals.

PubMed

Björk, Bo-Christer

2011-12-16

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

A Study of Innovative Features in Scholarly Open Access Journals

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

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

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…

"Medical Education Online": A Case Study of an Open Access Journal in Health Professional Education

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Solomon, David J.

2007-01-01

Introduction: The development of the World Wide Web (WWW) has made it possible of small groups of colleagues or even single individuals to create peer-reviewed scholarly journals. This paper discusses the development of Medical Education Online (MEO) an open access peer-reviewed journal in health professional education. Description: MEO was first…

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

PubMed

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

2011-01-01

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

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…

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