Science.gov

Sample records for peer reviewed journal

  1. Predatory Journals, Peer Review, and Education Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Beall, Jeffrey

    2017-01-01

    This commentary examines the problem of predatory journals, low-quality open-access journals that seek to earn revenue from scholarly authors without following scholarly publishing best practices. Seeking to accept as many papers as possible, they typically do not perform a standard peer review, leading to the publication of improperly vetted…

  2. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals.

    PubMed

    Dimitroulis, G

    2011-12-01

    Writing a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a rewarding experience but a very difficult undertaking that requires years of experience, determination and patience. The exponential rise of knowledge has resulted in the exponential rise of manuscripts submitted for publication in the various peer-reviewed journals all over the world. Potential authors are not only having to write high-quality papers to get published, but also have to compete with other authors for the limited journal space available to publish their papers. The purpose of this article is to highlight some of the ways of making the task of getting published in peer-reviewed journals easier to achieve.

  3. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Ford, Emily

    2015-01-01

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

  5. Accelerated Peer-Review Journal Usage Technique for Undergraduates

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Wallace, J. D.

    2008-01-01

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

  6. Peer reviews and the role of a journal editor

    Technology Transfer Automated Retrieval System (TEKTRAN)

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

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

  8. 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.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cullen, David J.; Macaulay, Anne

    1992-01-01

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

  10. A new age of peer reviewed scientific journals.

    PubMed

    Adler, John R

    2012-01-01

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

  11. A new age of peer reviewed scientific journals

    PubMed Central

    Adler, John R.

    2012-01-01

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

  12. Improving your journal article using feedback from peer review.

    PubMed

    Price, Bob

    2014-09-30

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

  13. On becoming a peer reviewer for a neuropsychology journal.

    PubMed

    Duff, Kevin; O'Bryant, Sid E; Westervelt, Holly James; Sweet, Jerry J; Reynolds, Cecil R; van Gorp, Wilfred G; Tranel, Daniel; McCaffrey, Robert J

    2009-05-01

    The peer-review process is an invaluable service provided by the professional community, and it provides the critical foundation for the advancement of science. However, there is remarkably little systematic guidance for individuals who wish to become part of this process. This paper, written from the perspective of reviewers and editors with varying levels of experience, provides general guidelines and advice for new reviewers in neuropsychology, as well as outlining benefits of participation in this process. It is hoped that the current information will encourage individuals at all levels to become involved in peer-reviewing for neuropsychology journals.

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Wicherts, Jelte M.

    2016-01-01

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

  16. 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.

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

    PubMed

    Grant, Maria J

    2014-12-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Jawaid, Shaukat A

    2004-01-01

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

  19. 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

  20. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals.

    PubMed

    Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Kitas, George D

    2012-08-01

    Current scholarly publications heavily rely on high quality peer review. Peer review, albeit imperfect, is aimed at improving science writing and editing. Evidence supporting peer review as a guarantor of the quality of biomedical publications is currently lacking. Its outcomes are largely dependent on the credentials of the reviewers. Several lines of evidence suggest that predictors of the best contributors to the process include affiliation to a good University and proper research training. Though the options to further improve peer review are currently limited, experts are in favor of formal education and courses on peer review for all contributors to this process. Long-term studies are warranted to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

  1. Peer review and journal impact factor: the two pillars of contemporary medical publishing

    PubMed Central

    Triaridis, S; Kyrgidis, A

    2010-01-01

    The appraisal of scientific quality is a particularly difficult problem. Editorial boards resort to secondary criteria including crude publication counts, journal prestige, the reputation of authors and institutions, and estimated importance and relevance of the research field, making peer review a controversial rather than a rigorous process. On this background different methods for evaluating research may become required, including citation rates and journal impact factors (IF), which are thought to be more quantitative and objective indicators, directly related to published science. The aim of this review is to go into the two pillars of contemporary medical publishing, that is the peer review process and the IF. Qualified experts' reviewing the publications appears to be the only way for the evaluation of medical publication quality. To improve and standardise the principles, procedures and criteria used in peer review evaluation is of great importance. Standardizing and improving training techniques for peer reviewers, would allow for the magnification of a journal's impact factor. This may be a very important reason that impact factor and peer review need to be analyzed simultaneously. Improving a journal's IF would be difficult without improving peer-review efficiency. Peer-reviewers need to understand the fundamental principles of contemporary medical publishing, that is peer-review and impact factors. The current supplement of the Hippokratia for supporting its seminar for reviewers will help to fulfil some of these scopes. PMID:21487485

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2010-01-01

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

  3. Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.

    PubMed

    Bayne, Stephen C; McGivney, Glen P; Mazer, Sarah C

    2003-02-01

    This article provides an extensive tutorial for writers and reviewers involved with the preparation and evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication in dental journals. The contents were compiled from the Instructions for Authors printed in various peer-reviewed dental journals and from feedback from 10 workshops conducted for the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. The 10 major sections of a scientific manuscript are reviewed in detail in terms of content, format, and common errors; examples of good content are provided. The review process is described, and instructions on conducting fair and expeditious manuscript evaluations are provided for reviewers. In addition, a number of special topics are addressed, including potential conflicts of interest for an author, institutional review of experiments that involve human subjects or animals, and the reproduction of photographs and other images in color versus black and white. In summary, this article presents key guidelines to ensure compliance with the principles of sound scientific writing and the expeditious review of manuscripts prepared for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Porter, Stephen R.

    2007-01-01

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

  5. 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.

  6. Loose connections between peer-reviewed clinical journals and clinical practice.

    PubMed

    Haynes, R B

    1990-11-01

    Many important advances in medical care are first reported in the biomedical literature, but physicians find the literature overwhelming and, therefore, are often unaware of advances. This article examines the ways in which peer-reviewed clinical journals contribute to this problem and proposes some solutions for both their editors and clinical readers. Peer-reviewed clinical journals impede the dissemination of validated advances to practitioners by mixing a few rigorous studies (communications from scientists to practitioners) with many preliminary investigations (communications from scientists to scientists). Journals wishing to improve communication with practitioners should feature rigorous studies of the nature, cause, prognosis, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of disease and should feature sound clinical review articles (communications from practitioners to practitioners). Additional strategies for improving communication between medical scientists and practitioners include improving publication standards for clinical journals, proving more informative abstracts for clinical articles, fostering the development of derivative literature services, and enhancing practitioners' skills in critically appraising the medical literature.

  7. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Elmore, Susan A

    2016-02-01

    A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that have a significant impact on the process and its outcome. We consider some of the steps editors should take to promote quality, fairness and integrity in different stages of the peer review process and make some recommendations for editorial conduct and decision-making.

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-10-14

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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…

  12. Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers.

    PubMed

    Hrynaszkiewicz, Iain; Norton, Melissa L; Vickers, Andrew J; Altman, Douglas G

    2010-01-29

    In recognition of the benefits of transparent reporting, many peer-reviewed journals require that their authors be prepared to share their raw, unprocessed data with other scientists and/or state the availability of raw data in published articles. But little information on how data should be prepared for publication - or sharing - has emerged. In clinical research patient privacy and consent for use of personal health information are key considerations, but agreed-upon definitions of what constitutes anonymised patient information do not appear to have been established. We aim to address this issue by providing practical guidance for those involved in the publication process, by proposing a minimum standard for de-identifying datasets for the purposes of publication in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal, or sharing with other researchers. Basic advice on file preparation is provided along with procedural guidance on prospective and retrospective publication of raw data, with an emphasis on randomised controlled trials.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Widanski, Bozena Barbara; Courtright-Nash, Debra

    2006-01-01

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

  14. 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.

  15. [The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: characteristics of "Elite" reviewers].

    PubMed

    Alfonso, F

    2010-01-01

    The "peer-review" system is used to improve the quality of submitted scientific papers and provides invaluable help to the Editors in their decision-making process. The "peer-review" system remains the cornerstone of the scientific process and, therefore, its quality should be closely monitored. The profile of the "elite" reviewers has been described, but further studies are warranted to better identify their main characteristics. A major challenge, not only for Editors but also for medical scientific societies as a whole, is to continue to guarantee the excellence in the "peer-review" process and to ensure that it receives adequate academic recognition.

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. How long is the peer review process for journal manuscripts? A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition.

    PubMed

    Bornmann, Lutz; Daniel, Hans-Dieter

    2010-01-01

    One of the most frequently raised criticisms of the review process for manuscripts is that the length of time between submission of a manuscript and the editorial decision is overly long. Taking the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition as an example and based on nearly 2000 manuscripts, the present study examined just how long the peer review process takes.

  1. 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.

  2. Peer review.

    PubMed

    Micheli, A J; Modest, S

    1995-06-01

    Peer review is a major component of a professional practice and shared governance model in which professional staff nurses are given responsibility for practice and patient outcomes. Careful planning is necessary for the development of a peer-review program. Components include definition of roles, responsibilities, and performance standards, as well as the development of an evaluation tool and process. Peer review affords nurses many opportunities for growth and development and allows them to develop communication, evaluation, and presentation skills. The concept of peer review may expand to meet the needs of changing health-care delivery models.

  3. The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor.

    PubMed

    Jones, Alan Wayne

    2007-01-17

    This article presents information about journals specializing in the forensic sciences and legal medicine, their development and distribution and their current status as reflected in the journal impact factor. The first scientific journal devoted to spreading information and reporting new developments in social and legal medicine seemingly originated in Germany about 150 years ago. The official journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFS) was founded in 1956 and has enjoyed 50 years of scholarly publishing. The two leading European journals specializing in forensics are Forensic Science International (FSI) and International Journal of Legal Medicine (IJLM). Besides the size of the circulation, the readership numbers, the quality of the editorial staff and the peer-reviewers, the number of submitted and accepted manuscripts, considerable interest has focused on the journal's impact factor as a measure of prestige. The 2006 impact factor of a certain journal is derived by counting the number of citations in 2006 to all material published in the journal in the previous 2 years (2004 and 2005) and dividing this total by the number of citable items (articles and reviews) published in the same 2 years. Impact factors for several thousand scientific journals are compiled and published by a company called Thomson Institute for Scientific Information (Thomson ISI) and are available on-line via the database Journal Citation Reports. Forensic journals are grouped within the subject category Medicine, Legal, which currently comprises nine journals a few of which are seemingly unrelated to mainstream forensics. The top-ranked forensic journal in terms of its impact factor was IJLM with a score of just over 2.0 in 2004. This means that the average article published in 2003 and 2002 was cited twice per year in the 2-year window after publication. Impact factors of forensic journals are fairly low in comparison with many other

  4. 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…

  5. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2016-08-01

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2013-08-21

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

  10. 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…

  11. 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

  12. 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…

  13. Thanking our peer reviewers

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

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

  14. 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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kumashiro, Kevin K.

    2005-01-01

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

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. Peer Reviewers of Academic Journals: Who Is Responsible for Our Professional Literature

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Francis, Mary

    2013-01-01

    Scholarly journals provide a record of the research, issues, and concerns of a field. Authors have their names associated with their individual articles, while editors are connected with a publication. However, there is another group of individuals who are often left out of the record, although their contributions are just as critical in the…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Tuten, Holly; Temesvari, Lesly

    2013-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rodriquez-Kiino, Diane

    2012-01-01

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

  1. Evaluation for citation metrics and peer reviewer acknowledgments

    PubMed Central

    Green, Bart N.

    2016-01-01

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

  2. Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2014-06-01

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

  3. The "Peer" in "Peer Review"

    USGS Publications Warehouse

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

    2011-01-01

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

  4. 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.

  5. Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review?

    PubMed

    Allen, Thomas Wesley

    2013-12-01

    Peer review is essential to the quality of scientific publications. As the volume of submissions to these journals increases, the need for an expanding cadre of trained reviewers also increases. Many reviewers do not receive formal training on conducting a peer review or education on the peer review process, however. The author presents an overview of the peer review process and provides guidance for conducting high-quality reviews of manuscripts submitted to The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association and other scientific journals.

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ausloos, Marcel

    2015-11-01

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

  7. PEER REVIEW PROGRAM

    SciTech Connect

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

    2007-09-29

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

  8. 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…

  9. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

    PubMed Central

    Saper, Clifford B; Maunsell, John HR; Sagvolden, Terje

    2009-01-01

    The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) was conceived in the summer of 2007 at a meeting of editors and publishers of neuroscience journals. One of the working groups addressed whether it was possible to construct a system for permitting authors whose manuscript received supportive reviews at one journal but was not accepted to send a revised manuscript together with its first round of reviews to a new journal for the second round. This would speed up the review process and reduce the work for reviewers and editors. The working group not only designed a framework for transferring reviews among journals, but also implemented it as the NPRC. By the fall of 2007, more than a dozen major journals had signed onto the NPRC, sufficient to launch the experiment in January, 2008. We invite authors who have not yet used the NPRC to try this method for appropriate manuscripts. 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:19149887

  10. Responsible authorship and peer review.

    PubMed

    Wilson, James R

    2002-04-01

    In this article the basic principles of responsible authorship and peer review are surveyed, with special emphasis on (a) guidelines for refereeing archival journal articles and proposals; and (b) how these guidelines should be taken into account at all stages of writing.

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

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

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

  12. 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.

  13. 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…

  14. 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

  15. Peer review of teaching.

    PubMed

    Fernandez, Charles E; Yu, Jenny

    2007-01-01

    This article provides an overview and description of peer review of teaching for faculty members and administrators who would like to implement a peer review program. This may include classroom and clinical settings. A brief overview, procedure, and a teaching competence evaluation rubric are provided.

  16. 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…

  17. 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

  18. On Peer Review

    PubMed Central

    2016-01-01

    Purpose This letter briefly reviews ideas about the purpose and benefits of peer review and reaches some idealistic conclusions about the process. Method The author uses both literature review and meditation born of long experience. Results From a cynical perspective, peer review constitutes an adversarial process featuring domination of the weak by the strong and exploitation of authors and reviewers by editors and publishers, resulting in suppression of new ideas, delayed publication of important research, and bad feelings ranging from confusion to fury. More optimistically, peer review can be viewed as a system in which reviewers and editors volunteer thousands of hours to work together with authors, to the end of furthering human knowledge. Conclusion Editors and authors will encounter both peer-review cynics and idealists in their careers, but in the author's experience the second are far more prevalent. Reviewers and editors can help increase the positive benefits of peer review (and improve the culture of science) by viewing the system as one in which they work with authors on behalf of high-quality publications and better science. Authors can contribute by preparing papers carefully prior to submission and by interpreting reviewers' and editors' suggestions in this collegial spirit, however difficult this may be in some cases. PMID:27333021

  19. EERE Peer Review Guide

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

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

  20. Issues in Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sawamura, Mark H.

    2001-01-01

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

  1. 'Peer review' culture.

    PubMed

    Atkinson, M

    2001-04-01

    A relatively high incidence of unsatisfactory review decisions is widely recognised and acknowledged as 'the peer review problem'. Factors contributing to this problem are identified and examined. Specific examples of unreasonable rejection are considered. It is concluded that weaknesses of the 'peer review' system are significant and that they are well known or readily recognisable but that necessary counter-measures are not always enforced. Careful management is necessary to discount hollow opinion or error in review comment. Review and referee functions should be quite separate.

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

    PubMed

    Hrynaszkiewicz, Iain; Cockerill, Matthew J

    2012-09-07

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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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…

  7. 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.

  8. 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…

  9. MELCOR Peer Review

    SciTech Connect

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

    1992-03-01

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

  10. The Benefits of Student-Led, Peer-Reviewed Journals in Enhancing Students' Engagement with the Academy

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Uigín, Dorothy Ní; Higgins, Noelle; McHale, Belinda

    2015-01-01

    Universities are under ever-increasing pressure from employers to provide some form of interaction with the real world, in order to develop student knowledge and to expand their skill sets (Gott, 1995), while academics are constantly looking for new ways to enhance students' engagement with the Academy. In this context, student-led journals have…

  11. Approaching Authentic Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Graff, Nelson

    2009-01-01

    Some scholars writing about improving students' reading and integrating reading and writing instruction suggest using think-aloud techniques to teach students reading comprehension skills. Using think-alouds to teach reading comprehension and then the read-aloud protocol technique (which is based on think-alouds) for peer review has two major…

  12. Water Peer Review

    SciTech Connect

    2014-05-02

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Ausloos, Marcel; Nedic, Olgica; Dekanski, Aleksandar

    2016-08-01

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

  14. Perchlorate Peer Review Frequent Questions

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

    EPA believes that peer review is an important component of the scientific process. EPA will ask peer reviewers to comment on products that the agency will use to derive a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for perchlorate.

  15. 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.

  16. Peer review statement

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2010-08-01

    All papers published in this Volume 12 of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the editors of the 25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems proceedings, Professor Romeo Susan-Resiga, Dr Sebastian Muntean and Dr Sandor Bernad. Reviews were conducted by expert referees from the Scientific 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 25th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems are: Anton ANTONTechnical University of Civil Engineering, BucharestRomania François AVELLANEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneSwitzerland Fidel ARZOLAEDELCAVenezuela Thomas ASCHENBRENNERVoith Hydro Gmb H & Co. KG, HeidenheimGermany Anton BERGANTLitostroj Power d.o.o., LjubljanaSlovenia Gerard BOISENSAM, LilleFrance Hermod BREKKENTNU, TrondheimNorway Stuart COULSON Voith Hydro Inc., YorkUSA Eduard EGUSQUIZAPolytechnical University Catalonia BarcelonaSpain Arpad FAYUniversity of MiskolczHungary Richard FISHERVoith Hydro Inc., York USA Regiane FORTES-PATELLAInstitut Polytechnique de GrenobleFrance Aleksandar GAJICUniversity of BelgradeSerbia Arno GEHRERAndritz Hydro GrazAustria José GONZÁLEZUniversidad de OviedoSpain François GUIBAULTEcole Polytechnique de MontrealCanada Chisachi KATOUniversity of TokyoJapan Kwang-Yong KIMInha University, IncheonKorea Jiri KOUTNIKVoith Hydro Gmb H & Co. KG, HeidenheimGermany Adrian LUNGUDunarea de Jos University of GalatiRomania Christophe NICOLETPower Vision Engineering Sàrl, LausanneSwitzerland Torbjøm K. NIELSENNTNU, TrodheimNorway Michihiro NISHIKyushu Institute of TechnologyJapan Maryse PAGEHydro Quebec IREQ, VarennesCanada Etienne PARKINSONAndritz Hydro LtdSwitzerland František POCHYLYBrno UniversityCzech Republic Stefan RIEDELBAUCHVoith Hydro Gmb H & Co. KG

  17. 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…

  18. Peer Review in the Classroom.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2002-01-01

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

  19. 2015 Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    None, None

    2016-03-01

    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, 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.

  20. Recommendations for pathology peer review.

    PubMed

    Morton, Daniel; Sellers, Rani S; Barale-Thomas, Erio; Bolon, Brad; George, Catherine; Hardisty, Jerry F; Irizarry, Armando; McKay, Jennifer S; Odin, Marielle; Teranishi, Munehiro

    2010-12-01

    Pathology peer review verifies and improves the accuracy and quality of pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Pathology peer review is recommended when important risk assessment or business decisions are based on nonclinical studies. For pathology peer review conducted before study completion, the peer-review pathologist reviews sufficient slides and pathology data to assist the study pathologist in refining pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Materials to be reviewed are selected by the peer-review pathologist. Consultations with additional experts or a formal (documented) pathology working group may be used to resolve discrepancies. The study pathologist is solely responsible for the content of the final pathology data and report, makes changes resulting from peer-review discussions, initiates the audit trail for microscopic observations after all changes resulting from peer-review have been made, and signs the final pathologist's report. The peer-review pathologist creates a signed peer-review memo describing the peer-review process and confirming that the study pathologist's report accurately and appropriately reflects the pathology data. The study pathologist also may sign a statement of consensus. It is not necessary to archive working notes created during the peer-review process.

  1. Publications and the peer review system

    Technology Transfer Automated Retrieval System (TEKTRAN)

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

  2. Peer review: from recognition to improved practices.

    PubMed

    Cintas, Pedro

    2016-06-01

    Scientific publishing has experienced profound changes in recent years, such as the advent of open-access journals, the increasing use of preprint archives or post-publication blogs, to name a few. One pillar still remains: peer review as a key ingredient that, in most cases, contributes to clarity and quality, often detecting errors and misinterpretations. Unfortunately, peer review is poorly recognized and good reviewers are rather a 'rare avis'. Even worse, this necessary task in science is generally overlooked in curricula and post-graduate education. Some considerations should help us all to ameliorate greatly our understanding and duties.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2013-01-01

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

  4. CONTAIN independent peer review

    SciTech Connect

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

    1995-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Warner, J. S.

    2010-01-01

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

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

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2006-05-31

    2004 Jun 07;32(10):3124-35. Print 2004. Daucourt, V, Michel , P. Results of the first 100 accreditation procedures in France INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL...Vol 30, Iss 2, pp 197-210 Michell AR. Blood pressure measurement. Single measurements would not withstand 21st century peer review. BMJ. 2001 Oct...6;323(7316):805-6. . Michels -R, "Peer-Review", INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHO- ANALYSIS, 1995, Vol 76, Iss APR, pp 217-221 Middleton S, Lumby J

  7. Peer review in cardiothoracic radiology.

    PubMed

    Kanne, Jeffrey P

    2014-09-01

    A variety of peer review methods can be used as part of quality assurance and quality improvement in cardiothoracic radiology. Traditionally, peer review in radiology is a retrospective process relying primarily on review of previously interpreted studies at the time of follow-up or additional imaging. However, peer review can be enhanced with other methods such as double reads, focused practice review, practice audit, and correlation with operative and pathologic findings. Furthermore, feedback from referring physicians can be extremely useful in improving the quality of a radiology practice. This article discusses peer review in radiology with a focus on cardiothoracic imaging. Types of peer review, advantages and shortcomings, and future challenges are addressed.

  8. 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…

  9. 2011 OBP Peer Review Portal

    SciTech Connect

    2012-01-04

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

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

    PubMed

    Stahel, Philip F; Moore, Ernest E

    2014-09-26

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

  11. Rebound peer review: a viable recourse for aggrieved authors?

    PubMed

    Sen, Chandan K

    2012-02-15

    Scholarly peer review represents the linchpin of academic publishing. Recognized benefits of the peer review system are manifold. Critics raise several valid concerns that deserve attention. Several studies show that the current peer review system lacks robustness and is subject to bias in favor of well-established research groups and "mainstream" theories. Hypotheses that harmonize with that of the leaders in the field are more likely to be accepted for publication in prestigious journals than heretic or radical ones. Then, there is the risk posed by the potentially unscrupulous reviewer. Alternatives to traditional peer review have been tried but the outcomes fall much short of expectations. Postreview rejection can be equally frustrating for the author and editor particularly when they are victims of limitations of the blinded forms of review. To provide recourse for authors who felt that their work has been rejected not because of the quality of science but because of the constraints of the peer review system, ARS introduces a rebound track for peer review ( www.liebertpub.com/ars ). The rebound peer review track is a two-tier process that represents a hybrid of partially blinded and open peer review systems. The goal is to make sure that every author has the opportunity to rescue their rejected work which they feel may have been victimized by the glitches of the current peer review system. I invite affected authors to make full use of this experimental mechanism so we know whether the rebound peer review should prevail as a viable recourse.

  12. The examination of peer review and publication in neurology.

    PubMed

    Wong, Victoria S S

    2010-10-01

    Despite remarkable growth in the clinical neurology literature, there is little research on peer review and biomedical publication in neurology. Biomedical publication research encompasses every step of the research process, from the methodology to the publication of research findings. Some general medical journals have served as leaders in improving scientific publication. Many medical fields have taken it upon themselves to characterize journals and peer reviewers within their own fields. Not all of these data can be applied to the clinical neurology literature; research methodologies, article types, and the journals themselves are unique to every medical field. This article reviews current publication research in the neurology literature and concludes that, to sustain and improve upon the integrity of clinical neurology research, further study is needed of the journals and the peer review process in neurology. Otherwise, the value of clinical research findings and patient care guidelines will be diminished.

  13. Mentoring Academic Journal Reviewers: Brokering Reviewing Knowledge

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Adamson, John

    2012-01-01

    This paper reports on an ongoing programme to develop new academic journal reviewers through mentoring. It analyses data from correspondence between experienced reviewer/mentors and new reviewer/mentees at an online journal. With the overlying objective of improving internal review quality, the mentoring programme has been initiated to raise…

  14. 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…

  15. Science, Policy, and Peer Review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Kennedy, D.

    2006-12-01

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

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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.

  19. Journalism and Institutional Review Boards

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dash, Leon

    2007-01-01

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

  20. 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…

  1. 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

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

    PubMed

    Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara; Adeli, Khosrow

    2014-10-01

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

  3. Upon Further Review: Peer Process Vital to Publishing.

    PubMed

    Katz, Anne

    2016-11-01

    Peer review is one of the hallmarks of professional publishing and one that I appreciate every day in my work as editor of this journal. I simply could not do this work without reviewers, and all of my editor colleagues across the globe would agree. I have been a reviewer for various journals for many years, and now, as editor of the Oncology Nursing Forum, I am even more aware of how important my reviews are for others. Just this morning, I reviewed a manuscript-for a noncompeting journal, of course-and as I entered my comments, I thought about what I, as editor, would find useful.
.

  4. 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.

  5. The Dedisciplining of Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Frodeman, Robert; Briggle, Adam

    2012-01-01

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

  6. A quick guide to writing a solid peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Nicholas, Kimberly A.; Gordon, Wendy S.

    2011-07-01

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

  7. 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…

  8. 48 CFR 201.170 - 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. 201.170... Procurement and Acquisition Policy, will organize teams of reviewers and facilitate Peer Reviews for solicitations and contracts valued at $1 billion or more, as follows: (i) Pre-award Peer Reviews will...

  9. Independent Peer Reviews

    SciTech Connect

    2012-03-16

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

  10. 2009 Water Power Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Murphy, Michael; Higgins, Mark; Reed, Mike

    2011-04-01

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

  11. [A guide to the peer review of scientific papers].

    PubMed

    Giunta, R E; Prommersberger, K-J

    2012-08-01

    The "peer-review" of scientific manuscripts is an honorable and important task to optimize the quality of a medical journal. The reviewer has the following 2 tasks: first, to provide to the editor an overall assessment of the manuscript and make a recommendation regarding the acceptance, revision or rejection of a scientific manuscript. Second, to supply the authors with objective and constructive criticism and also with detailed suggestions for improvement of a manuscript -aiming to improve its scientific quality.The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations for a systematic assessment in order to further improve the quality of the peer review process. Both general principles specific criteria are addressed. Our target is to further enhance the academic value of the journal Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, Plastische Chirurgie by optimizing the peer review process.

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

    PubMed

    Guilford, W H

    2001-12-01

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

  13. Research & Librarianship. Research and Practice in Academic Libraries: A Case Study; The Current State of Public Library Research in Select Peer-Reviewed Journals: 1996-2000; From Research to Action in School Library Media Programs; Collaborative Authorship in 'North Carolina Libraries': Past, Present, and Future; Publications and Sinners: Research from the Church Library Perspective.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Foote, Margaret; DuBose, Stefanie; Durant, David; Hersberger, Julie; Demas, Christopher; Dickinson, Gail K.

    2001-01-01

    This section includes five articles on research and librarianship including a case study on research and practice in academic libraries; select peer-reviewed journals that examine the current state of public library research (1996-2000); development of research on school library media programs; benefits of collaborative authorship for librarians…

  14. 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 ...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. Reviewing post-publication peer review

    PubMed Central

    Knoepfler, Paul

    2015-01-01

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

  18. 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.

  19. 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).

  20. 28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 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 process....

  1. Peer Review of Launch Environments

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Wilson, Timmy R.

    2011-01-01

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

  2. 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…

  3. 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

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

    PubMed

    Faggion, C M

    2016-02-26

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

  5. Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals. II. An ARCH econometric-like modeling

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2017-02-01

    This paper aims at providing a statistical model for the preferred behavior of authors submitting a paper to a scientific journal. The electronic submission of (about 600) papers to the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society has been recorded for every day from Jan. 01, 2013 till Dec. 31, 2014, together with the acceptance or rejection paper fate. Seasonal effects and editor roles (through desk rejection and subfield editors) are examined. An ARCH-like econometric model is derived stressing the main determinants of the favorite day-of-week process.

  6. 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…

  7. A core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review.

    PubMed

    Onitilo, Adedayo A; Engel, Jessica M; Salzman-Scott, Sherry A; Stankowski, Rachel V; Doi, Suhail A R

    2014-01-01

    Manuscript peer review is essential for ensuring accountability to all involved in the publication process, including authors, journals, and readers. Lack of consensus regarding what constitutes an accountable manuscript peer review process has resulted in varying practices from one journal to the next. Currently, reviewers are asked to make global judgments about various aspects of a paper for review irrespective of whether guided by a review checklist or not, and several studies have documented gross disagreement between reviewers of the same manuscript. We have previously proposed that the solution may be to direct reviewers to concrete items that do not require global judgments but rather provide a specific choice, along with referee justification for such choices. This study evaluated use of such a system via an international survey of health care professionals who had recently reviewed a health care--related manuscript. Results suggest that use of such a peer review system by reviewers does indeed improve interreviewer agreement, and thus, has the potential to support more consistent and effective peer review, if introduced into journal processes for peer review.

  8. CDMRP: Fostering Innovation Through Peer Review

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2010-01-01

    objectives. Research proposals (applications) are reviewed using a two-tiered process that includes peer review panels that evaluate scientific merit...that will have an impact on the communities affected by the relevant illness, injury, or disorder. Scientific peer review is executed using a dynamic...CDMRP’s peer review processes support the organization’s mission to fund innovative, high-impact research.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

  12. Sealed source peer review plan

    SciTech Connect

    Feldman, Alexander; Leonard, Lee; Burns, Ron

    2009-01-01

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

  13. Evaluating the lexico-grammatical differences in the writing of native and non-native speakers of English in peer-reviewed medical journals in the field of pediatric oncology: Creation of the genuine index scoring system

    PubMed Central

    Gayle, Alberto Alexander; Shimaoka, Motomu

    2017-01-01

    Introduction The predominance of English in scientific research has created hurdles for “non-native speakers” of English. Here we present a novel application of native language identification (NLI) for the assessment of medical-scientific writing. For this purpose, we created a novel classification system whereby scoring would be based solely on text features found to be distinctive among native English speakers (NS) within a given context. We dubbed this the “Genuine Index” (GI). Methodology This methodology was validated using a small set of journals in the field of pediatric oncology. Our dataset consisted of 5,907 abstracts, representing work from 77 countries. A support vector machine (SVM) was used to generate our model and for scoring. Results Accuracy, precision, and recall of the classification model were 93.3%, 93.7%, and 99.4%, respectively. Class specific F-scores were 96.5% for NS and 39.8% for our benchmark class, Japan. Overall kappa was calculated to be 37.2%. We found significant differences between countries with respect to the GI score. Significant correlation was found between GI scores and two validated objective measures of writing proficiency and readability. Two sets of key terms and phrases differentiating NS and non-native writing were identified. Conclusions Our GI model was able to detect, with a high degree of reliability, subtle differences between the terms and phrasing used by native and non-native speakers in peer reviewed journals, in the field of pediatric oncology. In addition, L1 language transfer was found to be very likely to survive revision, especially in non-Western countries such as Japan. These findings show that even when the language used is technically correct, there may still be some phrasing or usage that impact quality. PMID:28212419

  14. 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.

  15. Reflective Journals: A Review of the Literature

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lindroth, James T.

    2015-01-01

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

  16. Environmental Restoration Project, Peer Review Process Assessment.

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1996-12-01

    are risk based, technically sound, and cost effective, the Air Force instituted a peer review program in 1992. The objective of this research is to...describe and analyze the peer review process. Through triangulation of data from interviews, observations, official and academic documents, and surveys...characteristics. A questionnaire was used to gather perceptions of peer review effectiveness--the criterion variable--and of the seven constructs. A total of 141

  17. 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…

  18. 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”....

  19. 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…

  20. 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

  1. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders reviewer acknowledgement 2012

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

    Contributing reviewers The editors of Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders would like to thank all of our reviewers who have contributed to the journal in volume 4 (2012). High quality and timely reviews are critical to the overall quality of the journal. We are committed to providing a unique and important outlet for scholarship regarding neurodevelopmental disorders and are indebted to the outstanding reviewers who have contributed their time over the last year in helping us to reach this goal. PMID:23517765

  2. 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...

  3. Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Federal Science Agencies Vary.

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1999-03-01

    traditionally relied on independent reviews by peers. This report responds to your request that we study the peer review and other quality assurance processes...by peer review , (2) describe the federal government’s peer review policy, (3) describe the peer review practices of 12 federal agencies that conduct

  4. 28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 28 Judicial Administration 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Peer review procedures. 34.102 Section 34.102 Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.102 Peer review procedures. The OJJDP peer review process is contained in an OJJDP...

  5. 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 § 34.104 Use of peer review. (a) Peer review for competitive and noncompetitive applications. (1)...

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2016-01-01

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

  7. Peer Review Handbook 4th Edition, 2015

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

    The 4th edition of EPA's Peer Review Handbook, 2015 is the most up to date version. It was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Members of the Peer Review Advisory Group under the direction of EPA’s Science and Technology Policy Council

  8. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 40 Protection of Environment 26 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Peer review. 194.27 Section 194.27 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAMS CRITERIA... compatible with NUREG-1297, “Peer Review for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories,” published February...

  9. 40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 40 Protection of Environment 25 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Peer review. 194.27 Section 194.27 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAMS CRITERIA... compatible with NUREG-1297, “Peer Review for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories,” published February...

  10. 42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Peer review. 24.5 Section 24.5 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PERSONNEL SENIOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH SERVICE § 24.5 Peer review. An individual may not be considered for appointment into the SBRS unless...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. The power of nursing peer review.

    PubMed

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

    2014-11-01

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

  16. 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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2013-12-01

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

  18. Final Peer Review Report for IGEM and ADAGE

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

    Final peer review report, which includes the following: IEc Peer Review Documentation Memorandum; Report of the Peer Review Panel; Responses to Panel prepared by Dale Jorgenson Associates and by Resource Triangle Institute.

  19. 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.

  20. Physical Review: a family of journals

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Sprouse, Gene

    2013-03-01

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

  1. Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers

    PubMed Central

    Snell, Richard R.

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Snell, Richard R

    2015-01-01

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

  3. 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.

  4. Understanding Peer Review of Scientific Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Association of American Universities, 2011

    2011-01-01

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

  5. Peer Review Process and Accreditation of Models

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1990-02-02

    COMMUNICATIONS, AND COMPUTER SCIENCES (AIRMICS) AD-A268 573 PEER REVIEW PROCESS AND ACCREDITATION OF MODELS (ASQBG-A-89-010) 2 February 1990 _DTIC ELECTE...IS BEST QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PAGES WHICH DO NOT REPRODUCE LEGIBLY. Peer Review Process and...1990 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Current Issues 5 2 Previous Peer Reviews 7 2.1 General 7 2.2

  6. Reviewer Stances and Writer Perceptions in EFL Peer Review Training

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Min, Hui-Tzu

    2008-01-01

    Research has shown that reviewers' stances can impact the efficacy of peer response/review and subsequent revision. The purpose of this classroom-based study was to compare reviewer stances and writer perceptions of/and attitudes toward these stances prior to and after peer review training in an EFL writing class. Eighteen intermediate EFL writers…

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 7 CFR 3411.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 3411.11 Section... PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.11 Composition of peer review groups. (a) Peer review group members and ad hoc reviewers will be selected based upon their training...

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

    PubMed Central

    2015-01-01

    ‘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

  12. Directed peer review in surgical pathology.

    PubMed

    Smith, Maxwell L; Raab, Stephen S

    2012-09-01

    Second pathologist peer review is used in many surgical laboratory quality-assurance programs to detect error. Directed peer review is 1 method of second review and involves the selection of specific case types, such as cases from a particular site of anatomic origin. The benefits of using the directed peer review method are unique and directed peer review detects both errors in diagnostic accuracy and precision and this detection may be used to improve practice. We utilize the Lean quality improvement A3 method of problem solving to investigate these issues. The A3 method defines surgical pathology diagnostic error and describes the current state in surgical pathology, performs root cause analysis, hypothesizes an ideal state, and provides opportunities for improvement in error reduction. Published data indicate that directed peer review practices may be used to prevent active cognitive errors that lead to patient harm. Pathologists also may use directed peer review data to target latent factors that contribute to error and improve diagnostic precision.

  13. 2013 Bioenergy Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    None, None

    2014-02-01

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

  14. Peer Review of FASOM-GHG Model

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

    Information on EPA's peer review of the Forestry and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOM-GHG) partial equilibrium sectoral model for the Agency, the Administration, and Congress.

  15. EERE Peer Review Guide - August 2004

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

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

  16. Geothermal Technologies Program Overview - Peer Review Program

    SciTech Connect

    Milliken, JoAnn

    2011-06-06

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

  17. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... process is to provide the Commissioner, ADD, with technical and qualitative evaluation of UAP applications... D, Section 152 of the Act, must be evaluated through the peer review process. (c) Panels must be... comparative quality of applications for assistance....

  18. 45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... process is to provide the Commissioner, ADD, with technical and qualitative evaluation of UAP applications... D, Section 152 of the Act, must be evaluated through the peer review process. (c) Panels must be... comparative quality of applications for assistance....

  19. 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.

  20. The Principles of Fair Allocation of Peer-Review: How Much Should a Researcher be Expected to Contribute?

    PubMed

    Derraik, José G B

    2015-08-01

    There seems to be reluctance amongst scientists to invest some of their own time in the peer-review of manuscripts. As a result, journal editors often struggle to secure reviewers for a given manuscript in a timely manner. Here, two simple principles are proposed, which could fairly allocate the contribution of individual researchers to the peer-review process.

  1. 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

  2. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation.

    PubMed

    Pöschl, Ulrich

    2012-01-01

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

  3. 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

  4. CREDIBILITY, PEER REVIEW, AND NATURE, 1945-1990.

    PubMed

    Baldwin, Melinda

    2015-09-20

    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.

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

    PubMed

    Newton, Douglas P

    2010-05-01

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

  6. Evaluacion entre colegas profesores (Peer Review of Teachers). ERIC Digest.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hertling, Elizabeth

    This digest in Spanish examines peer review, focusing on how these types of reviews can improve teacher competence. Peer review is often linked to peer assistance, which helps new and veteran teachers improve their knowledge and skills. In peer-review programs, consulting teachers conduct formal evaluations and recommend whether the participating…

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

    PubMed

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

    2011-11-01

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

  8. Heroes of peer review: Hyongbum (Henry) Kim.

    PubMed

    Kim, Hyongbum

    2016-09-29

    Peer reviewers are the unsung heroes of science. We celebrate reviewers through a series of interviews with people who have made particularly strong recent contributions to Genome Biology as reviewers. The first interview is with Hyongbum (Henry) Kim, an Associate Professor at Yonsei University College of Medicine in South Korea.

  9. Critiquing Scholarship as Formal Review: The Role and Responsibilities of Readers for Academic Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nelson, Thomas

    2011-01-01

    This article describes the various components of a successful review from the standpoint of a veteran journal editor and encourages, in particular, young scholars to consider, if they have not already done so, becoming active participants not only in the authoring of scholarly work, but also as reviewers in the peer review process that is part of…

  10. 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.

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2016-01-01

    Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications. Methods Here we examine an element of the editorial process at eLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions to eLife since June 2012, of which 2,747 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. PMID:27508056

  12. 2013 Geothermal Technologies Office Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Geothermal Technologies Office

    2014-01-01

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

  13. Geothermal Technologies Program 2011 Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Hollett, Douglas; Stillman, Greg

    2011-06-01

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2015-12-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lam, Ricky

    2010-01-01

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

  16. Research Review: Issues in Magazine Journalism Education.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    King, Elliot

    1994-01-01

    Argues that, hobbled by an impoverished underlying model and a lack of resources, very little empirical research has explored magazine journalism education. Investigates the underlying model, reviews existing research, and offers an optimistic assessment about future research possibilities. (SR)

  17. 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…

  18. [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.

  19. Peer review in Clinical Pharmacology using the 8-D Assessment

    PubMed Central

    Woodcock, Barry G.

    2017-01-01

    The requirement for editors of clinical pharmacology journals to maintain an overview of the peer review process for manuscripts submitted can be facilitated by use of the 8-D Assessment. The 8-D Assessment comprises peer review criteria to determine if the:1. Design of the study, 2. Diagnoses employed, 3. Drug molecules involved, 4. Dosages applied, 5. Data collected, 6. Discussion of the findings, 7. Deductions made, and 8. Documentation are in accord with the objectives of the study and meet the requirements of evidence-based medicine. This tool, although easy to apply, requires a high level of clinical pharmacology expertise, especially in the fields of drug disposition, pharmacokinetics, and drug action. PMID:28218890

  20. Examining Marketing Journals' Publication Process and Reviewer Practices

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2011-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

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

  2. Anonymous Peer Assessment of Medication Management Reviews

    PubMed Central

    Ryan, Greg; Woulfe, Jim; Bartimote-Aufflick, Kathryn

    2010-01-01

    Objectives To investigate whether pharmacy students' anonymous peer assessment of a medication management review (MMR) was constructive, consistent with the feedback provided by an expert tutor, and enhanced the students' learning experience. Design Fourth-year undergraduate pharmacy students were randomly and anonymously assigned to a partner and participated in an online peer assessment of their partner's MMR. Assessment An independent expert graded a randomly selected sample of the MMR's using a schedule developed for the study. A second expert evaluated the quality of the peer and expert feedback. Students also completed a questionnaire and participated in a focus group interview. Student peers gave significantly higher marks than an expert for the same MMR; however, no significant difference between the quality of written feedback between the students and expert was detected. The majority of students agreed that this activity was a useful learning experience. Conclusions Anonymous peer assessment is an effective means of providing additional constructive feedback on student performance on the medication review process. Exposure to other students' work and the giving and receiving of peer feedback were perceived as valuable by students. PMID:20798808

  3. Inspectors General: Department of Defense IG Peer Reviews

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2007-11-02

    This reports responds to the request for information about the peer reviews of the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG). A peer review , known...organization not affiliated with the organization being reviewed. The objective of a peer review is to determine whether the organization’s internal quality...1997, 2000, and 2001 and our monitoring of the performance of the 2001 peer review as it was performed. In order to meet these objectives, we reviewed

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Dobele, A. R.

    2015-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2011-01-01

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

  6. 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

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

    PubMed

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

    2013-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sondergaard, Harald; Mulder, Raoul A.

    2012-01-01

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

  9. 2012 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Zayas, Jose; Higgins, Mark

    2012-06-01

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

  10. Geothermal Technologies Office 2012 Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2013-04-01

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

  11. Inspectors General: Department of Defense IG Peer Reviews

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2007-11-02

    This reports responds to the request for information about the peer reviews of the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG). A peer review , known...organization not affiliated with the organization being reviewed. The objective of a peer review is to determine whether the organization’s internal quality

  12. 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…

  13. Using Peer Review with Chinese ESL Student Writers

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hu, Guangwei

    2005-01-01

    Peer review has a prominent place in process-oriented writing instruction. In this paper, I share my developing use of peer review in an academic writing course for Chinese ESL learners. After reviewing the relevant literature, I describe the context in which I implemented peer review and conducted practitioner research into its productive use.…

  14. Student Reflection and Learning through Peer Reviews

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2013-01-01

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

  15. Peer Review Methods for ESL Writing Improvement

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Soares, Colleen J.

    2004-01-01

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

  16. Implementation of Peer-Reviewed Homework Assignments

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Zare, Richard N.; Cox, Charles T., Jr.; Murphy, Katherine; Bayas, Camille

    2017-01-01

    In large, introductory courses, instructors and teaching assistants often struggle to provide detailed feedback on student homework in a timely manner. Here we describe a peer-reviewed homework system that provides quick turnaround while offering flexibility in the construction of homework problems. Homework is administered through a cycle, which…

  17. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.

    PubMed

    Polak, J F

    1995-09-01

    Peer review of submitted manuscripts is recognized as a critical component of the publication process in all major medical journals. It lends respectability and scientific credibility to those journals that have adopted the process [1]. This function is delegated to a group of persons who perform the task selflessly and without compensation. Of the many facets of the peer review process, the selection of manuscript reviewers and their subsequent interaction with both editors and authors may be so poorly understood by aspiring authors that certain misconceptions ensue. Authors of rejected manuscripts may fear that reviewers have acted in an arbitrary and possibly censorial fashion [2, 3]. Conversely, authors of accepted manuscripts who face a mountain of revisions may wonder if such an effort is likely to improve their manuscript [4, 5]. The following questions come to mind: Where do the reviewers come from? What do they do, and what constitutes a good reviewer? What power do they have? How is reviewer performance measured? Can the editor recognize publicly the good reviewer? Are reviewers really blinded? How does one become a good reviewer? Who will be the reviewers of the future? While looking at these questions, we should consider objective approaches of assessing reviewer quality and wonder whether they would improve the quality of the published manuscript.

  18. 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…

  19. Clinical Microbiology Reviews: genesis of a journal.

    PubMed

    Morello, J A

    1999-04-01

    In 1986 planning for a new ASM review journal, Clinical Microbiology Reviews (CMR), began. CMR would publish articles primarily of interest to persons concerned with pathogenesis, laboratory diagnosis, epidemiology, and control of human and veterinary pathogens. The first issue was published in January 1988, with quarterly publication since then. The journal quickly became successful in terms of subscribers and impact on the field, earning a strong national and international reputation. The achievements of CMR are owed to many persons, including the editorial board, the production team, and especially the contributing authors.

  20. 2009 Biomass Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Ferrell, John

    2009-12-01

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

  1. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2014

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2015-08-01

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

  2. 2014 Water Power Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2014-08-18

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

  3. 2014 Wind Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2014-10-01

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

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

    EPA Science Inventory

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

  5. Disparities in the geographical distribution of authorship between invited and peer reviewed papers.

    PubMed

    Carson, D P; Eagles, J M

    1999-10-01

    Fifty issues of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Lancet, The British Journal of Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine were scrutinized. Papers were designated as invited or peer reviewed and the geographical location of the first author was recorded. For UK-based authors, the latitude and longitude of the host institution was noted and was allocated to one of the UK regions. Of invited papers 805 of 1227 (66%) were by UK-based authors compared with 1442 of 2896 peer reviewed papers (50%), odds ratio 1.92 (95% CI 1.67-2.21) with a similar pattern prevailing in each of the four journals. Within the UK, authorships of invited versus peer reviewed papers showed a preponderance of invited authors based in southeast England, odds ratio 1.30 (95% CI 1.09-1.56). For individual Journals, the Lancet and the British Journal of Psychiatry showed fewer regional disparities in authorship than the BMJ and Psychological Medicine. These disparities may lead to nationalism and parochiality in the content of invited papers. Journal editors may wish to review selection practices for authorship of invited papers.

  6. 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…

  7. 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.

  8. Toward the Integration of Peer Reviewing and Computational Linguistics Approaches

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Park, Juhwa; Cho, Kwangsu

    2017-01-01

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

  9. 42 CFR 52h.4 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Composition of peer review groups. 52h.4 Section... PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PROJECTS § 52h.4 Composition of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable, the selection and appointment of members...

  10. 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.

  11. 28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  12. Online Peer Review: Learning Science as It's Practiced.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Trautmann, Nancy M.; Carlsen, William S.; Eick, Charles J.; Gardner, Francis E., Jr.; Kenyon, Lisa; Moscovici, Hedy; Moore, John C.; Thompson, Mark; West, Sandra

    2003-01-01

    Describes a cooperative project that integrates the internet into the peer-review process to enhance student understanding of the nature of science through engagement in socially authentic scientific research and the double-blinded peer review process. Reports the ratings of faculty and students of the online peer review. (Author/YDS)

  13. Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Vorobel, Oksana; Kim, Deoksoon

    2014-01-01

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

  14. How important tasks are performed: peer review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Hartonen, T.; Alava, M. J.

    2013-04-01

    The advancement of various fields of science depends on the actions of individual scientists via the peer review process. The referees' work patterns and stochastic nature of decision making both relate to the particular features of refereeing and to the universal aspects of human behavior. Here, we show that the time a referee takes to write a report on a scientific manuscript depends on the final verdict. The data is compared to a model, where the review takes place in an ongoing competition of completing an important composite task with a large number of concurrent ones - a Deadline -effect. In peer review human decision making and task completion combine both long-range predictability and stochastic variation due to a large degree of ever-changing external ``friction''.

  15. Satisfying Doubters and Critics: Dealing with the Peer Review.

    PubMed

    Bavdekar, Sandeep B

    2016-04-01

    Although peer review process intends to improve the quality of published scientific literature, many authors find the process intimidating and overbearing. Responding to reviewers' comments in a hasty and inappropriate manner is self-defeating. Authors need to answer the reviewers in an objective manner providing additional description, rational arguments and relevant evidence. Peer review is an important element of the research process. It aims to maintain the quality of scientific publications by rejecting manuscripts that are trivial, weak, irrelevant or misleading and by improving the transparency, accuracy and utility of manuscripts accepted for publication.1,2 But, the process can be intimidating for some new authors. They cannot understand, let alone digest the criticism of their submitted manuscript and hence respond in a hurry and in an inappropriate manner, further jeopardizing the chances of acceptability. This article informs new authors about the way a submitted manuscript is handled in the journal office and provides suggestions on how to respond to the reviewers' and editors' comments. More importantly, it intends to provide clues on how to minimize the chances of receiving harsh criticism.

  16. Raman spectroscopy peer review report

    SciTech Connect

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

    1994-09-01

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

  17. Peer Review of Classroom Teaching: An Interim Report.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Costello, John; Pateman, Brian; Pusey, Helen; Longshaw, Keith

    2001-01-01

    Data from peer reviews of 258 teaching sessions involving 129 nursing teachers and interviews with 14 teachers identified several themes. Initially perceived as a threat, peer review became a positive experience for both reviewer and reviewed. Preparation of reviewers and a process for changing nominated reviewers were recommended. (SK)

  18. 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…

  19. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2015

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2016-04-01

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

  20. Using Calibrated Peer Review to Teach Basic Research Skills

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bracke, Marianne S.; Graveel, John G.

    2014-01-01

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

  1. Acknowledging Students' Collaborations through Peer Review: A Footnoting Practice

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Poe, Shelli M.; Gravett, Emily O.

    2016-01-01

    Student-to-student peer review or peer feedback is commonly used in student-centered or active-learning classrooms. In this article, we describe a footnoting exercise that we implemented in two of our undergraduate courses as one way to encourage students to acknowledge collaborations and contributions made during peer-review processes. This…

  2. Training Effects on Computer-Mediated Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Liou, Hsien-Chin; Peng, Zhong-Yan

    2009-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2016-01-01

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

  4. QA REVIEWS: HOW THEY DIFFER FROM PEER REVIEWS

    EPA Science Inventory

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

  5. SCDAP/RELAP5 independent peer review

    SciTech Connect

    Corradini, M.L.; Dhir, V.K.; Haste, T.J.; Heames, T.J.; Jenks, R.P.; Kelly, J.E.; Khatib-Rahbar, M.; Viskanta, R.

    1993-01-01

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2015-08-01

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

  7. Biomass Program 2007 Program Peer Review - Full Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

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

  9. Commercial Lighting Solutions, Webtool Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    Jones, Carol C.; Meyer, Tracy A.

    2009-06-17

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

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

    PubMed

    Del Mar, Chris; Hoffmann, Tammy C

    2015-11-02

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brammer, Charlotte; Rees, Mary

    2007-01-01

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

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

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Improving Writing for International Business through Peer Reviews.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Jones, Nathan B.

    This article reviews the development of interactive business letters as a form of peer review of writing, presents the activities's general operation, and discusses its benefits by presenting examples of actual student peer reviews from the International Trade Institute graduate school in Taiwan. Rather than have students read and critique each…

  16. 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…

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

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document discloses the comments provided by a review panel at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Biomass Program Peer Review held on November 15-16, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and the Biomass Program Peer Review for the Thermochemical Platform, held on July 9th and 10th in Golden, Colorado.

  19. Office of Inspector General audit report on the Department of Energy`s peer review practices

    SciTech Connect

    1998-04-01

    Fulfilling the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 has presented Federal science agencies with the challenge of defining ways to quantify and evaluate the outcomes of research. Measuring research program performance is particularly important for the Department of Energy because of its substantial investment (approximately $7 billion in Fiscal Year 1996) in research and development activities. The Research Roundtable, in 1995, observed that the results of research could be evaluated using the performance indicators of relevance, productivity, and quality. One method for doing so is formal, objective evaluation by independent reviewers, or peer review. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Department had established and was managing a peer review process for evaluating scientific and technical projects. It was found that peer reviews were conducted prior to competitive award of subcontracts, selection of projects from research proposals, and inclusion in scientific journals and/or conferences. In addition, the Department and the laboratories, in response to the government Performance and Results Act and performance-based contracting, had incorporated peer review into the laboratories` annual performance self-assessment process. The results of these reviews were used to determine program direction, obtain input on ongoing programs, and prioritize funding for laboratory and Departmental research activities. This report does not include any recommendations since the laboratories had established processes in accordance with Office of Management and Budget and Departmental peer review requirements.

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

    PubMed

    Myhr, A I

    2005-01-01

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2016-12-01

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

  2. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

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

  3. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

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

  4. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

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

  5. 7 CFR 3415.11 - Composition of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

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

  6. 7 CFR 3406.23 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3406.23 Section 3406.23 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH... PROGRAM Supplementary Information § 3406.23 Access to peer review information. After final decisions...

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3405.16 Section 3405.16 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH... Supplementary Information § 3405.16 Access to peer review information. After final decisions have been...

  8. Peer Review Improves the Quality of MCQ Examinations

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Malau-Aduli, Bunmi S.; Zimitat, Craig

    2012-01-01

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

  9. Using Peer Review to Improve Student Writing in Business Courses

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rieber, Lloyd J.

    2006-01-01

    Student peer review has proven an effective technique for improving student writing in both English and business communication classes, yet the technique is not widely used in business courses other than business communication. In this article, the author discusses using student peer review in business classes to improve students' final written…

  10. The Great Fossil Fiasco: Teaching about Peer Review.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Gift, Nancy; Krasny, Marianne

    2003-01-01

    Describes a lesson that engages middle school students in learning about peer review. Uses the article "Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail," which was published in the November, 1999 issue of "National Geographic" as an example of a real life story of how peer review forces scientists to critically re-examine a fossil discovery. (SOE)

  11. A Reciprocal Peer Review System to Support College Students' Writing

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Yang, Yu-Fen

    2011-01-01

    As students' problem-solving processes in writing are rarely observed in face-to-face instruction, they have few opportunities to participate collaboratively in peer review to improve their texts. This study reports the design of a reciprocal peer review system for students to observe and learn from each other when writing. A sample of 95…

  12. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ..., INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of Contracts... accordance with section 922(c) of the PHS Act, as amended, who by virtue of their training or experience are... peer review group will be selected based upon their training or experience in relevant scientific...

  13. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ..., INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of Contracts... accordance with section 922(c) of the PHS Act, as amended, who by virtue of their training or experience are... peer review group will be selected based upon their training or experience in relevant scientific...

  14. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ..., INTERNSHIPS, TRAINING AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Peer Review of Contracts... accordance with section 922(c) of the PHS Act, as amended, who by virtue of their training or experience are... peer review group will be selected based upon their training or experience in relevant scientific...

  15. 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.

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

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

  17. 28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... programs for which a large number of applications is expected, preapplications (concept papers) may be... both pre-applications and formal applications to the peer review process. (2) For noncompetitive... the peer review process. (c) Ratings will be in the form of numerical scores assigned by...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hutchings, Pat

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bond, Vanessa L.

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Flaherty, Dennis K

    2013-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Vyas, Dinesh; Cronin, Sean

    2015-12-01

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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The learning process of capita selecta based on journals review

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Diniaty, Artina; Febriana, Beta Wulan; Arlianty, Widinda Normalia

    2017-03-01

    The learning process on capita selecta subject of Chemistry Education Department, Islamic University of Indonesia, was carried out based on reviewing of journals in chemistry and chemistry education scopes. The learning process procedure included planning, implementation and reflection. The purposes of learning were 1) students got an insight into the trend research in chemistry and chemistry education scopes, 2) students knew how to access and search journals, 3) increased students learning motivation on reading scientific journals, 4) students had be trained for reviewing scientific journals, and inspiring students to think about research ideas, performed research and publishing in scientific journals. The result showed that the students' responses in this learning were good.

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

    PubMed Central

    Borgert, Christopher J.; Mihaich, Ellen M.

    2012-01-01

    Background: There is an ongoing discussion on the provenance of toxicity testing data regarding how best to ensure its validity and credibility. A central argument is whether journal peer-review procedures are superior to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards employed for compliance with regulatory mandates. Objective: We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards. Method: We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations. Discussion: Some contend that peer review is a coherent, consistent evaluative procedure providing quality control for experimental data generation, analysis, and reporting sufficient to reliably establish relative merit, whereas GLP is seen as merely a tracking process designed to thwart investigator corruption. This view is not supported by published analyses pointing to subjectivity and variability in peer-review processes. Although GLP is not designed to establish relative merit, it is an internationally accepted quality assurance, quality control method for documenting experimental conduct and data. Conclusions: Neither process is completely sufficient for establishing relative scientific soundness. However, changes occurring both in peer-review processes and in regulatory guidance resulting in clearer, more transparent communication of scientific information point to an emerging convergence in ensuring information quality. The solution to determining relative merit lies in developing a well-documented, generally accepted weight-of-evidence scheme to evaluate both peer-reviewed and GLP information used in regulatory decision making where both merit and specific relevance inform the process. PMID:22343028

  6. The Art of Reviewing Science Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Shepardson, Daniel P.; Britsch, Susan Jane

    2004-01-01

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

  7. Peer review of classroom teaching: an interim report.

    PubMed

    Costello, J; Pateman, B; Pusey, H; Longshaw, K

    2001-08-01

    This paper provides interim findings from the implementation of peer review of classroom teaching in a large UK University School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. A total of 258 classroom teaching sessions, involving 129 teaching staff (n=129) were included over a period of 7 months. Teachers had two teaching sessions reviewed by a colleague. One reviewer was self-nominated and the Dean of School allocated the other. The paper is in two parts. Part one includes a short literature review followed by a descriptive account of how peer review was implemented. Part two focuses upon individual experiences from a small scale study with data obtained from 14 teachers (n=14) who took part in qualitative interviews based on their experiences of being both reviewer and reviewee. The larger study gathered data from several sources. This paper presents the initial findings from interview data with nurse teachers. Their perceptions form the basis of a discussion, which raises issues related to the experience of both implementing and being involved in, peer review of classroom teaching. Four themes emerged from the interview transcriptions; peer review was initially perceived as a threat; the experience of peer review was a positive one; teachers felt that being a reviewer was an interesting and worthwhile experience and perceived peer review positively when good relations existed between them and their reviewer.

  8. Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows.

    PubMed

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

    In this paper, we undertake a data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows. We analyse a dataset containing information about 58 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. We separate the peer review process into stages that each paper has to go through and introduce the notion of completion rate - the probability that an invitation sent to a potential reviewer will result in a finished review. Using empirical transition probabilities and probability distributions of the duration of each stage we create a directed weighted network, the analysis of which allows us to obtain the theoretical probability distributions of review time for different classes of reviewers. These theoretical distributions underlie our numerical simulations of different editorial strategies. Through these simulations, we test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole review process. We discover that the distribution of review time is similar for all classes of reviewers, and that the completion rate of reviewers known personally by the editor is very high, which means that they are much more likely to answer the invitation and finish the review than other reviewers. Thus, the completion rate is the key factor that determines the efficiency of each editorial policy. Our results may be of great importance for editors and act as a guide in determining the optimal number of reviewers.

  9. 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.

  10. Journal standards.

    PubMed

    Jackson, R

    2003-08-01

    Despite its many imperfections, the peer review process is a firmly established quality control system for scientific literature. It gives readers some assurance that the work and views that are reported meet standards that are acceptable to a journal. Maureen Revington's editorial in a recent issue of the Australian Veterinary Journal (Revington2002) gives a good concise warts and all overview of the process and is well worth reading. I have some concerns about several articles in the December 2002 issue of the New Zealand Veterinary Journal (Volume 50, Number 6), devoted to the health and welfare of farmed deer, that relate to extensive citing of non-peer reviewed papers. I can understand the need for information to flow from researchers to the wider community but that need is already satisfied by publications such as the proceedings of the Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association and Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production. Non-peer reviewed papers have been cited in the Journal in the past but never to the extent displayed in this particular issue. It degrades the peer-review process and creates an added burden for reviewers who are forced to grapple with the uncertainties of the science in non-peer reviewed citations. One of my fears is that this process allows science from non peer reviewed articles to be legitimised by its inclusion in a peer reviewed journal and perhaps go on to be accepted as dogma. This is a real danger given the difficulties associated with tracing back to original citations and the increasing volume of scientific literature. It also affords opportunities for agencies to pick up questionable and doubtful science and tout it as support for their products or particular points of view. If deer researchers choose to publish most of their work in proceedings then so be it. However this approach, which seems to becoming increasingly prevalent in the deer sector, is questionable from an established science point

  11. 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.

  12. Reviewers for Journal of Power Sources January 2016-December 2016

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2017-02-01

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

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. Facilitating Improved Writing among Students through Directed Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Crossman, Joanne M.; Kite, Stacey L.

    2012-01-01

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

  17. Perceptions of Peer Review Using Cloud-Based Software

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Andrichuk, Gjoa

    2016-01-01

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

  18. A Peer Review Process for Games and Software

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Mallon, Bride

    2008-01-01

    A peer-review process for assessing the contribution of artifacts, such as games and software to research, is proposed. Games and software produced as research output by academics tend to be accredited within their institution through discussion of the artifact, rather than directly. An independent judgment by peers confirming an artifact's…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

  20. Using Peer Review to Improve Research and Promote Collaboration

    PubMed Central

    Kupfer, David J.; Murphree, Anneliese N.; Pilkonis, Paul A.; Cameron, Judy A.; Giang, Rosary; Dodds, Nathan E.; Godard, Kasey A.; Lewis, David A

    2013-01-01

    Background The declining success rate of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications highlights the need for interdisciplinary work within a large, diverse department to improve chances of federal funding success. Objective To demonstrate how systematic peer review promotes two goals: Enhancing the quality of research proposals and cultivating a collaborative departmental culture. Methods Changes to the Research Review Committee (RRC) in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh were instituted to accommodate the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of grant applications, integrate revisions to NIH grant application processes, and incorporate advances in computer technology. Results The internal peer review process is associated with success in obtaining research support and with significant levels of collaborative scientific work reflected in both grant applications and peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions A rich collaborative environment promoted through a rigorous internal peer review system has many benefits for both the quality of scholarly work and the collegiality of the research environment. PMID:24449224

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Somerville, R. C.

    2003-12-01

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

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  3. Quality assurance reviews: how they differ from peer reviews.

    PubMed

    Adams, N H

    1998-01-01

    Research papers and reports written by scientists and engineers in the United States Environmental Protection Agency are reviewed by the agency's quality assurance staff. EPA papers and reports are subjected to peer reviews that check for the validity of conclusions and the general agreement with the body of technical knowledge in the subject area. Quality assurance reviews differ from peer reviews in that the focus of the quality assurance review is on the following criteria: Consistency: Were reasonable and consistent units of measurement and generally acceptable formulas used throughout? Are the appropriate number of significant figures reported? Correctness: Were matrix-compatible methods used? Were measurements within the working range of the method? Can measurements be traced to a recognized standard or source (e.g., the National Institute of Standards and Technology)? Can calculations be verified, starting from representative raw data and proceeding to the summary data presented in the paper or report? Coherence: Do the stated conclusions follow from the data presented? Are the assumptions clearly stated? Are inconsistencies between data and conclusions discussed? Clarity: Are special terms and acronyms defined? Can a person with a general technical background in the subject understand the paper or report? Conformance: Did the study follow the test/quality assurance plan, with appropriate calibrations and other quality-control checks, audits, and data validations? If not, is there a discussion of problems? Concordance: Were data quality objectives met? Were the data quality indicator goals achieved for precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness? The importance of these quality assurance review criteria are discussed along with examples from current work.

  4. Audit Oversight: Followup Review of the Military Department Audit Agencies Peer Review

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2004-08-03

    Department Audit Agencies Peer Review (D-2004-6-008) Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the...Followup Review of the Military Department Audit Agencies Peer Review 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S...for repeat observations made in the FY 1999 and FY 2002 peer reviews . The scope and methodology of the review are in Appendix A. Army Audit Agency

  5. Challenges in the Ethical Review of Peer Support Interventions

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

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

  6. Peer Review Comments on the IRIS Assessment of Benzene

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

    Attachment to IRIS file for benzene, January 19, 2000, RESPONSE TO THE PEER REVIEW COMMENTS, II. Extrapolation of the Benzene Inhalation Unit Risk Estimate to the Oral Route of Exposure (EPA/NCEA-W-0517, July 1999)

  7. Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and Disposition

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

    This document summarizes the public and external peer review comments that the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) received for the draft work plan risk assessment for n-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP).

  8. 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…

  9. The academic welfare state: making peer-review count.

    PubMed

    Veríssimo, Diogo; Roberts, David L

    2013-11-01

    The peer-review process is a central pillar of academic publishing. However, the work that goes into ensuring the quality of published content is rarely recognised. Here we present a correction factor for the h-index, one of the most popular metrics for quantifying academic output, that will allow for the inclusion of peer-review effort in the evaluation of the outputs produced by an academic.

  10. The JSC Engineering Directorate Product Peer Review Process

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Jenks, Kenneth C.

    2009-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Stigmar, Martin

    2016-01-01

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

  12. 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…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Trautmann, Nancy M.

    2009-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Anderson, Neil O.; Flash, Pamela

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

  16. Protecting peer review: correspondence chronology and ethical analysis regarding Logothetis vs. Shmuel and Leopold.

    PubMed

    Fox, Peter T; Bullmore, Ed; Bandettini, Peter A; Lancaster, Jack L

    2009-02-01

    Editors of scientific journals are ethically bound to provide a fair and impartial peer-review process and to protect the rights of contributing authors to publish research results. If, however, a dispute arises among investigators regarding data ownership and the right to publish, the ethical responsibilities of journal editors become more complex. The editors of Human Brain Mapping recently had the unusual experience of learning of an ongoing dispute regarding data-access rights pertaining to a manuscript already accepted for publication. Herein the editors describe the nature of the dispute, the steps taken to explore and resolve the conflict, and discuss the ethical principles that govern such circumstances. Drawing on this experience and with the goal of avoiding future controversies, the editors have formulated a Data Rights Policy and a Data Rights Procedure for Human Brain Mapping. Human Brain Mapping adopts this policy effective immediately and respectfully suggests that other journals consider adopting this or similar policies.

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

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2009-10-27

    This document discloses the comments provided by a review panel at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Biomass Program Peer Review held on November 15-16, 2007 in Baltimore, MD and the Integrated Biorefinery Platform Review held on August 13-15, 2007 in Golden, Colorado.

  18. Is Peer Review Training Effective in Iranian EFL Students' Revision?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Esmaeeli, Hadiseh; Abasi, Maasumeh; Soori, Afshin

    2014-01-01

    This study aims to investigate the effect of peer review training on the Iranian EFL students' subsequent revision in an advanced writing class in Larestan Islamic Azad University. After 12 weeks class demonstration, teacher-reviewer conferences with 20 male and female students, the students' first drafts, revisions, and reviewers' comments were…

  19. 75 FR 4062 - Peer Review Best Practices Workshop

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-01-26

    ... Review Best Practices Workshop AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable... chosen to select research and development projects, and on ``best practices'' for reviewing and selecting... the Meeting: To examine best practices for peer review of research, development, demonstration...

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

    EPA Science Inventory

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

  1. Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Thurner, S.; Hanel, R.

    2011-12-01

    It is widely believed that one of the virtues of peer review is that it provides a self-regulating selection mechanism for scientific work, papers and projects. Peer review as a selection mechanism is hard to evaluate in terms of its efficiency. Serious efforts to understand its strengths and weaknesses have not yet lead to conclusive answers. In theory peer review works if the involved parties (editors and referees) conform to a set of requirements, such as love for high quality science, objectiveness, and absence of biases, nepotism, friend and clique networks, selfishness, etc. If these requirements are violated, what is the effect on the selection of high quality work? We study this question with a simple agent based model. In particular we are interested in the effects of rational referees, who might not have any incentive to see high quality work other than their own published or promoted. We find that a small fraction of incorrect (selfish or rational) referees is sufficient to drastically lower the quality of the published (accepted) scientific standard. We determine the fraction for which peer review will no longer perform better than pure chance. Decline of quality of accepted scientific work is shown as a function of the fraction of rational and unqualified referees. We show how a simple quality-increasing policy of e.g. a journal can lead to additional loss in overall scientific quality, and how mutual support-networks of authors and referees deteriorate the system.

  2. 2013 Building Technologies Office Program Peer Review Report

    SciTech Connect

    none,

    2013-11-01

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

  3. Genetics and Peer Relations: A Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brendgen, Mara

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-04-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    2015-01-01

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

  6. 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.

  7. Safeguarding children: the benefits of a peer-review process.

    PubMed

    Morris-Thompson, Trish; Shepherd, Janet; Rogers, Maggie; Ladbury, Briony; Kirk, Catherine; Marks-Maran, Di

    Nurses in hospitals and in the community are increasingly taking a leading role in safeguarding children. NHS London established a Safeguarding Improvement Team (SIT) in 2009. The SIT project was designed as a one-off activity to raise performance related to safeguarding children in London. This article presents a peer-review process that was established by NHS London and implemented across the 31 PCTs across London. This article presents the peer-review process methodology and a summary of the findings from the SIT visits. Feedback was requested from participants about participants' perceptions of the peer-review process immediately after the SIT visits and again, several months after the completion of all SIT visits. Findings show that the peer-review process was of value, both organisationally and professionally, and the process itself led to identification of good practice as well as gaps in existing practices. The non-threatening nature of the peer-review process was particularly valued, as was the feedback offered by the review teams.

  8. 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…

  9. 34 CFR 350.50 - What is the peer review process for this Program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  10. Peer review of grant applications: a simple method to identify proposals with discordant reviews.

    PubMed

    Giraudeau, Bruno; Leyrat, Clémence; Le Gouge, Amélie; Léger, Julie; Caille, Agnès

    2011-01-01

    Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some proposals may result in discordant peer-review ratings and therefore require discussion by the selection committee members. The issue is which peer-review ratings are considered as discordant. We propose a simple method to identify such proposals. Our approach is based on the intraclass correlation coefficient, which is usually used in assessing agreement in studies with continuous ratings.

  11. Exploring Reviewer Reactions to Manuscripts Submitted to Academic Journals

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Coniam, David

    2012-01-01

    This paper extends a previous study (Coniam, 2011) into a corpus of manuscript (MS) reviews conducted for the journal System by one reviewer in the eight-year period 2003-2011. The current paper highlights additional facets of the review process that focus on issues involving authors themselves. The study examines two related sets of research…

  12. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 67.103 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS... reviewed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the Health and Human Services... Department of Health and Human Services; (4) The need of the peer review group to include in its...

  13. 42 CFR 67.103 - Peer review of contract proposals.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 67.103 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FELLOWSHIPS... reviewed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the Health and Human Services... Department of Health and Human Services; (4) The need of the peer review group to include in its...

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2014-08-01

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Yamazaki, Shigeaki

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

  16. Calibrated peer review assignments for the earth sciences

    USGS Publications Warehouse

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

    2009-01-01

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

  17. A Study of Technical Engineering Peer Reviews at NASA

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

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

    2003-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Walters, W Patrick; Bajorath, Jürgen

    2015-01-01

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

  19. Dual-Use Review Policies of Biomedical Research Journals

    PubMed Central

    Barner, Dionne D.; Dinse, Gregg E.

    2011-01-01

    To address biosecurity issues, government agencies, academic institutions, and professional societies have developed policies concerning the publication of “dual-use” biomedical research—that is, research that could be readily applied to cause significant harm to the public, the environment, or national security. We conducted an e-mail survey of life science journals to determine the percentage that have a dual-use policy. Of the 155 journals that responded to our survey (response rate 39%), only 7.7% stated that they had a written dual-use policy and only 5.8% said they had experience reviewing dual-use research in the past 5 years. Among the potential predictors we investigated, the one most highly associated with a journal having a written dual-use policy was membership in the Nature Publishing Group (positive association). When considered individually, both previous experience with reviewing dual-use research and the journal's impact factor appeared to be positively associated with having a written dual-use policy, but only the former remained significant after adjusting for publishing group. Although preventing the misuse of scientific research for terrorist or criminal purposes is an important concern, few biomedical journals have dual-use review policies. Journals that are likely to review research that raises potential dual-use concerns should consider developing dual-use policies. PMID:21395429

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

    PubMed

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

    2011-03-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Kratz, John Ernest; Strasser, Carly

    2015-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2009-01-01

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

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

    EPA Science Inventory

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

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

    PubMed

    Thampy, Harish; Bourke, Michael; Naran, Prasheena

    2015-09-01

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

  6. Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?

    PubMed

    Rigby, John

    2013-01-01

    A small number of studies have sought to establish that research papers with more funding acknowledgements achieve higher impact and have claimed that such a link exists because research supported by more funding bodies undergoes more peer review. In this paper, a test of this link is made using recently available data from the Web of Science, a source of bibliographic data that now includes funding acknowledgements. The analysis uses 3,596 papers from a single year, 2009, and a single journal, the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Analysis of this data using OLS regression and two ranks tests reveals the link between count of funding acknowledgements and high impact papers to be statistically significant, but weak. It is concluded that count of funding acknowledgements should not be considered a reliable indicator of research impact at this level. Relatedly, indicators based on assumptions that may hold true at one level of analysis may not be appropriate at other levels.

  7. Review & Peer Review of “Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares” Documents

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

    This page contains two 2012 memoranda on the review of EPA's parameters for properly designed and operated flares. One details the process of peer review, and the other provides background information and specific charge questions to the panel.

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

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

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

  9. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Nixon, Sarah; Vickerman, Philip; Maynard, Carol

    2010-01-01

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

  11. Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies that Support Education Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Towne, Lisa, Ed.; Fletcher, Jack M., Ed.; Wise, Lauress L., Ed.

    2004-01-01

    The focus of this report is on peer review as it is applied to the evaluation of proposals for federal funding of education research projects. The primary source of evidence used to set forth the report's conclusions and recommendations about this topic is a workshop convened in February 25-26, 2003 at the National Academies' Keck Center in…

  12. Collaborative Learning through Formative Peer Review with Technology

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Eaton, Carrie Diaz; Wade, Stephanie

    2014-01-01

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

  13. Whither "Peer Review"? Terminology Matters for the Writing Classroom

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Armstrong, Sonya L; Paulson, Eric J.

    2008-01-01

    In two-year college writing classrooms and beyond, peer review is one of the most widely used tools for helping students improve their writing. Despite its widespread usage, however, it is one of the most diffuse, inconsistent, and ambiguous practices associated with writing instruction. This essay aims to explore the widely varying terminology…

  14. Peer Reviewing Preservice Teachers of Christian Higher Education

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Buchanan, Michael T.

    2011-01-01

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

  15. Investigating Mandatory Peer Review of Teaching In Schools

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brix, Jacinta; Grainger, Peter; Hill, Angela

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2010-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Booth, Sara; Beckett, Jeff; Saunders, Cassandra

    2016-01-01

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

  18. Peer review among district health officers in Maharashtra, India.

    PubMed

    Srinivasan, V

    1989-09-01

    A management information system in Maharashtra State, India, was used to obtain primary health care performance data for review at monthly meetings of peers, including District Health Officers, Auxiliary Nurse Midwives and Multipurpose Workers. The meetings were conducted in a problem solving, educational atmosphere. The effect of this process was marked improvement in health worker motivation and performance.

  19. Peer Review and Evaluation of the Intellectual Work of Teaching

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bernstein, Daniel J.

    2008-01-01

    Institutional surveys of student opinion emerged out of the turmoil of the late 1960s. Never intended to serve as professional evaluations, the surveys were the only tangible evidence of teaching effectiveness until some faculty opened their classrooms for observation by chairs and colleagues. Historically, the "peer review of teaching" has…

  20. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Patry, Jean-Luc; Gastager, Angela

    2012-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Stine, M.D.

    1994-09-01

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

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

    EPA Science Inventory

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

  4. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE...

  5. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE...

  6. 7 CFR 3402.22 - Access to peer review information.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Access to peer review information. 3402.22 Section 3402.22 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES NATIONAL NEEDS GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE...

  7. Teaching Undergraduates the Process of Peer Review: Learning by Doing

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Rangachari, P. K.

    2010-01-01

    An active approach allowed undergraduates in Health Sciences to learn the dynamics of peer review at first hand. A four-stage process was used. In "stage 1", students formed self-selected groups to explore specific issues. In "stage 2", each group posted their interim reports online on a specific date. Each student read all the…

  8. 45 CFR 96.136 - Independent peer review.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... approach to addictions treatment, and must be sensitive to the cultural and environmental issues that may... 45 Public Welfare 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Independent peer review. 96.136 Section 96.136 Public Welfare DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BLOCK GRANTS...

  9. Enhancing Proof Writing via Cross-Institutional Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

  10. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ..., Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT PROVISIONS NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Accreditation of Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The... evaluate the National Organic Program's adherence to the accreditation procedures in this subpart F and...

  11. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ..., Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT PROVISIONS NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Accreditation of Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The... evaluate the National Organic Program's adherence to the accreditation procedures in this subpart F and...

  12. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ..., Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT PROVISIONS NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Accreditation of Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The... evaluate the National Organic Program's adherence to the accreditation procedures in this subpart F and...

  13. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ..., Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT PROVISIONS NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Accreditation of Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The... evaluate the National Organic Program's adherence to the accreditation procedures in this subpart F and...

  14. 7 CFR 205.509 - Peer review panel.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ..., Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED) ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT PROVISIONS NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Accreditation of Certifying Agents § 205.509 Peer review panel. The... evaluate the National Organic Program's adherence to the accreditation procedures in this subpart F and...

  15. NIH Mulls Ways to Lure Back Veteran Peer Reviewers

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brainard, Jeffrey

    2008-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Gunersel, Adalet Baris; Simpson, Nancy J.

    2010-01-01

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

  17. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2014

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Becker, Thorsten W.; Bass, Jay; Blichert-Toft, Janne; Derry, Lou; Lee, Cin-Ty; Tyburczy, James; Vance, Derek; Yokoyama, Yusuke

    2015-09-01

    The editorial and scientific publishing process relies on the sustained work of volunteer reviewers, and evaluating the interdisciplinary and broad interest papers published in G-Cubed can be a particular challenge. As Editors and Associated Editors, we are therefore hugely appreciative of the efforts of our reviewers, and would like to thank and acknowledge them in this editorial. G-Cubed published 257 manuscripts out of 431 submissions in 2014, and for this, we were able to rely on the efforts of 710 dedicated reviewers. Their names are listed below; in italics are those 27 who provided three or more reviews. A big thank you from the G-Cubed team!

  18. Appreciation of peer reviewers for 2015

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

    2016-06-01

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

  19. Defending the boundaries of science: AIDS denialism, peer review and the Medical Hypotheses saga.

    PubMed

    Nattrass, Nicoli

    2011-05-01

    This paper explores the boundary work undertaken by HIV scientists and activists against the journal Medical Hypotheses over its lack of peer review. Their action was sparked by the publication of an article by Peter Duesberg claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS and that antiretrovirals do more harm than good. Precisely because such 'AIDS denialism' can undermine HIV prevention and treatment interventions, as was demonstrably the case in South Africa under President Mbeki, the episode raised questions about when, in the interests of public health, the boundaries of legitimate scientific debate may be drawn to exclude unreasonable and unscholarly arguments. The paper argues that normative concerns motivated the complaints which resulted in the publisher withdrawing Duesberg's paper and imposing editorial policy changes on Medical Hypotheses. Concerns were raised about the implications for academic freedom of this boundary work in defence of peer review as a core practice in science. The paper concludes, however, that Duesberg's freedom to write what he likes remains intact, but that if he wants his work to carry the imprimatur of science, he now has to subject it to peer review.

  20. Submitting a manuscript for peer review – integrity, integrity, integrity

    PubMed Central

    Murphy, Sean P.; Bulman, Christopher; Shariati, Behnam; Hausmann, Laura

    2014-01-01

    Publication of a flawed manuscript has significant consequences for the progress of science. When this proves to be intentional, science is brought into disrepute and this puts even more pressure on the shrinking resources that society is prepared to invest in research. All scientific journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, have witnessed a marked increase in the number of corrections and retractions of published papers over the last 10 years, and uncovered a depressingly large number of fabrications amongst submitted manuscripts. The increase in number of ‘spoiled’ manuscripts reflects not only the improved methods that journals employ to detect plagiarism in its many forms, but also suggests a measurable change in the behavior of authors. The increased policing of submissions by reviewers, editors and publishers expends time and money. The sanctions imposed by journal editors on authors found guilty of malpractice are transparent and severe. PMID:24410543

  1. Consensus-oriented group peer review: a new process to review radiologist work output.

    PubMed

    Alkasab, Tarik K; Harvey, H Benjamin; Gowda, Vrushab; Thrall, James H; Rosenthal, Daniel I; Gazelle, G Scott

    2014-02-01

    The Joint Commission and other regulatory bodies have mandated that health care organizations implement processes for ongoing physician performance review. Software solutions, such as RADPEER™, have been created to meet this need efficiently. However, the authors believe that available systems are not optimally designed to produce changes in practice and overlook many important aspects of quality by excessive focus on diagnosis. The authors present a new model of peer review known as consensus-oriented group review, which is based on group discussion of cases in a conference setting and places greater emphasis on feedback than traditional systems of radiology peer review. By focusing on the process of peer review, consensus-oriented group review is intended to optimize performance improvement and foster group standards of practice. The authors also describe the software tool developed to implement this process of enriched peer review.

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

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-18

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

  4. Four peer reviews in support of the Tier 3 rulemaking: EPA's ...

    EPA Pesticide Factsheets

    Peer review of EPA's DELTA (diurnal emissions leaving to atmosphere) model in support of the Tier 3 rulemaking To peer review EPA's DELTA (diurnal emissions leaving to atmosphere) model (for Tier 3 rulemaking)

  5. Journaling.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Barlow, Bob

    2001-01-01

    Daily journal writing can help students become strong, confident writers. Students can use journals to reflect on what they are studying, brainstorm on a topic before writing an essay, track and react to current events, and explore ideas in their imaginations. Tips for journal writing include: keep it stress free, reassure students they are…

  6. Peer review of medical practices: missed opportunities to learn.

    PubMed

    Kadar, Nicholas

    2014-12-01

    Appropriately conducted peer review of medical practices provides the greatest opportunity for health care professionals to learn from their mistakes and improve the quality and safety of health care. But in practice, peer review has not been an effective learning tool because it is subjective and irreproducible. Physicians reviewing the same cases disagree over the cause(s) of adverse outcomes and the quality and appropriateness of care, and agreement is not improved by training, use of objective review criteria, or having the reviewers discuss the cases. The underlying reason is a general lack of understanding and an oversimplified view of the causes of medical errors in complex, high-risk organization and a preoccupation with attributing medical errors to particular individuals. This approach leads to judgments, not understanding, and creates a culture of blame that stops learning and undermines the potential for improvement. For peer review to have an impact on the quality of care and patient safety, it must be standardized to remove cognitive biases and subjectivity from the process.

  7. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Algae

    SciTech Connect

    Yang, Joyce

    2012-02-01

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

  8. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Feedstock

    SciTech Connect

    McCann, Laura

    2012-02-01

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

  9. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review. Infrastructure

    SciTech Connect

    Lindauer, Alicia

    2012-02-01

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

  10. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review: Analysis

    SciTech Connect

    Haq, Zia

    2012-02-01

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

  11. 2011 Biomass Program Platform Peer Review. Sustainability

    SciTech Connect

    Eng, Alison Goss

    2012-02-01

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

  12. A Review and Application of Citation Analysis Methodology to Reading Research Journal Literature.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Summers, Edward G.

    1984-01-01

    Reviews citation analysis literature and explores use of citation analysis to identify core journals and indicate disciplinary structure and interrelationships of journals reporting on reading research. Use of 1980 "Journal Citation Reports" data to generate criterion for selecting high impact journals and list of 33 core journals is…

  13. Issues of Cultural Appropriateness and Pedagogical Efficacy: Exploring Peer Review in a Second Language Writing Class

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hu, Guangwei; Lam, Sandra Tsui Eu

    2010-01-01

    This paper reports on a study designed to investigate (a) whether peer review is an effective pedagogical activity with adult Chinese students in the teaching of second language (L2) academic writing and (b) how factors such as perceptions of the influence of peer reviewers' L2 proficiency, previous experience with peer review, feedback…

  14. Pre-University Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2014-01-01

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

  16. 7 CFR 3401.12 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Knight, Linda V.; Steinbach, Theresa A.

    2011-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    White, Kiri; Boehm, Emilia; Chester, Andrea

    2014-01-01

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

  19. 7 CFR 3400.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3400.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3400.5, the Administrator will adopt procedures for...

  20. 7 CFR 3411.10 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3411.5, the Administrator shall adopt...

  1. The Potential of Dual-Language Cross-Cultural Peer Review

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Ruecker, Todd

    2011-01-01

    This article explores the potential of dual-language cross-cultural peer review and how it improves on traditional monolingual and monocultural peer review. Drawing on scholarship related to international exchange programmes, peer review, and two-way immersion programmes in the United States as well as data collected while facilitating the…

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

  3. 42 CFR 52h.3 - Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Establishment and operation of peer review groups... GRANTS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PROJECTS § 52h.3 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. (a) To the extent applicable,...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Adamek, Margaret Ellen

    2015-01-01

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

  5. 34 CFR 359.30 - How is peer review conducted under this program?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

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

  6. 34 CFR 350.51 - What is the purpose of peer review?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 34 Education 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false What is the purpose of peer review? 350.51 Section 350... PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM How Does the Secretary Make an Award? § 350.51 What is the purpose of peer review? The purpose of peer review is to insure that— (a) Those activities supported by the...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Yankulov, Krassimir; Couto, Richard

    2012-01-01

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

  8. 77 FR 19126 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: New Threshold for Peer Reviews of...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-03-30

    ... Regulation Supplement: New Threshold for Peer Reviews of Noncompetitive Contracts (DFARS Case 2012-D018... modify the threshold for noncompetitive contract peer reviews. DATES: Effective Date: April 30, 2012. FOR.... Background This final rule reduces the threshold for DoD peer reviews of noncompetitive contracts from...

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2012-01-01

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

  10. 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....

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Schwegler, Andria F.; Altman, Barbara W.

    2015-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hoogeveen, Mariëtte; van Gelderen, Amos

    2013-01-01

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

  14. Peer review of teaching in Web-based courses in nursing.

    PubMed

    Cobb, K L; Billings, D M; Mays, R M; Canty-Mitchell, J

    2001-01-01

    With the explosion of college-level Web-based courses, concern has arisen about the quality of online courses. Peer review of online courses is one method of ensuring that these courses meet the highest standards. Although numerous colleges and universities use peer review for classroom presentations, clinical experiences, and course materials, peer review of an online course may require a different type of expertise. This article describes the process for conducting a peer review of teaching in Web-based courses and explains how documentation of peer review of an online course can be used for faculty development, promotion and tenure decisions, curriculum decisions, and program review.

  15. Pulsed power peer review committee report.

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    2004-08-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2004-08-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Beeson, Tracy A.; Jones, Carol C.

    2010-02-01

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

  18. Medicare: Better Controls Needed for Peer Review Organizations’ Evaluations.

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1987-10-01

    Peer Review Organizations’ performance during the 1984-86 contract period. It also discusses HCFA’S process for determining program funding for the 1986-88 contract period. The report contains recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Professional Review Organizations (PROS) contract with the Medicare program to review the necessity, appropriateness, and quality of inpatient hospital services received by the program’s beneficiaries. From February through July 1986, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’S) Health

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

    PubMed Central

    Palermo, Ann-Gel S.

    2010-01-01

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

  20. An approach to peer review in forensic pathology.

    PubMed

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

    2013-07-01

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

  1. Reviewer acknowledgement 2013

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

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

  2. Selection of Journals for Index Medicus: A Historical Review

    PubMed Central

    Karel, Leonard

    1967-01-01

    From the inception of the first Index Medicus, published in 1879, to the present, the National Library of Medicine has been concerned with the quality of journals in the Index. The Library has, therefore, sought advice repeatedly on how best to maintain currency of the Index without sacrificing quality and subject matter balance. Responding to suggestions, the Library decided in June 1964 to base its selection of journals on recommendations made by a panel consisting primarily of extramural consultants widely regarded as specialists in the totality of biomedical literature. Beginning with its first meeting in September 1964, this panel has been fortified in its reviews by advice from subject matter specialists. The panel, by its own wishes, which bear the endorsement of the Board of Regents of the Library, will continue to rely heavily on such expert advice in future evaluations of journals. PMID:6072093

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2009-01-01

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    2005-02-01

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

  5. Teaching undergraduates the process of peer review: learning by doing.

    PubMed

    Rangachari, P K

    2010-09-01

    An active approach allowed undergraduates in Health Sciences to learn the dynamics of peer review at first hand. A four-stage process was used. In stage 1, students formed self-selected groups to explore specific issues. In stage 2, each group posted their interim reports online on a specific date. Each student read all the other reports and prepared detailed critiques. In stage 3, each report was discussed at sessions where the lead discussant was selected at random. All students participated in the peer review process. The written critiques were collated and returned to each group, who were asked to resubmit their revised reports within 2 wk. In stage 4, final submissions accompanied by rebuttals were graded. Student responses to a questionnaire were highly positive. They recognized the individual steps in the standard peer review, appreciated the complexities involved, and got a first-hand experience of some of the inherent variabilities involved. The absence of formal presentations and the opportunity to read each other's reports permitted them to study issues in greater depth.

  6. Scholarly Electronic Journals: Economic and Technical Issues.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

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

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

    PubMed

    Vyas, Dinesh; Hozain, Ahmed E

    2014-06-07

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Vyas, Dinesh; Hozain, Ahmed E

    2014-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Wilkins, Stephen; Huisman, Jeroen

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2015-01-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2016-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Langsam, Deborah M.; Dubois, Philip L.

    1996-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Woodman, Richard J.; Parappilly, Maria B.

    2015-01-01

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

  15. Open Review in Science Journals Gets Mixed Reviews

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brown, Susan

    2007-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Murphy Tighe, Sylvia; Bradshaw, Carmel

    2013-11-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2007-01-19

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

  18. Experienced Journal Reviewers' Perceptions of and Engagement with the Task of Reviewing: An Australian Perspective

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lu, Yanping

    2013-01-01

    As part of a mixed-methods doctoral project, this study drew on an interview, bracketed by two surveys, with experienced Australian reviewers. It explored questions about the contributions of peer review, the need and possibility to improve it and the driving factors for reviewers to contribute voluntarily. The respondents emphasised the essential…

  19. Defense Acquisition Review Journal. Volume 16, Number 2

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2008-07-01

    Defense Logistics Agency John J. Young Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) Dr. Diane R. Murphy Chief Executive Officer...tailored design method (2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Defense Acquisition Review Journal 110 Does orGaniZational leVel influence self-leaDersHiP...that tell us what kind of strategies will work best in a given situation” (p. 151). John H. Holland, in his 1998 book Emer- gence, discusses the

  20. Quality of Survey Reporting in Nephrology Journals: A Methodologic Review

    PubMed Central

    Li, Alvin Ho-Ting; Thomas, Sonia M.; Farag, Alexandra; Duffett, Mark; Garg, Amit X.

    2014-01-01

    Background and objectives Survey research is an important research method used to determine individuals’ attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors; however, as with other research methods, inadequate reporting threatens the validity of results. This study aimed to describe the quality of reporting of surveys published between 2001 and 2011 in the field of nephrology. Design, setting, participants, & measurements The top nephrology journals were systematically reviewed (2001–2011: American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, and Kidney International; 2006–2011: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology) for studies whose primary objective was to collect and report survey results. Included were nephrology journals with a heavy focus on clinical research and high impact factors. All titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. Surveys were excluded if they were part of a multimethod study, evaluated only psychometric characteristics, or used semi-structured interviews. Information was collected on survey and respondent characteristics, questionnaire development (e.g., pilot testing), psychometric characteristics (e.g., validity and reliability), survey methods used to optimize response rate (e.g., system of multiple contacts), and response rate. Results After a screening of 19,970 citations, 216 full-text articles were reviewed and 102 surveys were included. Approximately 85% of studies reported a response rate. Almost half of studies (46%) discussed how they developed their questionnaire and only a quarter of studies (28%) mentioned the validity or reliability of the questionnaire. The only characteristic that improved over the years was the proportion of articles reporting missing data (2001–2004: 46.4%; 2005–2008: 61.9%; and 2009–2011: 84.8%; respectively) (P<0.01). Conclusions The quality of survey reporting in nephrology journals remains suboptimal. In particular, reporting of the validity and reliability of the

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brennan, John; And Others

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

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

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Lundquist, Marjorie

    2011-03-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2015-06-15

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

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

    DOE PAGES

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

    2015-06-15

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

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

    PubMed Central

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

    2014-01-01

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

  6. Peer review of HEDR uncertainty and sensitivity analyses plan

    SciTech Connect

    Hoffman, F.O.

    1993-06-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-09-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Veronneau, Marie-Helene; Vitaro, Frank

    2007-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Liu, Eric Zhi-Feng

    2005-01-01

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

  10. Reviewer Acknowledgement 2013

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Contributing reviewers A peer-reviewed journal would not survive without the generous time and insightful comments of the reviewers, whose efforts often go unrecognized. Systematic Reviews has been blessed by the support of highly-qualified peer reviewers, and the Editors-in-Chief, David Moher, Lesley Stewart and Paul Shekelle, and staff of the journal would like to show their appreciation by thanking the following for their invaluable assistance with review of manuscripts for the journal in Volume 2 (2013).

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

    PubMed

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

    2014-10-01

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

  12. Strengthening Technical Peer Review at the Army S&T Laboratories

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2009-03-01

    The assumption underlying the value of peer review is that the quality of work is substantiated or improved through critiques by individuals who are...in shaping future work. The use of peer review , using experts in possession of varied and extensive experience, can much improve the quality of work...and efficacy of results. The Army Science and Technology Executive, Dr. Thomas Killion, requested a study of peer review methods in use at Army

  13. Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems (STARS): Peer Review Capability Description

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1990-02-02

    The purpose of this document is to describe the prototype peer review capability for Ada source code that was developed as part of BR40 Repository...recommendations for future work. One objective of the STARS Program is to institutionalize peer review of source code and technical documentation as part of...the system development process. This prototype tool tests the concept of a folded tree editor to support on-line peer review of Ada source code. the

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Edwards, Lisa M.; Pedrotti, Jennifer Teramoto

    2008-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    1988-07-01

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

  16. Publishing corruption discussion: predatory journalism.

    PubMed

    Jones, James W; McCullough, Laurence B

    2014-02-01

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

  17. Peer Review of NRC Standardized Plant Analysis Risk Models

    SciTech Connect

    Anthony Koonce; James Knudsen; Robert Buell

    2011-03-01

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

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

    PubMed Central

    Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

    Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus

    2012-01-01

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

  20. ECCO peer review--development since 1996 and future prospects.

    PubMed

    Flynn, D J; Lundehn, J R

    2004-04-01

    Plant protection products have to be evaluated and authorized in the EC-Member States since 1993 in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC. The programme for evaluating existing active substances (which were on the market before July 1993) involves several steps and stages, stretching over a period of up to formerly 10, and now 15 years. The programme is co-ordinated by the European Commission, with the assistance of the European Community Co-Ordination (ECCO)-Team since 1996. The ECCO-Team consists of two groups; one is situated at the Pesticides Safety Directorate in York (United Kingdom) and the other at the Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit-BVL (Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety) in Braunschweig (Germany). They provide technical and administrative support to the programme for the evaluation of active substances on behalf of the European Commission, and are responsible for the ECCO peer review programme in particular. The programme has been extremely successful, with over 160 active substances having been peer reviewed, facilitating over 100 decisions on the acceptability of those actives at Community level.

  1. Nevada Risk Assessment/Management Program scientific peer review

    SciTech Connect

    Bentz, E.J. Jr.; Bentz, C.B.; O`Hora, T.D.; Chen, S.Y.

    1997-04-01

    The 1,350 square-mile Nevada Test Site and additional sites in Nevada served as the continental sites for US nuclear weapons testing from 1951 to 1992. The Nevada Risk Assessment/Management Program (NRAMP) is a currently on-going effort of the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and the firm of E. J. Bentz and Associates, Inc., in cooperation with the US Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management Program. Argonne National Laboratory is one of several public and private organizations supporting personnel appointed by the NRAMP to the NRAMP Scientific Peer Review Panel. The NRAMP is part of a national effort by the DOE to develop new sources of information and approaches to risk assessment, risk management, risk communication, and public outreach relevant to the ecological and human health effects of radioactive and hazardous materials management and site remediation activities. This paper describes the development, conduct, and current results of the scientific peer review process which supports the goals of the NRAMP.

  2. MEDICARE: Physician-Sponsored Organizations Receive Priority for Peer Review Contracts.

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1988-01-01

    utilization and quality control peer review organization program as the successor to the professional standards review program. The program is...sufficient number of physicians to assure adequate peer review of the services provided by the various medical specialties and subspecialties. The

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kelly, Lauren

    2015-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Garousi, V.

    2010-01-01

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

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kendall, Diana

    1999-01-01

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

  6. From Conference to Journal

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    McCartney, Robert; Tenenberg, Josh

    2008-01-01

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

  7. Peers and Obesity during Childhood and Adolescence: A Review of the Empirical Research on Peers, Eating, and Physical Activity

    PubMed Central

    Salvy, Sarah-Jeanne; Bowker, Julie C.

    2015-01-01

    Obesity during childhood and adolescence is a growing problem in the United States, Canada, and around the world that leads to significant physical, psychological, and social impairment. In recent years, empirical research on factors that contribute to the development and maintenance of obesity has begun to consider peer experiences, such as peer rejection, peer victimization, and friendship. Peer experiences have been theoretically and empirically related to the “Big Two” contributors to the obesity epidemic, eating and physical activity, but there has not been a comprehensive review of the extant empirical literature. In this article, we review and synthesize the emerging theoretical and empirical literatures on peer experiences in relation to: (a) eating (food consumption and food selection); and (b) physical activity, during childhood and adolescence. A number of limitations and issues in the theoretical and empirical literatures are also discussed, along with future research directions. In conclusion, we argue that the involvement of children and adolescents’ peer networks in prevention and intervention efforts may be critical for promoting and maintaining positive behavioral health trajectories. PMID:28090396

  8. Online Peer-to-Peer Communities in the Daily Lives of People With Chronic Illness: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

    PubMed

    Kingod, Natasja; Cleal, Bryan; Wahlberg, Ayo; Husted, Gitte R

    2017-01-01

    This qualitative systematic review investigated how individuals with chronic illness experience online peer-to-peer support and how their experiences influence daily life with illness. Selected studies were appraised by quality criteria focused upon research questions and study design, participant selection, methods of data collection, and methods of analysis. Four themes were identified: (a) illness-associated identity work, (b) social support and connectivity, (c) experiential knowledge sharing, and (d) collective voice and mobilization. Findings indicate that online peer-to-peer communities provide a supportive space for daily self-care related to chronic illness. Online communities provided a valued space to strengthen social ties and exchange knowledge that supported offline ties and patient-doctor relationships. Individuals used online communities to exchange experiential knowledge about everyday life with illness. This type of knowledge was perceived as extending far beyond medical care. Online communities were also used to mobilize and raise collective awareness about illness-specific concerns.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Alderman, Pamela Lea McCloud

    2012-01-01

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

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

    PubMed

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

    2016-01-01

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

  11. To Give Is Better Than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer's Own Writing

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lundstrom, Kristi; Baker, Wendy

    2009-01-01

    Although peer review has been shown to be beneficial in many writing classrooms, the benefits of peer review to the reviewer, or the student giving feedback, has not been thoroughly investigated in second-language writing research. The purpose of this study is to determine which is more beneficial to improving student writing: giving or receiving…

  12. Using Errors to Teach through a Two-Staged, Structured Review: Peer-Reviewed Quizzes and "What's Wrong with Me?"

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Coppola, Brian P.; Pontrello, Jason K.

    2014-01-01

    Using errors as a method of learning has been made explicit through a two-staged peer review and discussion. During organic chemistry discussion sessions, quizzes are followed by a structured peer review designed to help students identify and discuss student errors. After the face-to-face discussion, a second stage of review involves analyzing and…

  13. Portable Common Execution Environment (PCEE) project review: Peer review

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Locke, C. Douglass

    1991-01-01

    The purpose of the review was to conduct an independent, in-depth analysis of the PCEE project and to provide the results of said review. The review team was tasked with evaluating the potential contribution of the PCEE project to the improvement of the life cycle support of mission and safety critical (MASC) computing components for large, complex, non-stop, distributed systems similar to those planned for such NASA programs as the space station, lunar outpost, and manned missions to Mars. Some conclusions of the review team are as follow: The PCEE project was given high marks for its breath of vision on the overall problem with MASC software; Correlated with the sweeping vision, the Review Team is very skeptical that any research project can successfully attack such a broad range of problems; and several recommendations are made such as to identify the components of the broad solution envisioned, prioritizing them with respect to their impact and the likely ability of the PCEE or others to attack them successfully, and to rewrite its Concept Document differentiating the problem description, objectives, approach, and results so that the project vision becomes assessible to others.

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

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Herman, Georgianna

    1984-01-01

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

  15. Review of journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance 2010

    PubMed Central

    2011-01-01

    There were 75 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2010, which is a 34% increase in the number of articles since 2009. The quality of the submissions continues to increase, and the editors were delighted with the recent announcement of the JCMR Impact Factor of 4.33 which showed a 90% increase since last year. Our acceptance rate is approximately 30%, but has been falling as the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. Last year for the first time, the Editors summarized the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, which we felt would be useful to practitioners of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) so that you could review areas of interest from the previous year in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles [1]. This experiment proved very popular with a very high rate of downloading, and therefore we intend to continue this review annually. The papers are presented in themes and comparison is drawn with previously published JCMR papers to identify the continuity of thought and publication in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication. PMID:21914185

  16. Reviewer Acknowledgement 2013

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

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

  17. ‘Scholarly peer reviewing’: The art, its joys and woes

    PubMed Central

    Kurdi, Madhuri S

    2015-01-01

    Research and publications are an important part of academics. Nowadays, there is an increasing trend amongst professionals including anaesthesiologists to submit scientific articles to journals for publication. Most journals are peer-reviewed which means that the articles they publish go through the peer review process. Peer review is carried out for assessing the inadequacies of research and manuscript preparation so that the best papers are published in a journal. Although peer review is a key part of the process for the publishing of medical research, there are some limitations in the system. Keeping this in mind, all aspects of peer reviewing were searched from books and journals for full text from PubMed and Google search. The information so gathered is presented in this article which focuses on the general aspects of the peer review process. PMID:26379288

  18. 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.

  19. The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review

    PubMed Central

    Chambers, Christopher D.; Etchells, Peter J.; Harris, Christine R.; Hoekstra, Rink; Lakens, Daniël; Morey, Candice Coker; Newman, Daniel P.; Schönbrodt, Felix D.; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan; Zwaan, Rolf A.

    2016-01-01

    Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability of data for theory-building and meta-analysis, and increased possibility of review and collaboration even after a paper has been published. Although modern information technology makes sharing easier than ever before, uptake of open practices had been slow. We suggest this might be in part due to a social dilemma arising from misaligned incentives and propose a specific, concrete mechanism—reviewers withholding comprehensive review—to achieve the goal of creating the expectation of open practices as a matter of scientific principle. PMID:26909182

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

    PubMed

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

    2017-03-01

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