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

PubMed

Edwards, Marc T

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2010-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

Most Courses Are Not Born Digital: An Overview of the Quality Matters Peer Review Process for Online Course Design

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Varonis, Evageline Marlos

2014-01-01

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to discuss benefits of and barriers to online learning and describe utilization of the Quality Matters (QM) peer review process as a method to assure the quality of online courses. It outlines the QM higher education rubric, explains how the collaborative QM peer review process facilitates online course design…

Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors.

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

Telemedicine-based system for quality management and peer review in radiology.

PubMed

Morozov, Sergey; Guseva, Ekaterina; Ledikhova, Natalya; Vladzymyrskyy, Anton; Safronov, Dmitry

2018-06-01

Quality assurance is the key component of modern radiology. A telemedicine-based quality assurance system helps to overcome the "scoring" approach and makes the quality control more accessible and objective. A concept for quality assurance in radiology is developed. Its realization is a set of strategies, actions, and tools. The latter is based on telemedicine-based peer review of 23,199 computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images. The conception of the system for quality management in radiology represents a chain of actions: "discrepancies evaluation - routine support - quality improvement activity - discrepancies evaluation". It is realized by an audit methodology, telemedicine, elearning, and other technologies. After a year of systemic telemedicine-based peer reviews, the authors have estimated that clinically significant discrepancies were detected in 6% of all cases, while clinically insignificant ones were found in 19% of cases. Most often, problems appear in musculoskeletal records; 80% of the examinations have diagnostic or technical imperfections. The presence of routine telemedicine support and personalized elearning allowed improving the diagnostics quality. The level of discrepancies has decreased significantly (p < 0.05). The telemedicine-based peer review system allows improving radiology departments' network effectiveness. • "Scoring" approach to radiologists' performance assessment must be changed. • Telemedicine peer review and personalized elearning significantly decrease the number of discrepancies. • Teleradiology allows linking all primary-level hospitals to a common peer review network.

The "peer" in "peer review"

USGS Publications Warehouse

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

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

Peer Review as a Strategy for Improving Students' Writing Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Baker, Kimberly M.

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Shepherd, Jonathan; Frampton, Geoff K; Pickett, Karen; Wyatt, Jeremy C

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Pöschl, Ulrich

2012-01-01

The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to all demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today’s highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be advanced and complemented by interactive and transparent forms of review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public. The advantages of open access, public peer review, and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional scientific peer review. Since 2001 the benefits and viability of this approach are clearly demonstrated by the highly successful interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP, www.atmos-chem-phys.net) and a growing number of sister journals launched and operated by the European Geosciences Union (EGU, www.egu.eu) and the open access publisher Copernicus (www.copernicus.org). The interactive open access journals are practicing an integrative multi-stage process of publication and peer review combined with interactive public discussion, which effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance. Key features and achievements of this approach are: top quality and impact, efficient self-regulation and low rejection rates, high attractivity and rapid growth, low costs, and financial sustainability. In fact, ACP and the EGU interactive open access sister journals are by most if not all standards more successful than comparable scientific journals with traditional or alternative forms of peer review (editorial statistics, publication statistics, citation statistics, economic costs, and sustainability). The high efficiency and predictive validity of multi-stage open peer review have been confirmed in a series of dedicated studies by evaluation experts from the social sciences, and the same or similar concepts have recently also been adopted in other disciplines, including the life sciences and economics. Multi-stage open peer review can be flexibly adjusted to the needs and peculiarities of different scientific communities. Due to the flexibility and compatibility with traditional structures of scientific publishing and peer review, the multi-stage open peer review concept enables efficient evolution in scientific communication and quality assurance. It has the potential for swift replacement of hidden peer review as the standard of scientific quality assurance, and it provides a basis for open evaluation in science. PMID:22783183

Mentored peer reviewing for PhD faculty and students.

PubMed

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

2016-02-01

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

The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

PubMed

Ferreira, Catarina; Bastille-Rousseau, Guillaume; Bennett, Amanda M; Ellington, E Hance; Terwissen, Christine; Austin, Cayla; Borlestean, Adrian; Boudreau, Melanie R; Chan, Kevin; Forsythe, Adrian; Hossie, Thomas J; Landolt, Kristen; Longhi, Jessica; Otis, Josée-Anne; Peers, Michael J L; Rae, Jason; Seguin, Jacob; Watt, Cristen; Wehtje, Morgan; Murray, Dennis L

2016-08-01

Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer-review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer-review system are merely sticking-plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for. © 2015 Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Development of a peer-review framework for cancer multidisciplinary meetings.

PubMed

Johnson, Claire E; Slavova-Azmanova, Neli; Saunders, Christobel

2017-05-01

There is no mechanism in place for monitoring or quality improvement of cancer multidisciplinary meetings (MDM) in Australia. To develop a peer-review process for quality improvement of MDM. This project involved three phases: (i) development of a draft peer-review framework, supporting documents and peer-review process; (ii) consultation with key stakeholders; (iii) refinement of the framework, documents and processes following a pilot study with three MDM. Feedback indicated that specific standards included in the framework needed to allow the peer reviewers to be flexible relative to the circumstances of the individual MDM. Conversely, feedback identified the need for clear, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the conduct of MDM, with accepted standards and objective measures of performance. MDM members were divided about the need to employ peer reviewers from the tumour stream of the MDM under review but agreed that closer involvement of the team under review to support the implementation of recommendations is warranted. We developed an adaptable peer-review framework and process using the current available evidence and guidance. While further research is needed to establish what constitutes best practice in MDM and which processes contribute to improved patient outcomes, the structured peer-review process we describe, when modified using the disease-relevant evidence, could be utilised more broadly as a quality improvement tool. © 2017 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2012-12-01

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

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

PubMed

Biddle, Chuck

2011-10-01

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

Types of Feedback in Peer Review and the Effect on Student Motivation and Writing Quality

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sloan, Christopher Colgan

2017-01-01

In writing classrooms, peer review has been shown to have numerous practical and cognitive benefits. However, little research has been done that examines how different types of peer feedback motivate adolescent students and the effects that different types of feedback have on writing quality. While the literature has indicated that peers give each…

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…

A randomized trial of peer review: the UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project: three-year evaluation.

PubMed

Roberts, Christopher M; Stone, Robert A; Buckingham, Rhona J; Pursey, Nancy A; Lowe, Derek; Potter, Jonathan M

2012-06-01

Peer review has been widely used within the National Health Service to facilitate health quality improvement but evaluation has been limited particularly over the longer-term. Change within the National Health Service (NHS) can take a prolonged period--1-2 years--to occur. We report here a 3-year evaluation of the largest randomized trial of peer review ever conducted in the UK. To evaluate whether targeted mutual peer review of respiratory units brings about improvements in services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) over 3 years. The peer review intervention was a reciprocal supportive exercise that included clinicians, hospital management, commissioners and patients, which focused on the quality of the provision of four specific evidence-based aspects of COPD care. Follow-up at 36 months demonstrated limited significant quantitative differences in the quality of services offered in the two groups but a strong trend in favour of intervention sites. Qualitative data suggested many benefits of peer review in most but not all intervention units and some control teams. The data identify factors that promote and obstruct change. The findings demonstrate significant change in service provision over 3 years in both control and intervention sites with great variability in both groups. The combined quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that targeted mutual peer review is associated with improved quality of care, improvements in service delivery and with changes within departments that promote and are precursors to quality improvement. The generic findings of this study have potential implications for the application of peer review throughout the NHS. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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

PubMed Central

Janke, Kristin K.; Traynor, Andrew P.

2017-01-01

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

Peer review and the publication process.

PubMed

Ali, Parveen Azam; Watson, Roger

2016-10-01

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

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…

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Schwegler, Andria F.; Altman, Barbara W.

2015-01-01

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

Pre-University Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2018-01-01

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

Student Perceptions of Quality and Satisfaction in Online Education

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Simpson, Jill M.; Benson, Angela D.

2013-01-01

The purpose of this study was to examine student perceptions of quality and satisfaction in regionally accredited online courses. Results indicated that undergoing a formal peer review may lead to higher student satisfaction in a course. Results also indicated that being subscribed to a peer review program without undergoing a formal peer review…

How to Assess Quality of Research in Iran, From Input to Impact? Introduction of Peer-Based Research Evaluation Model in Iran.

PubMed

Ebadifar, Asghar; Baradaran Eftekhari, Monir; Owlia, Parviz; Habibi, Elham; Ghalenoee, Elham; Bagheri, Mohammad Reza; Falahat, Katayoun; Eltemasi, Masoumeh; Sobhani, Zahra; Akhondzadeh, Shahin

2017-11-01

Research evaluation is a systematic and objective process to measure relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of research activities, and peer review is one of the most important tools for assessing quality of research. The aim of this study was introducing research evaluation indicators based on peer reviewing. This study was implemented in 4 stages. A list of objective-oriented evaluation indicators were designed in 4 axes, including; governance and leadership, structure, knowledge production and research impact. The top 10% medical sciences research centers (RCs) were evaluated based on peer review. Adequate equipment and laboratory instruments, high quality research publication and national or international cooperation were the main strengths in medical sciences RCs and the most important weaknesses included failure to adhere to strategic plans, parallel actions in similar fields, problems in manpower recruitment, knowledge translation & exchange (KTE) in service providers and policy makers' levels. Peer review evaluation can improve the quality of research.

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.…

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.

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

PubMed

Purtell, D L

1990-11-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-03-01

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

45 CFR 60.3 - Definitions.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... of a patient(s) or quality of health care services; (2) Any recommendation by a peer review... with the primary purpose of evaluating the quality of patient care practices or services ordered or... through a formal peer review process for the purpose of furthering quality health care, or a committee of...

Automated Assessment of the Quality of Peer Reviews Using Natural Language Processing Techniques

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Ramachandran, Lakshmi; Gehringer, Edward F.; Yadav, Ravi K.

2017-01-01

A "review" is textual feedback provided by a reviewer to the author of a submitted version. Peer reviews are used in academic publishing and in education to assess student work. While reviews are important to e-commerce sites like Amazon and e-bay, which use them to assess the quality of products and services, our work focuses on…

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

A multicentre randomised controlled trial of reciprocal lung cancer peer review and supported quality improvement: results from the improving lung cancer outcomes project

PubMed Central

Russell, G K; Jimenez, S; Martin, L; Stanley, R; Peake, M D; Woolhouse, I

2014-01-01

Background: Results from the National Lung Cancer Audit demonstrate unexplained variation in outcomes. Peer review with supported quality improvement has been shown to reduce variation in other areas of health care but has not been formally tested in cancer multidisciplinary teams. The aim of the current study is to assess the impact of reciprocal peer-to-peer review visits with supported quality improvement and collaborative working on lung cancer process and outcome measures. Methods: English lung cancer teams were randomised to usual care or facilitated reciprocal peer review visits followed by 12 months of supported quality improvement. The primary outcome was change in the following national audit indicators; mulitdisciplinary team discussion, histological confirmation, active treatment, surgical resection, small-cell chemotherapy and specialist nurse review. Patient experience was measured using a new lung cancer patient questionnaire in the intervention group. Results: Thirty teams (31 trusts) entered the intervention group and 29 of these submitted a total of 67 quality improvement plans. Active treatment increased in the intervention group (n=31) by 5.2% compared with 1.2% in the control group (n=48, mean difference 4.1%, 95% CI −0.1 to 8.2%, P=0.055). The remaining audit indicators improved similarly in all groups. Mean patient experience scores in the intervention group did not change significantly during the study but a significant improvement was seen in the scores for the five teams with the worst baseline scores (0.86 to 0.22, P<0.001). Conclusions: Reciprocal peer review with supported quality improvement was feasible and effective in stimulating quality improvement activity but resulted in only modest improvements in lung cancer treatment rates and patient experience. PMID:24651386

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

PubMed

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

2010-11-16

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

Timely deposition of macromolecular structures is necessary for peer review

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

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

2013-12-01

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

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

PubMed

Vyas, Dinesh; Cronin, Sean

2015-12-01

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

Clinical peer review program self-evaluation for US hospitals.

PubMed

Edwards, Marc T

2010-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Covill, Amy E.

2010-01-01

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

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…

Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

Scientific peer review is pivotal in health care research in that it facilitates the evaluation of findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. While the origins of peer review can be traced to the societies of the eighteenth century, it became an institutionalized part of the scholarly process in the latter half of the twentieth century. This was a response to the growth of research and greater subject specialization. With the current increase in the number of specialty journals, the peer review process continues to evolve to meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The peer review process itself faces challenges. Unblinded peer review might suffer from positive or negative bias towards certain authors, specialties, and institutions. Peer review can also suffer when editors and/or reviewers might be unable to understand the contents of the submitted manuscript. This can result in an inability to detect major flaws, or revelations of major flaws after acceptance of publication by the editors. Other concerns include potentially long delays in publication and challenges uncovering plagiarism, duplication, corruption and scientific misconduct. Conversely, a multitude of these challenges have led to claims of scientific misconduct and an erosion of faith. These challenges have invited criticism of the peer review process itself. However, despite its imperfections, the peer review process enjoys widespread support in the scientific community. Peer review bias is one of the major focuses of today's scientific assessment of the literature. Various types of peer review bias include content-based bias, confirmation bias, bias due to conservatism, bias against interdisciplinary research, publication bias, and the bias of conflicts of interest. Consequently, peer review would benefit from various changes and improvements with appropriate training of reviewers to provide quality reviews to maintain the quality and integrity of research without bias. Thus, an appropriate, transparent peer review is not only ideal, but necessary for the future to facilitate scientific progress.

Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game

PubMed Central

Goldstone, Robert L.; Helbing, Dirk

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2007-05-01

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

[Quality Assurance in Sociomedical Evaluation by Peer Review: A Pilot Project of the German Statutory Pension Insurance].

PubMed

Strahl, A; Gerlich, C; Wolf, H-D; Gehrke, J; Müller-Garnn, A; Vogel, H

2016-03-01

The sociomedical evaluation by the German Pension Insurance serves the purpose of determining entitlement to disability pensions. A quality assurance concept for the sociomedical evaluation was developed, which is based on a peer Review process. Peer review is an established process of external quality assurance in health care. The review is based on a hierarchically constructed manual that was evaluated in this pilot project. The database consists of 260 medical reports for disability pension of 12 pension insurance agencies. 771 reviews from 19 peers were included in the evaluation of the inter-rater reliability. Kendall's coefficient of concordance W for more than 2 raters is used as primary measure of inter-rater reliability. Reliability appeared to be heterogeneous. Kendalls W varies for the particular criteria from 0.09 to 0.88 and reached for primary criterion reproducibility a value of 0.37. The reliability of the manual seemed acceptable in the context of existing research data and is in line with existing peer review research outcomes. Nevertheless, the concordance is limited and requires optimisation. Starting points for improvement can be seen in a systematic training and regular user meetings of the peers involved. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Understanding the Benefits of Providing Peer Feedback: How Students Respond to Peers' Texts of Varying Quality

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Patchan, Melissa M.; Schunn, Christian D.

2015-01-01

Prior research on peer assessment often overlooks how much students learn from providing feedback to peers. By practicing revision skills, students might strengthen their ability to detect, diagnose, and solve writing problems. However, both reviewer ability and the quality of the peers' texts affect the amount of practice available to learners.…

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Peer review of human studies run amok: a break in the fiduciary relation between scientists and the public.

PubMed

Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W; Saitz, Richard

2015-02-01

Peer review aims to ensure the quality and credibility of research reporting. Conducted by volunteer scientists who receive no guidance or direction, peer review widely varies from fast and facilitative, to unclear and obstructive. Poor quality is an issue because most science research is publicly funded, whereby scientists must make an effort to quickly disseminate their findings back to the public. An unfortunately not uncommon barrier in this process is ineffective peer review. Most scientists agree that when done well, editors and reviewers drive and maintain the high standards of science. At the same time, ineffective peer review can cause great delay with no introduced improvement in final product. These delays and requests interfere with the path of communication between scientist and public, at a great cost to editors, reviewers, authors and those who stand to benefit from application of the results of the studies. We offer a series of concrete recommendations to improve this process.

The effect of peer review on mortality rates.

PubMed

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

2016-10-01

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

A longitudinal study of clinical peer review's impact on quality and safety in U.S. hospitals.

PubMed

Edwards, Marc T

2013-01-01

Clinical peer review is the dominant method of event analysis in U.S. hospitals. It is pivotal to medical staff efforts to improve quality and safety, yet the quality assurance process model that has prevailed for the past 30 years evokes fear and is fundamentally antithetical to a culture of safety. Two prior national studies characterized a quality improvement model that corrects this dysfunction but failed to demonstrate progress toward its adoption despite a high rate of program change between 2007 and 2009. This study's online survey of 470 organizations participating in either of the prior studies further assessed relationships between clinical peer review program factors, including the degree of conformance to the quality improvement model (the QI model score), and subjectively measured program impact variables. Among the 300 hospitals (64%) that responded, the median QI model score was only 60 on a 100-point scale. Scores increased somewhat for the 2007 cohort (mean pair-wise difference of 5.9 [2-10]), but not for the 2009 cohort. The QI model is expanded as the result of the finding that self-reporting of adverse events, near misses, and hazardous conditions--an essential practice in high-reliability organizations--is no longer rare in hospitals. Self-reporting and the quality of case review are additional multivariate predictors of the perceived ongoing impact of clinical peer review on quality and safety, medical staff perceptions of the program, and medical staff engagement in quality and safety initiatives. Hospital leaders and trustees who seek to improve patient outcomes should facilitate the adoption of this best practice model for clinical peer review.

Pre-university Chemistry Students in a Mimicked Scholarly Peer Review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2014-10-01

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

Peer Review of Best Practices

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2017-12-01

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

Manuscript peer review at the AJR: facts, figures, and quality assessment.

PubMed

Friedman, D P

1995-04-01

Concern by the government, funding institutions, and the public for quality assurance in all aspects of medical endeavors mandates critical examination of various professional activities. Although peer review is generally regarded as the best system for selecting and improving scientific papers for publication, the efficacy of this process has never been proved. Moreover, the administrative functions of the editorial staff are often poorly understood. The purpose of this article is to make peer review a the AJR less esoteric and more understandable by quantifying some of its activities. This information is then assessed as it relates to the quality of this important step in scientific publication.

Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

PubMed Central

Cobo, Erik; Selva-O'Callagham, Albert; Ribera, Josep-Maria; Cardellach, Francesc; Dominguez, Ruth; Vilardell, Miquel

2007-01-01

Background Although peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both. Methodology and Principal Findings Interventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with “no statistical expert” and “no checklist” as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2×2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6–24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: −0.3–+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3–6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality. Conclusions and Significance This prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines. PMID:17389922

Performance results for a workstation-integrated radiology peer review quality assurance program.

PubMed

O'Keeffe, Margaret M; Davis, Todd M; Siminoski, Kerry

2016-06-01

To assess review completion rates, RADPEER score distribution, and sources of disagreement when using a workstation-integrated radiology peer review program, and to evaluate radiologist perceptions of the program. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Large private outpatient radiology practice. Radiologists (n = 66) with a mean of 16.0 (standard deviation, 9.2) years of experience. Prior studies and reports of cases being actively reported were randomly selected for peer review using the RADPEER scoring system (a 4-point scale, with a score of 1 indicating agreement and scores of 2-4 indicating increasing levels of disagreement). Assigned peer review completion rates, review scores, sources of disagreement and radiologist survey responses. Of 31 293 assigned cases, 29 044 (92.8%; 95% CI 92.5-93.1%) were reviewed. Discrepant scores (score = 2, 3 or 4) were given in 0.69% (95% CI 0.60-0.79%) of cases and clinically significant discrepancy (score = 3 or 4) was assigned in 0.42% (95% CI 0.35-0.50%). The most common cause of disagreement was missed diagnosis (75.2%; 95% CI 66.8-82.1%). By anonymous survey, 94% of radiologists felt that peer review was worthwhile, 90% reported that the scores they received were appropriate and 78% felt that the received feedback was valuable. Workstation-based peer review can increase completion rates and levels of radiologist acceptance while producing RADPEER scores similar to those previously reported. This approach may be one way to increase radiologist engagement in peer review quality assurance. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved.

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.

Science and Technology Peer Review: GPRA

DTIC Science & Technology

2003-11-30

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

[Impact of quality measurement, transparency and peer review on in-hospital mortality - retrospective before-after study with 63 hospitals].

PubMed

Nimptsch, Ulrike; Peschke, Dirk; Mansky, Thomas

2016-10-01

In 2008 the 'Initiative Qualitätsmedizin' (initiative for quality in medical care, IQM) was established as a voluntary non-profit association of hospital providers of all kinds of ownership. Currently, about 350 hospitals from Germany and Switzerland participate in IQM. Member hospitals are committed to a quality strategy based on measuring outcome indicators using administrative data, peer review procedures to improve medical quality, and transparency by public reporting. This study aims to investigate whether voluntary implementation of this approach is associated with improvements in medical outcome. Within a retrospective before-after study 63 hospitals, which started to participate in IQM between 2009 and 2011, were monitored. In-hospital mortality in these hospitals was studied for 14 selected inpatient services in comparison to the German national average. The analyses examine whether in-hospital mortality declined after participation of the studied hospitals in IQM, independently of secular trends or deviations in case mix when compared to the national average, and whether such findings were associated with initial hospital performance or peer review procedures. Declining in-hospital mortality was observed in hospitals with initially subpar performance. These declines were statistically significant for treatment of myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and septicemia. Similar, but statistically non-significant trends were observed for nine further treatments. Following peer-review procedures significant declines in in-hospital mortality were observed for treatments of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. Mortality declines after peer reviews regarding stroke, hip fracture and colorectal resection were not significant, and after peer reviews regarding mechanically ventilated patients no changes were observed. The results point to a positive impact of the quality approach applied by IQM on clinical outcomes. A more targeted selection of hospitals to be peer-reviewed might further enhance the impact of this approach. Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Report: Examination of Pilot Peer Review Process for Inspectors General That Follow “Blue Book” Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

Report #16-N-0317, Sept 21, 2016. A peer review process that measures adherence to all the quality standards for federal Inspector General Inspection and Evaluation offices provides assurance that participating offices are being adequately evaluated.

Peer Evaluation of Teaching or "Fear" Evaluation: In Search of Compatibility

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Salih, Abdel Rahman Abdalla

2013-01-01

Peer evaluation or review of teaching is one of the factors of quality assurance system at the present time. However, peer evaluation is sometimes approached with trepidation and with the feeling that it may not be fair and free of bias. This paper examines teachers' perceptions of peer evaluation as an enhancement for quality teaching. A…

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 findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.

A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology.

PubMed

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

2015-03-01

To investigate whether training in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review effectively improves educational outcomes related to the quality of health research reporting. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for comparative studies of formalized, a priori-developed training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review. Comparators included the following: (1) before and after administration of a training program, (2) between two or more training programs, or (3) between a training program and any other (or no) intervention(s). Outcomes included any measure of effectiveness of training. Eighteen reports of 17 studies were included. Twelve studies focused on writing for publication, five on peer review, and none fit our criteria for journal editing. Included studies were generally small and inconclusive regarding the effects of training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors on educational outcomes related to improving the quality of health research. Studies were also of questionable validity and susceptible to misinterpretation because of their risk of bias. This review highlights the gaps in our knowledge of how to enhance and ensure the scientific quality of research output for authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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…

Academic Excellence: A Commentary and Reflections on the Inherent Value of Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Roberts, Thomas J.; Shambrook, Jennifer

2012-01-01

Academic peer review is widely viewed as fair, equitable, and essential to academic quality. Successfully completing the process through publication or award is widely deemed as one of the most rigorous and prestigious forms of scholarly accomplishment. Despite this sentiment the academic peer review process is not without fault. It is criticized…

Quality Assurance Peer Review Chart Rounds in 2011: A Survey of Academic Institutions in the United States

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

Lawrence, Yaacov Richard, E-mail: yaacovla@gmail.com; Department of Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University

Purpose: In light of concerns regarding the quality of radiation treatment delivery, we surveyed the practice of quality assurance peer review chart rounds at American academic institutions. Methods and Materials: An anonymous web-based survey was sent to the chief resident of each institution across the United States. Results: The response rate was 80% (57/71). The median amount of time spent per patient was 2.7 minutes (range, 0.6-14.4). The mean attendance by senior physicians and residents was 73% and 93%, respectively. A physicist was consistently present at peer review rounds in 66% of departments. There was a close association between attendancemore » by senior physicians and departmental organization: in departments with protected time policies, good attendance was 81% vs. 31% without protected time (p = 0.001), and in departments that documented attendance, attending presence was 69% vs. 29% in departments without documentation (p < 0.05). More than 80% of institutions peer review all external beam therapy courses; however, rates were much lower for other modalities (radiosurgery 58%, brachytherapy 40%-47%). Patient history, chart documentation, and dose prescription were always peer reviewed in >75% of institutions, whereas dosimetric details (beams, wedges), isodose coverage, intensity-modulated radiation therapy constraints, and dose-volume histograms were always peer reviewed in 63%, 59%, 42%, and 50% of cases, respectively. Chart rounds led to both minor (defined as a small multileaf collimator change/repeated port film) and major (change to dose prescription or replan with dosimetry) treatment changes. Whereas at the majority of institutions changes were rare (<10% of cases), 39% and 11% of institutions reported that minor and major changes, respectively, were made to more than 10% of cases. Conclusion: The implementation of peer review chart rounds seems inconsistent across American academic institutions. Brachytherapy and radiosurgical procedures are rarely reviewed. Attendance by senior physicians is variable, but it improves when scheduling clashes are avoided. The potential effect of a more thorough quality assurance peer review on patient outcomes is not known.« less

A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products.

PubMed

Hatchard, Jenny L; Fooks, Gary J; Evans-Reeves, Karen A; Ulucanlar, Selda; Gilmore, Anna B

2014-02-12

To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational tobacco corporations' (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of tobacco products 'won't work', following the UK government's decision to 'wait and see' until further evidence is available. Content analysis. We analysed the evidence cited in submissions by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. The volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging . Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences were resolved. 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work'. Of these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally, n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (p=0.0045). With few exceptions, evidence cited by TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work' lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers could use these three criteria-subject matter, independence and peer-review status-to critically assess evidence submitted to them by corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.

A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products

PubMed Central

Hatchard, Jenny L; Fooks, Gary J; Evans-Reeves, Karen A; Ulucanlar, Selda; Gilmore, Anna B

2014-01-01

Objectives To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational tobacco corporations’ (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of tobacco products ‘won't work’, following the UK government's decision to ‘wait and see’ until further evidence is available. Design Content analysis. Setting We analysed the evidence cited in submissions by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. Outcome measures The volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging . Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences were resolved. Results 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’. Of these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally, n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (p=0.0045). Conclusions With few exceptions, evidence cited by TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’ lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers could use these three criteria—subject matter, independence and peer-review status—to critically assess evidence submitted to them by corporate interests via Better Regulation processes. PMID:24523419

Exploration and practice of methods and processes of evidence-based rapid review on peer review of WHO EML application.

PubMed

Li, Youping; Yu, Jiajie; Du, Liang; Sun, Xin; Kwong, Joey S W; Wu, Bin; Hu, Zhiqiang; Lu, Jing; Xu, Ting; Zhang, Lingli

2015-11-01

After 38 years of development, the procedure of selection and evaluation of the World Health Organization Essential Medicine List (WHO EML) is increasingly scientific and formal. However, peer review for the applications of World Health Organization Essential Medicine List is always required in a short period. It is necessary to build up a set of methods and processes for rapid review. We identified the process of evidenced-based rapid review on WHO EML application for peer reviews according to 11 items which were required during reporting of the peer review results of the proposals. The most important items for the rapid review of World Health Organization Essential Medicine List peer reviewers are (1) to confirm the requirements and identify the purposes; (2) to establish the research questions and translate the questions into the 'Participants, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Study design' (PICOS) format; (3) to search and screen available evidence, for which high-level evidence is preferred, such as systematic reviews or meta-analyses, health technology assessment, clinical guidelines; (4) to extract data, where we extract primary information based on the purposes; (5) to synthesize data by qualitative methods, assess the quality of evidence, and compare the results; (6) to provide the answers to the applications, quality of evidences and strength of recommendations. Our study established a set of methods and processes for the rapid review of World Health Organization Essential Medicine List peer review, and our findings were used to guide the reviewers to fulfill the 19(th) World Health Organization Essential Medicine List peer review. The methods and processes were feasible and met the necessary requirements in terms of time and quality. Continuous improvement and evaluation in practice are warranted. © 2015 Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

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...

Developing an International Pool of Certified Quality Reviewers

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Adair, Deborah

2017-01-01

This article covers the origins, growth, rationale, calibration, and inspiration of an international pool of certified Quality Matters™ (QM) Peer Reviewers. From the beginning in 2003, as a U.S. Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education funded project, QM was developed as a faculty-centered, peer-based approach…

Quality Control of Epidemiological Lectures Online: Scientific Evaluation of Peer Review

PubMed Central

Linkov, Faina; Lovalekar, Mita; LaPorte, Ronald

2007-01-01

Aim To examine the feasibility of using peer review for the quality control of online materials. Methods We analyzed the inter-rater agreement on the quality of epidemiological lectures online, based on the Global Health Network Supercourse lecture library. We examined the agreement among reviewers by looking at κ statistics and intraclass correlations. Seven expert reviewers examined and rated a random sample of 100 Supercourse lectures. Their reviews were compared with the reviews of the lay Supercourse reviewers. Results Both expert and non-expert reviewers rated lectures very highly, with a mean overall score of 4 out of 5. Kappa (κ) statistic and intraclass correlations indicated that inter-rater agreement for experts and non-experts was surprisingly low (below 0.4). Conclusions To our knowledge, this was the first time that poor inter-rater agreement was demonstrated for the Internet lectures. Future research studies need to evaluate the alternatives to the peer review system, especially for online materials. PMID:17436390

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

PubMed

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

2018-03-27

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

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

PubMed

Huisman, Janine; Smits, Jeroen

2017-01-01

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

Clinical Nurse Specialists Guide Staff Nurses to Promote Practice Accountability Through Peer Review.

PubMed

Semper, Julie; Halvorson, Betty; Hersh, Mary; Torres, Clare; Lillington, Linda

2016-01-01

The aim of the study was to describe the clinical nurse specialist role in developing and implementing a staff nurse education program to promote practice accountability using peer review principles. Peer review is essential for professional nursing practice demanding a significant culture change. Clinical nurse specialists in a Magnet-designated community hospital were charged with developing a staff nurse peer review education program. Peer review is a recognized mechanism of professional self-regulation to ensure delivery of quality care. The American Nurses Association strongly urges incorporating peer review in professional nursing practice models. Clinical nurse specialists play a critical role in educating staff nurses about practice accountability. Clinical nurse specialists developed an education program guided by the American Nurses Association's principles of peer review. A baseline needs assessment identified potential barriers and learning needs. Content incorporated tools and strategies to build communication skills, collaboration, practice change, and peer accountability. The education program resulted in increased staff nurse knowledge about peer review and application of peer review principles in practice. Clinical nurse specialists played a critical role in helping staff nurses understand peer review and its application to practice. The clinical nurse specialist role will continue to be important in sustaining the application of peer review principles in practice.

Medicare program; acquisition, protection and disclosure of utilization and quality control peer review organization (PRO) information--HCFA. Proposed rule.

PubMed

1984-04-16

This proposal would govern the acquisition, protection and disclosure of information obtained or generated by Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review Organizations (PROs). The Peer Review Improvement Act of 1982 authorizes PROs to acquire information necessary to fulfill their duties and functions, places limits on the disclosure of PRO information, and establishes penalties for unauthorized disclosure. These regulations would implement the PROs' statutory right of access to necessary information and set forth their responsibilities to assure that information once acquired is adequately safeguarded, and used only for proper purposes.

Assessing Postgraduate Student Perceptions and Measures of Learning in a Peer Review Feedback Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Simpson, Genevieve; Clifton, Julian

2016-01-01

Peer review feedback, developed to assist students with increasing the quality of group reports and developing peer review skills, was added to a master's level Climate Change Policy and Planning unit. A pre- and post-survey was conducted to determine whether students found the process a valuable learning opportunity: 87% of students responding to…

Peer Review and the Dilemmas of Quality Control in Programme Accreditation in South African Higher Education: Challenges and Possibilities

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cross, Michael; Naidoo, Devika

2011-01-01

The paper scrutinises the dynamics and the nature of peer review in the programme evaluation and accreditation process within the context of diverse individual and institutional legacies in South Africa. It analyses the peer review process and highlights the contestation at political, policy and epistemological levels. The paper argues that,…

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…

[Evaluating the rehabilitation process by means of peer review: examination of the methods used and findings of the 2000/2001 data collection in the somatic indications].

PubMed

Farin, E; Carl, C; Lichtenberg, S; Jäckel, W H; Maier-Riehle, B; Rütten-Köppel, E

2003-12-01

This paper reports the results of a peer review system that was implemented in the context of the quality assurance programme of the statutory German Pension Insurance scheme. The data reported refer to the 2000/2001 data collection period for medical rehabilitation in the somatic indications. Examination of inter-rater reliability for judgements of individual raters shows satisfactory results only in orthopaedics. In the quality assurance programme, rehabilitation centres are usually evaluated by the mean of 20 rater judgements. The reliability of this aggregated measure is satisfactory in all indications. The results of 561 rehabilitation centres show that those quality criteria are in particular need of improvement that refer to subjective concepts of patients (e. g., subjective theories of illness). Between peer review procedures in 1998 and 1999, the quality scores of rehabilitation centres had improved whereas between 1999 and 2000/2001, no further improvement can be shown. However, those rehabilitation centres with a low quality score in 1999 (lowest quartile of the distribution) underwent a positive development between 1999 and 2000/2001. Reasons for this trend and possibilities for improving interrater reliability of the peer review process as an element of the quality assurance programme of the German Pension Insurance scheme are discussed.

Students Matter: Quality Measurements in Online Courses

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Unal, Zafer; Unal, Aslihan

2016-01-01

Quality Matters (QM) is a peer review process designed to certify the quality of online courses and online components. It has generated widespread interest and received national recognition for its peer-based approach to quality assurance and continuous improvement in online education. While the entire QM online course design process is…

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.

SU-F-T-231: Improving the Efficiency of a Radiotherapy Peer-Review System for Quality Assurance

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

Hsu, S; Basavatia, A; Garg, M

Purpose: To improve the efficiency of a radiotherapy peer-review system using a commercially available software application for plan quality evaluation and documentation. Methods: A commercial application, FullAccess (Radialogica LLC, Version 1.4.4), was implemented in a Citrix platform for peer-review process and patient documentation. This application can display images, isodose lines, and dose-volume histograms and create plan reports for peer-review process. Dose metrics in the report can also be benchmarked for plan quality evaluation. Site-specific templates were generated based on departmental treatment planning policies and procedures for each disease site, which generally follow RTOG protocols as well as published prospective clinicalmore » trial data, including both conventional fractionation and hypo-fractionation schema. Once a plan is ready for review, the planner exports the plan to FullAccess, applies the site-specific template, and presents the report for plan review. The plan is still reviewed in the treatment planning system, as that is the legal record. Upon physician’s approval of a plan, the plan is packaged for peer review with the plan report and dose metrics are saved to the database. Results: The reports show dose metrics of PTVs and critical organs for the plans and also indicate whether or not the metrics are within tolerance. Graphical results with green, yellow, and red lights are displayed of whether planning objectives have been met. In addition, benchmarking statistics are collected to see where the current plan falls compared to all historical plans on each metric. All physicians in peer review can easily verify constraints by these reports. Conclusion: We have demonstrated the improvement in a radiotherapy peer-review system, which allows physicians to easily verify planning constraints for different disease sites and fractionation schema, allows for standardization in the clinic to ensure that departmental policies are maintained, and builds a comprehensive database for potential clinical outcome evaluation.« less

Student Peer Review of Diagnostic Tests at the Medical College of Ohio.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Garg, Mohan L.; And Others

1979-01-01

In an effort to encourage cost-conscious behavior and quality assurance, students in community medicine clerkships at the Medical College of Ohio were required to conduct retrospective reviews of their peers' laboratory usage patterns using information generated by these peers during internal medicine and pediatrics rotations. (Author/JMD)

Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback.

PubMed

Strickland, N H

2015-11-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

Peer review in forensic science.

PubMed

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

2017-08-01

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

Web quality control for lectures: Supercourse and Amazon.com.

PubMed

Linkov, Faina; LaPorte, Ronald; Lovalekar, Mita; Dodani, Sunita

2005-12-01

Peer review has been at the corner stone of quality control of the biomedical journals in the past 300 years. With the emergency of the Internet, new models of quality control and peer review are emerging. However, such models are poorly investigated. We would argue that the popular system of quality control used in Amazon.com offers a way to ensure continuous quality improvement in the area of research communications on the Internet. Such system is providing an interesting alternative to the traditional peer review approaches used in the biomedical journals and challenges the traditional paradigms of scientific publishing. This idea is being explored in the context of Supercourse, a library of 2,350 prevention lectures, shared for free by faculty members from over 150 countries. Supercourse is successfully utilizing quality control approaches that are similar to Amazon.com model. Clearly, the existing approaches and emerging alternatives for quality control in scientific communications needs to be assessed scientifically. Rapid explosion of internet technologies could be leveraged to produce better, more cost effective systems for quality control in the biomedical publications and across all sciences.

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

PubMed

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

2012-04-01

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

Peer review amongst restorative specialists on the quality of their communication with referring dental practitioners.

PubMed

Ricketts, D N J; Scott, B J J; Ali, A; Chadwick, R G; Murray, C A; Radford, J R; Saunders, W P

2003-10-11

A peer review study was carried out to assess the written communication between consultants and specialist registrars in restorative dentistry with the referring general dental practitioners. Seven people took part in the study and each presented referral and reply letters for five patients whom they had seen for consultation. The referral letters were used for information only and were not used in the peer review process. Each participant inspected the referral and reply letters from the other six participants. The reply letters were anonymously peer reviewed by using a proforma containing agreed criteria in relation to appropriate factors to include in the reply letter. The reviewer also ranked the letter in relation to overall quality on a 1-10 point scale. It was found that the participants' letters generally conformed positively with the agreed criteria although there were some differences between individuals. There were particular problems identified in relation to tooth notation. Reply letters commonly used different forms of tooth notation to the referring practitioners. The ranking of the letters generally indicated that the participants' replies were judged to be favourable by their peers. There may be scope for continuing this study in relation to peer review by other groups of professionals, in particular practitioners in primary dental care.

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation. We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression. There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, P<.05). Reviewers with gynecology-only subspecialty recommended rejection more often compared with reviewers with a nonobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty (57.7% compared with 38.7%, P<.05). Editorial Board members recommended rejection more often than new reviewers (68.0% compared with 41.5%, P<.05). Increased adjusted odds of manuscript rejection recommendation were associated with reproductive endocrinology, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and gynecology-only reviewer subspecialty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.07-1.41], 1.21 [1.05-1.39], and 1.11 [1.02-1.20]). Manuscript rejection recommendation rate was also increased for reviewers who had completed the highest quintile of peer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2.60-3.12]). Peer review quality differs based on obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty. Obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty and reviewer experience have implications for manuscript rejection recommendation. Reviewer assignment is pivotal to maintaining a rigorous manuscript selection process.

Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation

PubMed Central

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

2011-01-01

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

How to run a successful Journal

PubMed Central

Jawaid, Shaukat Ali; Jawaid, Masood

2017-01-01

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

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.

The value of 100% retrospective peer review in a forensic pathology practice.

PubMed

Obenson, Ken; Wright, Claire M

2013-11-01

Peer review in forensic pathology practice has become an important cornerstone of continuous quality improvement. Although there are several components to an effective and transparent peer review process, one of the most essential is the review of completed reports. The autopsy report may be reviewed prospectively (report reviewed before sign out) or retrospectively (report reviewed after sign out). Prospective reviews are more likely to be performed on criminal or criminally suspicious cases, pediatric and SIDS deaths and high profile cases. Retrospective reviews on the other hand are performed on a proportion of all other signed-out routine medico-legal cases. The actual percentage varies by jurisdiction since there are no agreed minimum standards. Manpower and workload factors appear to be critical to determining what percentage of cases are reviewed retrospectively. The objective of this report is to present a mechanism by which a 100% retrospective review policy has been implemented, how it integrates with quality management protocols, the outcomes of the reviews and what challenges remain to improve compliance with key quality indicators especially turn around time (TAT) statistics. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-08-01

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

School-based peer-related social competence interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analysis and descriptive review of single case research design studies.

PubMed

Whalon, Kelly J; Conroy, Maureen A; Martinez, Jose R; Werch, Brittany L

2015-06-01

The purpose of this review was to critically examine and summarize the impact of school-based interventions designed to facilitate the peer-related social competence of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Reviewed studies employed a single-case experimental design, targeted peer-related social competence, included children 3-12 years old with an ASD, and took place in school settings. Articles were analyzed descriptively and using the evaluative method to determine study quality. Additionally, effect size estimates were calculated using nonoverlap of all pairs method and Tau-U. A total of 37 studies including 105 children were reviewed. Overall, ES estimates ranged from weak to strong, but on average, the reviewed interventions produced a moderate to strong effect, and quality ratings were generally in the acceptable to high range. Findings suggest that children with ASD can benefit from social skill interventions implemented with peers in school settings.

Daily peer review of abnormal cervical smears in the assessment of individual practice as an additional method of internal quality control.

PubMed

Confortini, M; Di Stefano, C; Biggeri, A; Bulgaresi, P; Di Claudio, G; Grisotto, L; Maddau, C; Matucci, M; Petreschi, C; Troni, G M; Turco, P; Foxi, P

2016-02-01

An important internal quality control system used in the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute cytopathology laboratory in Florence is the peer review procedure, based on the review of all abnormal cytological smears which routinely emerge. Peer review is an important training opportunity for all cytologists, especially for those with less experience. This article shows the results of the peer review procedure. Of the 63 754 Papanicolaou (Pap) smears screened in 2011, 1086 were considered to be abnormal [at least atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US+)] on primary screening (selected by a single cytologist) and were subjected to the peer review procedure. The overall performance of the laboratory's cytologists was evaluated using a multiple rater analysis and the comparison of each cytologist with the final diagnosis. Further, the agreement was assessed by means of Cohen's kappa and weighted kappa statistics. In general, a moderate/substantial level of agreement between the ten cytologists and the final diagnoses was evident. Kappa values for each reader compared with the final diagnosis ranged from 0.54 to 0.69. The overall kappa value was 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.58-0.66] and overall weighted kappa value was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79). The category-specific agreement showed the lowest values for atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H). In summary, peer review represents an important internal quality control in the evaluation and improvement of inter-observer agreement and of the functioning of the laboratory as a whole. Multi-head microscope sessions may improve particularly the reproducibility of borderline diagnoses and, above all, can be an important training contribution for cytologists. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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…

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

PubMed

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

2016-05-01

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

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.

Using a Template to Facilitate External Peer Preview of Curriculum: A Variation on the PRoT Theme

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sealey, Rebecca

2013-01-01

Peer reviewing of teaching and curriculum in Higher Education is a common practice aimed at both quality assurance and professional development. External review of curriculum prior to implementation appears less common. The aim of this project was to develop, implement and evaluate a user-friendly process for external peer preview of teaching…

Peer Review of Radiotherapy Planning: Quantifying Outcomes and a Proposal for Prospective Data Collection.

PubMed

Mackenzie, J; Graham, G; Olivotto, I A

2016-12-01

The Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy quality assurance guidelines recommend that radiation oncologist peer review of curative radiotherapy plans takes place ideally before the first fraction of treatment is delivered. This study documented and evaluated the outcomes of weekly, disease site-specific, radiotherapy peer review, quality assurance rounds at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre in Calgary, Canada with a view to making recommendations about the optimal timing and documentation of peer review during the radiotherapy planning processes. Outcomes of each case reviewed at (i) breast, (ii) head and neck (including thyroid and cutaneous cases) and (iii) lung team quality assurance rounds from 6 January to 5 May 2015 were recorded prospectively. Each radiotherapy plan was assigned an outcome: A for plans with no suggested changes; B for satisfactory, but where issues were raised to consider for future patients; or C when a change was recommended before the first or next fraction. The B outcomes were further subdivided into B1 for a case-specific concern and B2 for a policy gap. Plans were assessed after contour definition and before the plan was formulated (post-contouring reviews) and/or assessed when the plan was complete (post-planning reviews). 209 radiotherapy plans prescribed by 20 radiation oncologists were peer reviewed at 43 quality assurance meetings. 93% were curative-intent and 7% were palliative. 83% of plans were reviewed before delivery of the first treatment fraction. There were a total of 257 case reviews: 60 at the post-contouring stage, 197 at the post-planning stage, including 46 patients reviewed at both time points. Overall rates of A, B1, B2 and C outcomes were 78%, 9%, 4% and 9%, respectively. The most common reason for a B or C outcome was related to target volume definition. Only 56% of C outcomes at the post-planning stage would have been detected at the post-contouring stage. Results varied between tumour site groups. 9% of radiotherapy plans reviewed had changes suggested before delivery to the patient. Review at the post-planning stage after plan completion was necessary to detect all suggested changes, but for head and neck cases, all C outcomes could have been detected at the post-contouring stage. More widespread implementation of radiotherapy peer review in the UK is recommended. Copyright © 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Policy, Practice, and Research Agenda for Emergency Medical Services Oversight: A Systematic Review and Environmental Scan.

PubMed

Taymour, Rekar K; Abir, Mahshid; Chamberlin, Margaret; Dunne, Robert B; Lowell, Mark; Wahl, Kathy; Scott, Jacqueline

2018-02-01

Introduction In a 2015 report, the Institute of Medicine (IOM; Washington, DC USA), now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM; Washington, DC USA), stated that the field of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) exhibits signs of fragmentation; an absence of system-wide coordination and planning; and a lack of federal, state, and local accountability. The NAM recommended clarifying what roles the federal government, state governments, and local communities play in the oversight and evaluation of EMS system performance, and how they may better work together to improve care. This systematic literature review and environmental scan addresses NAM's recommendations by answering two research questions: (1) what aspects of EMS systems are most measured in the peer-reviewed and grey literatures, and (2) what do these measures and studies suggest for high-quality EMS oversight? To answer these questions, a systematic literature review was conducted in the PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters; New York, New York USA), SCOPUS (Elsevier; Amsterdam, Netherlands), and EMBASE (Elsevier; Amsterdam, Netherlands) databases for peer-reviewed literature and for grey literature; targeted web searches of 10 EMS-related government agencies and professional organizations were performed. Inclusion criteria required peer-reviewed literature to be published between 1966-2016 and grey literature to be published between 1996-2016. A total of 1,476 peer-reviewed titles were reviewed, 76 were retrieved for full-text review, and 58 were retained and coded in the qualitative software Dedoose (Manhattan Beach, California USA) using a codebook of themes. Categorizations of measure type and level of application were assigned to the extracted data. Targeted websites were systematically reviewed and 115 relevant grey literature documents were retrieved. A total of 58 peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria; 46 included process, 36 outcomes, and 18 structural measures. Most studies applied quality measures at the personnel level (40), followed by the agency (28) and system of care (28), and few at the oversight level (5). Numerous grey literature articles provided principles for high-quality EMS oversight. Limited quality measurement at the oversight level is an important gap in the peer-reviewed literature. The grey literature is ahead in this realm and can guide the policy and research agenda for EMS oversight quality measurement. Taymour RK , Abir M , Chamberlin M , Dunne RB , Lowell M , Wahl K , Scott J . Policy, practice, and research agenda for Emergency Medical Services oversight: a systematic review and environmental scan. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):89-97.

Mentored peer review of standardized manuscripts as a teaching tool for residents: a pilot randomized controlled multi-center study.

PubMed

Wong, Victoria S S; Strowd, Roy E; Aragón-García, Rebeca; Moon, Yeseon Park; Ford, Blair; Haut, Sheryl R; Kass, Joseph S; London, Zachary N; Mays, MaryAnn; Milligan, Tracey A; Price, Raymond S; Reynolds, Patrick S; Selwa, Linda M; Spencer, David C; Elkind, Mitchell S V

2017-01-01

There is increasing need for peer reviewers as the scientific literature grows. Formal education in biostatistics and research methodology during residency training is lacking. In this pilot study, we addressed these issues by evaluating a novel method of teaching residents about biostatistics and research methodology using peer review of standardized manuscripts. We hypothesized that mentored peer review would improve resident knowledge and perception of these concepts more than non-mentored peer review, while improving review quality. A partially blinded, randomized, controlled multi-center study was performed. Seventy-eight neurology residents from nine US neurology programs were randomized to receive mentoring from a local faculty member or not. Within a year, residents reviewed a baseline manuscript and four subsequent manuscripts, all with introduced errors designed to teach fundamental review concepts. In the mentored group, mentors discussed completed reviews with residents. Primary outcome measure was change in knowledge score between pre- and post-tests, measuring epidemiology and biostatistics knowledge. Secondary outcome measures included level of confidence in the use and interpretation of statistical concepts before and after intervention, and RQI score for baseline and final manuscripts. Sixty-four residents (82%) completed initial review with gradual decline in completion on subsequent reviews. Change in primary outcome, the difference between pre- and post-test knowledge scores, did not differ between mentored (-8.5%) and non-mentored (-13.9%) residents ( p  = 0.48). Significant differences in secondary outcomes (using 5-point Likert scale, 5 = strongly agree) included mentored residents reporting enhanced understanding of research methodology (3.69 vs 2.61; p  = 0.001), understanding of manuscripts (3.73 vs 2.87; p  = 0.006), and application of study results to clinical practice (3.65 vs 2.78; p  = 0.005) compared to non-mentored residents. There was no difference between groups in level of interest in peer review (3.00 vs 3.09; p  = 0.72) or the quality of manuscript review assessed by the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) (3.25 vs 3.06; p  = 0.50). We used mentored peer review of standardized manuscripts to teach biostatistics and research methodology and introduce the peer review process to residents. Though knowledge level did not change, mentored residents had enhanced perception in their abilities to understand research methodology and manuscripts and apply study results to clinical practice.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2010-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-07-01

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

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

PubMed

Cowley, Stephen J

2015-01-01

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

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2017-01-01

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

A Qualitative Review of Literature on Peer Review of Teaching in Higher Education: An Application of the SWOT Framework

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Thomas, Susan; Chie, Qiu Ting; Abraham, Mathew; Raj, Sony Jalarajan; Beh, Loo-See

2014-01-01

The issues of professional accountability, faculty member development, and enhancing higher education quality in universities are gaining importance. A strategy that could increase personal control over teaching practices in addition to improving professional development among faculty members is peer review of teaching (PRT). Five themes that are…

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

PubMed

d'Othée, Bertrand Janne; Haskal, Ziv J

2013-10-01

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

Rating the Quality of Open Textbooks: How Reviewer and Text Characteristics Predict Ratings

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Fischer, Lane; Ernst, David; Mason, Stacie

2017-01-01

Using data collected from peer reviews for Open Textbook Library titles, this paper explores questions about rating the quality of open textbooks. The five research questions addressed the relationship between textbook and reviewer characteristics and ratings. Although reviewers gave textbooks high ratings generally, reviewers identified…

75 FR 71694 - Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of Two Public Quality Review Teleconferences of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-11-24

... review of EPA's ``Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene'' on December 15, 2010 and (b) a quality... of Trichloroethylene'' (October 2009), and (2) a draft report peer reviewing EPA's draft document... draft assessment entitled ``Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene'' (October 2009). EPA's Office of...

Towards an effective data peer review

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Düsterhus, André; Hense, Andreas

2014-05-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2012-01-01

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

Expanding 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.

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

PubMed Central

Kelly, Jacalyn; Sadeghieh, Tara

2014-01-01

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

Psychology Teaching Resources in the MERLOT Digital Learning Objects Catalog

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brinthaupt, Thomas M.; Pilati, Michelle L.; King, Beverly R.

2008-01-01

MERLOT (Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching) is a free multidisciplinary catalog of digital learning materials, peer reviews, learning assignments, and member comments designed to facilitate faculty instruction. The catalog's goal is to expand the quantity and quality of peer-reviewed online teaching materials. We…

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…

Social Peer Interactions in Persons with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities: A Literature Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Nijs, Sara; Maes, Bea

2014-01-01

Social interactions may positively influence developmental and quality of life outcomes. Research in persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) mostly investigated interactions with caregivers. This literature review focuses on peer interactions of persons with PIMD. A computerized literature search of three databases was…

Writing to Learn: An Evaluation of the Calibrated Peer Review™ Program in Two Neuroscience Courses

PubMed Central

Prichard, J. Roxanne

2005-01-01

Although the majority of scientific information is communicated in written form, and peer review is the primary process by which it is validated, undergraduate students may receive little direct training in science writing or peer review. Here, I describe the use of Calibrated Peer Review™ (CPR), a free, web-based writing and peer review program designed to alleviate instructor workload, in two undergraduate neuroscience courses: an upper- level sensation and perception course (41 students, three assignments) and an introductory neuroscience course (50 students; two assignments). Using CPR online, students reviewed primary research articles on assigned ‘hot’ topics, wrote short essays in response to specific guiding questions, reviewed standard ‘calibration’ essays, and provided anonymous quantitative and qualitative peer reviews. An automated grading system calculated the final scores based on a student’s essay quality (as determined by the average of three peer reviews) and his or her accuracy in evaluating 1) three standard calibration essays, 2) three anonymous peer reviews, and 3) his or her self review. Thus, students were assessed not only on their skill at constructing logical, evidence-based arguments, but also on their ability to accurately evaluate their peers’ writing. According to both student self-reports and instructor observation, students’ writing and peer review skills improved over the course of the semester. Student evaluation of the CPR program was mixed; while some students felt like the peer review process enhanced their understanding of the material and improved their writing, others felt as though the process was biased and required too much time. Despite student critiques of the program, I still recommend the CPR program as an excellent and free resource for incorporating more writing, peer review, and critical thinking into an undergraduate neuroscience curriculum. PMID:23493247

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Cowley, Stephen J.

2015-01-01

Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting ‘impact’: as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose. Endorsing the consensus, I offer a reframing: while a normative social process, peer-review also shapes the writing of a scientific paper. In so far as ‘cognition’ describes enabling conditions for flexible behavior, the practices of peer-review thus constrain knowledge-making. To pursue cognitive functions of peer-review, however, manuscripts must be seen as ‘symbolizations’, replicable patterns that use technologically enabled activity. On this bio-cognitive view, peer-review constrains knowledge-making by writers, editors, reviewers. Authors are prompted to recursively re-aggregate symbolizations to present what are deemed acceptable knowledge claims. How, then, can recursive re-embodiment be explored? In illustration, I sketch how the paper’s own content came to be re-aggregated: agonistic review drove reformatting of argument structure, changes in rhetorical ploys and careful choice of wordings. For this reason, the paper’s knowledge-claims can be traced to human activity that occurs in distributed cognitive systems. Peer-review is on the frontline in the knowledge sector in that it delimits what can count as knowing. Its systemic nature is therefore crucial to not only discipline-centered ‘real’ science but also its ‘post-academic’ counterparts. PMID:26579064

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

PubMed

Rigby, J; Cox, D; Julian, K

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-08-01

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

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

PubMed

Fitzgerald, Amanda; Fitzgerald, Noelle; Aherne, Cian

2012-08-01

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

Peer Reviewing of OER in a Contested Domain--An Activity Theoretical Analysis

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Algers, Anne; Ljung, Magnus

2015-01-01

Globally, we experience numerous initiatives to increase the adoption of open educational resources (OER), but quality concerns challenge the adoption. In this study we present an analysis of the peer review process of an OER. The OER under review is produced by the European Commission (EU). It has the goal to teach children about farm animal…

Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication.

PubMed

Callaham, Michael L

2003-01-01

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

Single-Subject Evaluation: A Tool for Quality Assurance.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Nuehring, Elane M.; Pascone, Anne B.

1986-01-01

The use of single-subject designs in peer review, in utilization review, and in other quality-assurance audits is encouraged. Presents an overview of the methodologies of single-subject designs and quality assurance, and provides examples of cases in which single-subject techniques furnished relevant quality assurance documentation. (Author/ABB)

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

PubMed

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

2016-08-01

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

A survey of quality assurance practices in biomedical open source software projects.

PubMed

Koru, Günes; El Emam, Khaled; Neisa, Angelica; Umarji, Medha

2007-05-07

Open source (OS) software is continuously gaining recognition and use in the biomedical domain, for example, in health informatics and bioinformatics. Given the mission critical nature of applications in this domain and their potential impact on patient safety, it is important to understand to what degree and how effectively biomedical OS developers perform standard quality assurance (QA) activities such as peer reviews and testing. This would allow the users of biomedical OS software to better understand the quality risks, if any, and the developers to identify process improvement opportunities to produce higher quality software. A survey of developers working on biomedical OS projects was conducted to examine the QA activities that are performed. We took a descriptive approach to summarize the implementation of QA activities and then examined some of the factors that may be related to the implementation of such practices. Our descriptive results show that 63% (95% CI, 54-72) of projects did not include peer reviews in their development process, while 82% (95% CI, 75-89) did include testing. Approximately 74% (95% CI, 67-81) of developers did not have a background in computing, 80% (95% CI, 74-87) were paid for their contributions to the project, and 52% (95% CI, 43-60) had PhDs. A multivariate logistic regression model to predict the implementation of peer reviews was not significant (likelihood ratio test = 16.86, 9 df, P = .051) and neither was a model to predict the implementation of testing (likelihood ratio test = 3.34, 9 df, P = .95). Less attention is paid to peer review than testing. However, the former is a complementary, and necessary, QA practice rather than an alternative. Therefore, one can argue that there are quality risks, at least at this point in time, in transitioning biomedical OS software into any critical settings that may have operational, financial, or safety implications. Developers of biomedical OS applications should invest more effort in implementing systemic peer review practices throughout the development and maintenance processes.

Social Skills of Children with Specific Language Impairment: Peer Relationships.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Craig, Holly K.

1993-01-01

This paper reviews literature on peer relationships of children with specific language impairment and provides a clinical case to illustrate the social-interactional difficulties encountered. The paper analyzes the quantity and quality of peer interactions, child's knowledge of interactive access behaviors, disputes, responsiveness, assertiveness,…

Improving the Quality of Constructive Peer Feedback

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Waggoner Denton, Ashley

2018-01-01

This article presents some simple strategies that instructors can use to improve the quality of the feedback students provide each other during a peer review activity. Briefly, I recommend that emphasis be placed solely on the provision of constructive comments, and that in order to qualify as constructive, a comment must: (1) identify a specific…

Structured implicit review: a new method for monitoring nursing care quality.

PubMed

Pearson, M L; Lee, J L; Chang, B L; Elliott, M; Kahn, K L; Rubenstein, L V

2000-11-01

Nurses' independent decisions about assessment, treatment, and nursing interventions for hospitalized patients are important determinants of quality of care. Physician peer implicit review of medical records has been central to Medicare quality management and is considered the gold standard for reviewing physician care, but peer implicit review of nursing processes of care has not received similar attention. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate nurse structured implicit review (SIR) methods. We developed SIR instruments for rating the quality of inpatient nursing care for congestive heart failure (CHF) and cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Nurse reviewers used the SIR form to rate a nationally representative sample of randomly selected medical records for each disease from 297 acute care hospitals in 5 states (collected by the RAND-HCFA Prospective Payment System study). The study subjects were elderly Medicare inpatients with CHF (n = 291) or CVA (n = 283). We developed and tested scales reflecting domains of nursing process, evaluated interrater and interitem reliability, and assessed the extent to which items and scales predicted overall ratings of the quality of nursing care. Interrater reliability for 14 of 16 scales (CHF) or 10 of 16 scales (CVA) was > or = 0.40. Interitem reliability was > 0.80 for all but 1 scale (both diseases). Functional Assessment, Physical Assessment, and Medication Tracking ratings were the strongest predictors of overall nursing quality ratings (P < 0.001 for each). Nurse peer review with SIR has adequate interrater and excellent scale reliabilities and can be a valuable tool for assessing nurse performance.

A novel program to improve patient safety by integrating peer review into the emergency medicine residency curriculum.

PubMed

Strayer, Reuben J; Shy, Bradley D; Shearer, Peter L

2014-12-01

Evaluating the quality of care as part of a quality improvement process is required in many clinical environments by accrediting bodies. It produces metrics used to evaluate department and individual provider performance, provides outcomes-based feedback to clinicians, and identifies ways to reduce error. To improve patient safety and train our residents to perform peer review, we expanded our quality assurance program from a narrow, administrative process carried out by a small number of attendings to an educationally focused activity of much greater scope incorporating all residents on a monthly basis. We developed an explicit system by which residents analyze sets of high-risk cases and record their impressions onto structured databases, which are reviewed by faculty. At monthly meetings, results from the month's case reviews are presented, learning points discussed, and corrective actions are proposed. By integrating Clinical Quality Review (CQR) as a core, continuous component of the residency curriculum, we increased the number of cases reviewed more than 10-fold and implemented a variety of clinical process improvements. An anonymous survey conducted after 2 years of resident-led CQR indicated that residents value their exposure to the peer review process and feel it benefits them as clinicians, but also that the program requires a significant investment of time that can be burdensome. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping.

PubMed

Siler, Kyle; Lee, Kirby; Bero, Lisa

2015-01-13

Peer review is the main institution responsible for the evaluation and gestation of scientific research. Although peer review is widely seen as vital to scientific evaluation, anecdotal evidence abounds of gatekeeping mistakes in leading journals, such as rejecting seminal contributions or accepting mediocre submissions. Systematic evidence regarding the effectiveness--or lack thereof--of scientific gatekeeping is scant, largely because access to rejected manuscripts from journals is rarely available. Using a dataset of 1,008 manuscripts submitted to three elite medical journals, we show differences in citation outcomes for articles that received different appraisals from editors and peer reviewers. Among rejected articles, desk-rejected manuscripts, deemed as unworthy of peer review by editors, received fewer citations than those sent for peer review. Among both rejected and accepted articles, manuscripts with lower scores from peer reviewers received relatively fewer citations when they were eventually published. However, hindsight reveals numerous questionable gatekeeping decisions. Of the 808 eventually published articles in our dataset, our three focal journals rejected many highly cited manuscripts, including the 14 most popular; roughly the top 2 percent. Of those 14 articles, 12 were desk-rejected. This finding raises concerns regarding whether peer review is ill--suited to recognize and gestate the most impactful ideas and research. Despite this finding, results show that in our case studies, on the whole, there was value added in peer review. Editors and peer reviewers generally--but not always-made good decisions regarding the identification and promotion of quality in scientific manuscripts.

Peer Review and Teacher Leadership: Linking Professionalism and Accountability. Series on School Reform

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Goldstein, Jennifer

2010-01-01

This book examines a policy that is one of the most powerful levers to improve teaching quality and advance teaching as a profession. Jennifer Goldstein presents the story of Rosemont, an urban district in California that created "professional accountability" with peer assistance and review (PAR), an alternative approach to teacher…

SU-E-T-211: Peer Review System for Ensuring Quality of Radiation Therapy Treatments.

PubMed

Kapoor, R; Kapur, P; Kumar, S A; Alex, D; Ranka, S; Palta, J

2012-06-01

To demonstrate a Web-based electronic peer review system that has the potential to improve quality of care for radiation therapy patients. The system provides tools that allow radiation oncologists to seek peer review of target and critical structure delineation, treatment plans, and share clinical data with peers to optimize radiation therapy treatments. Peer review of radiation therapy treatment planning data prior to its initiation improves the quality of radiation therapy and clinical outcomes. Web-based access to radiation therapy treatment planning data and medical records mitigate existing geographical and temporal constraints. With internet access, the healthcare provider can access the data from any location and review it in an interactive and collaborative manner. Interoperability standard like DICOM-RT and IHE-RO compliant RT Systems have facilitated the design and implementation of PRS with Silverlight Web technology, .net Framework and SQL Server. Local DICOM-RT archive and cloud based services are deployed to facilitate remote peer reviews. To validate the PRS system, we tested the system for 100 patients with Philips Pinnacle v 9.0 and Varian Eclipse v 8.9 treatment planning system (TPS). We transmitted the DICOM RT data from the TPS to the cloud based services via the PRS local DICOM RT Archive. Various CT simulation based parameters such as orientation of CT, properties of RT structures etc. were compared between the TPS and PRS system. Data integrity of other parameters such as patient demographics (patient name, ID, attending physician etc.) and dose volume related parameters were also evaluated. Such rigorous testing allowed us to optimize the functionalities and clinical implementation of the PRS. We believe that the PRS will improve the quality and safety of a broad spectrum of radiation therapy patients treated in underserved areas while discouraging the overutilization of expensive radiation treatment modalities. This research and development project is supported by the James and Ester King Biomedical Research Program grant # RC1-09KW-09-26829. © 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

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

PubMed

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

2017-10-01

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

[Quality management in intensive care medicine].

PubMed

Martin, J; Braun, J-P

2014-02-01

Treatment of critical ill patients in the intensive care unit is tantamount to well-designed risk or quality management. Several tools of quality management and quality assurance have been developed in intensive care medicine. In addition to external quality assurance by benchmarking with regard to the intensive care medicine, peer review procedures have been established for external quality assurance in recent years. In the process of peer review of an intensive care unit (ICU), external physicians and nurses visit the ICU, evaluate on-site proceedings, and discuss with the managing team of the ICU possibilities for optimization. Furthermore, internal quality management in the ICU is possible based on the 10 quality indicators of the German Interdisciplinary Society for Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI, "Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin"). Thereby every ICU has numerous possibilities to improve their quality management system.

[Quality management in intensive care medicine].

PubMed

Martin, J; Braun, J-P

2013-09-01

Treatment of critical ill patients in the intensive care unit is tantamount to well-designed risk or quality management. Several tools of quality management and quality assurance have been developed in intensive care medicine. In addition to extern quality assurance by benchmarking with regard to the intensive care medicine, peer review procedures have been established for external quality assurance in recent years. In the process of peer review of an intensive care unit (ICU), external physicians and nurses visit the ICU, evaluate on-site proceedings, and discuss with the managing team of the ICU possibilities for optimization. Furthermore, internal quality management in the ICU is possible based on the 10 quality indicators of the German Interdisciplinary Society for Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI, "Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin"). Thereby every ICU has numerous possibilities to improve their quality management system.

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.

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

The impact of peer review on paediatric forensic reports.

PubMed

Kariyawasam, Uditha

2016-10-01

To retrospectively evaluate the common grammar and spelling errors of the medico-legal reports written by the doctors at the Victorian Forensic Paediatric Medical Service (VFPMS) in both Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) and Monash Medical Centre. The reports were evaluated at two points in time; before and after peer review. The aim of the study was to ascertain whether peer review improved the grammar and spelling in VFPMS medico-legal reports. Draft VFPMS reports are sent to the VFPMS medical director for peer review. The current study sampled 50 reports that were sent consecutively to Dr. Anne Smith from 1st of May 2015. The 50 corresponding final reports were then retrieved from the VFPMS database. The 50 pairs of draft and final reports were scored using a 50-point scoring system. The scores of the draft reports were compared to the scores of the final report to assess if there was a change in quality as measured using an explicit criteria audit of report structure, simple grammar, jargon use and spelling. The audit did not include evaluation of the validity of forensic opinions. The overall scores were statistically analysed using descriptive statistics and a paired T-test. The scores of the reports improved by 2.24% when the final reports were compared to the draft reports (p < 0.001). The peer-review process resulted in a significantly higher quality of medico-legal reports. The report writing and peer-review process could be assisted by an abbreviated version of the checklist used for the audit. Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

Maisonneuve, Hervé

2012-09-01

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

32 CFR 199.15 - Quality and utilization review peer review organization program.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... Director, OCHAMPUS. These contractors may include contractors that have exclusive functions in the area of utilization and quality review, fiscal intermediary contractors (which perform these functions along with a... functions concerning management of the delivery and financing of health care services under CHAMPUS...

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 sorting is improved with a greater number of reviewers. PMID:21799867

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

PubMed Central

Tennant, Jonathan P.; Dugan, Jonathan M.; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien C.; Waldner, François; Mietchen, Daniel; Elkhatib, Yehia; B. Collister, Lauren; Pikas, Christina K.; Crick, Tom; Masuzzo, Paola; Caravaggi, Anthony; Berg, Devin R.; Niemeyer, Kyle E.; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Mannheimer, Sara; Rigling, Lillian; Katz, Daniel S.; Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian; Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel; Fatima, Nazeefa; Poblet, Marta; Isaakidis, Marios; Irawan, Dasapta Erwin; Renaut, Sébastien; Madan, Christopher R.; Matthias, Lisa; Nørgaard Kjær, Jesper; O'Donnell, Daniel Paul; Neylon, Cameron; Kearns, Sarah; Selvaraju, Manojkumar; Colomb, Julien

2017-01-01

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments. PMID:29188015

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.

PubMed

Tennant, Jonathan P; Dugan, Jonathan M; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien C; Waldner, François; Mietchen, Daniel; Elkhatib, Yehia; B Collister, Lauren; Pikas, Christina K; Crick, Tom; Masuzzo, Paola; Caravaggi, Anthony; Berg, Devin R; Niemeyer, Kyle E; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Mannheimer, Sara; Rigling, Lillian; Katz, Daniel S; Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian; Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel; Fatima, Nazeefa; Poblet, Marta; Isaakidis, Marios; Irawan, Dasapta Erwin; Renaut, Sébastien; Madan, Christopher R; Matthias, Lisa; Nørgaard Kjær, Jesper; O'Donnell, Daniel Paul; Neylon, Cameron; Kearns, Sarah; Selvaraju, Manojkumar; Colomb, Julien

2017-01-01

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-01

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

The Long Shadow of Peer Review on the Preparation of Artist Educators

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Walker, Loretta Niebur

2013-01-01

The recruitment and retention of the highest-quality artist educators in colleges and universities is a key element in supporting strong K-12 arts education programs. Artist educators must be expert in at least two disciplines: their art forms and education. However, the peer review processes commonly employed to recommend higher education faculty…

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…

Peer reviews: taking on new meanings.

PubMed

Raia, Lucille

2011-01-01

Peer reviews in nursing are historically used to gauge performance within an individual's scope of practice or as a tool to evaluate a sentinel or adverse event. Quality of care measures, clinical pertinence, and evaluating standards of care have begun as parallel strategies to replace the former uses in assuring the right care at the right time in the right setting.

Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

How to Achieve Accurate Peer Assessment for High Value Written Assignments in a Senior Undergraduate Course

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Jeffery, Daniel; Yankulov, Krassimir; Crerar, Alison; Ritchie, Kerry

2016-01-01

The psychometric measures of accuracy, reliability and validity of peer assessment are critical qualities for its use as a supplement to instructor grading. In this study, we seek to determine which factors related to peer review are the most influential on these psychometric measures, with a primary focus on the accuracy of peer assessment or how…

Evaluating Management Information Systems, A Protocol for Automated Peer Review Systems

PubMed Central

Black, Gordon C.

1980-01-01

This paper discusses key issues in evaluating an automated Peer Review System. Included are the conceptual base, design, steps in planning structural components, operation parameters, criteria, costs and a detailed outline or protocol for use in the evaluation. At the heart of the Peer Review System is the criteria utilized for measuring quality. Criteria evaluation should embrace, as a minimum, appropriateness, validity and reliability, and completemess or comprehensiveness of content. Such an evaluation is not complete without determining the impact (clinical outcome) of the service system or the patient and the population served.

Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?

PubMed Central

Shashok, Karen

2008-01-01

Background Peer review is assumed to improve the quality of research reports as tools for scientific communication, yet strong evidence that this outcome is obtained consistently has been elusive. Failure to distinguish between aspects of discipline-specific content and aspects of the writing or use of language may account for some deficiencies in current peer review processes. Discussion The process and outcomes of peer review may be analyzed along two dimensions: 1) identifying scientific or technical content that is useful to other researchers (i.e., its "screening" function), and 2) improving research articles as tools for communication (i.e., its "improving" function). However, editors and reviewers do not always distinguish clearly between content criteria and writing criteria. When peer reviewers confuse content and writing, their feedback can be misunderstood by authors, who may modify texts in ways that do not make the readers' job easier. When researchers in peer review confuse the two dimensions, this can lead to content validity problems that foil attempts to define informative variables and outcome measures, and thus prevent clear trends from emerging. Research on writing, revising and editing suggests some reasons why peer review is not always as effective as it might be in improving what is written. Summary Peer review could be improved if stakeholders were more aware of variations in gatekeepers' (reviewers' and editors') ability to provide feedback about the content or the writing. Gatekeepers, academic literacy researchers, and wordface professionals (author's editors, medical writers and translators) could work together to discover the types of feedback authors find most useful. I offer suggestions to help editologists design better studies of peer review which could make the process an even stronger tool for manuscript improvement than it is now. PMID:18237378

Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?

PubMed

Shashok, Karen

2008-01-31

Peer review is assumed to improve the quality of research reports as tools for scientific communication, yet strong evidence that this outcome is obtained consistently has been elusive. Failure to distinguish between aspects of discipline-specific content and aspects of the writing or use of language may account for some deficiencies in current peer review processes. The process and outcomes of peer review may be analyzed along two dimensions: 1) identifying scientific or technical content that is useful to other researchers (i.e., its "screening" function), and 2) improving research articles as tools for communication (i.e., its "improving" function). However, editors and reviewers do not always distinguish clearly between content criteria and writing criteria. When peer reviewers confuse content and writing, their feedback can be misunderstood by authors, who may modify texts in ways that do not make the readers' job easier. When researchers in peer review confuse the two dimensions, this can lead to content validity problems that foil attempts to define informative variables and outcome measures, and thus prevent clear trends from emerging. Research on writing, revising and editing suggests some reasons why peer review is not always as effective as it might be in improving what is written. Peer review could be improved if stakeholders were more aware of variations in gatekeepers' (reviewers' and editors') ability to provide feedback about the content or the writing. Gatekeepers, academic literacy researchers, and wordface professionals (author's editors, medical writers and translators) could work together to discover the types of feedback authors find most useful. I offer suggestions to help editologists design better studies of peer review which could make the process an even stronger tool for manuscript improvement than it is now.

Peer feedback for examiner quality assurance on MRCGP International South Asia: a mixed methods study.

PubMed

Perera, D P; Andrades, Marie; Wass, Val

2017-12-08

The International Membership Examination (MRCGP[INT]) of the Royal College of General Practitioners UK is a unique collaboration between four South Asian countries with diverse cultures, epidemiology, clinical facilities and resources. In this setting good quality assurance is imperative to achieve acceptable standards of inter rater reliability. This study aims to explore the process of peer feedback for examiner quality assurance with regard to factors affecting the implementation and acceptance of the method. A sequential mixed methods approach was used based on focus group discussions with examiners (n = 12) and clinical examination convenors who acted as peer reviewers (n = 4). A questionnaire based on emerging themes and literature review was then completed by 20 examiners at the subsequent OSCE exam. Qualitative data were analysed using an iterative reflexive process. Quantitative data were integrated by interpretive analysis looking for convergence, complementarity or dissonance. The qualitative data helped understand the issues and informed the process of developing the questionnaire. The quantitative data allowed for further refining of issues, wider sampling of examiners and giving voice to different perspectives. Examiners stated specifically that peer feedback gave an opportunity for discussion, standardisation of judgments and improved discriminatory abilities. Interpersonal dynamics, hierarchy and perception of validity of feedback were major factors influencing acceptance of feedback. Examiners desired increased transparency, accountability and the opportunity for equal partnership within the process. The process was stressful for examiners and reviewers; however acceptance increased with increasing exposure to receiving feedback. The process could be refined to improve acceptability through scrupulous attention to training and selection of those giving feedback to improve the perceived validity of feedback and improved reviewer feedback skills to enable better interpersonal dynamics and a more equitable feedback process. It is important to highlight the role of quality assurance and peer feedback as a tool for continuous improvement and maintenance of standards to examiners during training. Examiner quality assurance using peer feedback was generally a successful and accepted process. The findings highlight areas for improvement and guide the path towards a model of feedback that is responsive to examiner views and cultural sensibilities.

A systematic review of peer mentoring interventions for people with traumatic brain injury.

PubMed

Morris, Richard Pg; Fletcher-Smith, Joanna C; Radford, Kathryn A

2017-08-01

This systematic review sought evidence concerning the effectiveness of peer mentoring for people with traumatic brain injury. Fourteen electronic databases were searched, including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, from inception to September 21 2016. Ten grey literature databases, PROSPERO, two trials registers, reference lists and author citations were also searched. Studies which employed a model of one-to-one peer mentoring between traumatic brain injury survivors were included. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts before screening full texts of shortlisted studies. A third reviewer resolved disagreements. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed studies for quality and risk of bias. The search returned 753 records, including one identified through hand searching. 495 records remained after removal of duplicates and 459 were excluded after screening. Full texts were assessed for the remaining 36 studies and six met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in the United States between 1996 and 2012 and employed a variety of designs including two randomised controlled trials. A total of 288 people with traumatic brain injury participated in the studies. No significant improvements in social activity level or social network size were found, but significant improvements were shown in areas including behavioural control, mood, coping and quality of life. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of peer mentoring after traumatic brain injury. The available evidence comes from small-scale studies, of variable quality, without detailed information on the content of sessions or the 'active ingredient' of the interventions.

A systematic review of the literature describing the outcomes of near-peer mentoring programs for first year medical students.

PubMed

Akinla, Olawunmi; Hagan, Pamela; Atiomo, William

2018-05-08

Transition into higher education has been identified as one of the most stressful periods for learners. Interventions targeting the transition phase such as near- peer mentoring might help address some of these challenges. We were however unable to identify a published systematic review of the literature describing outcomes of near-peer mentoring of medical students during the transition phase into medical school. The aim of this paper is to review the literature and describe the outcomes of near-peer mentoring schemes for first-year medical students in the transition phase. A search of different electronic databases was carried out, using the search terms peer, buddy, mentor*, counsel*, advise*, tutor*, student, medical, school. 1861 articles were identified, however only 5 studies met the inclusion criteria- primary mentees should be first-years, and mentors must be inclusive of second-years but not limited to them. In reporting this paper, the PRISMA guidelines were followed. Published material on near-peer mentoring for medical students is scarce. Three outcomes for peer mentoring were identified- professional and personal development, stress reduction, and ease of transitioning. Incidentally, peer-mentoring was also found to have facilitated the development of personal and professional attitudes in the mentors. The quality of the evaluation methods in the studies was however low to moderate. Near-peer-mentoring is a way of promoting professional and personal development. It is also promising to aid transition and maintain well-being of first-year medical students. However, larger, better quality longitudinal studies, are needed to ascertain its true value for these students.

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

PubMed

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

2015-03-25

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

External quality mechanisms for health care: summary of the ExPeRT project on visitatie, accreditation, EFQM and ISO assessment in European Union countries. External Peer Review Techniques. European Foundation for Quality Management. International Organization for Standardization.

PubMed

Shaw, C D

2000-06-01

This paper is a summary of the operation, findings and conclusions of a European Union project on external peer review techniques, termed 'ExPeRT', to research the scope, mechanisms and use of external quality mechanisms in the improvement of health care. Many of the themes outlined are described in detail in other papers that have been prepared specifically for this issue of The International Journal for Quality in Health Care. Although the emphasis of this project and of this issue of the Journal is on Europe, the conclusions are more widely relevant.

Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?

PubMed

Li, Danielle; Agha, Leila

2015-04-24

This paper examines the success of peer-review panels in predicting the future quality of proposed research. We construct new data to track publication, citation, and patenting outcomes associated with more than 130,000 research project (R01) grants funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health from 1980 to 2008. We find that better peer-review scores are consistently associated with better research outcomes and that this relationship persists even when we include detailed controls for an investigator's publication history, grant history, institutional affiliations, career stage, and degree types. A one-standard deviation worse peer-review score among awarded grants is associated with 15% fewer citations, 7% fewer publications, 19% fewer high-impact publications, and 14% fewer follow-on patents. Copyright © 2015, American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Perceptions of changes in practice following peer review in the National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project.

PubMed

Rivas, Carol; Taylor, Stephanie; Abbott, Stephen; Clarke, Aileen; Griffiths, Chris; Roberts, C Michael; Stone, Robert

2012-01-01

The purpose of this paper is to examine perceptions of local service change and concepts of change amongst participants in a UK nationwide randomised controlled trial of informal, structured, reciprocated, multidisciplinary peer review with feedback to promote quality improvement: the National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project (NCROP). The paper takes the form of a qualitative study, involving semi-structured interviews with 43 hospital respiratory consultants, nurses and general managers at 24 intervention and 11 control NCROP sites. Thematic analysis resulted in adoption of Joss and Kogan's quality indicators as an analytic framework. The paper finds that peer review was associated with positive changes, which may lead to sustained service improvement. Differences existed in perceptions of change among clinicians and between clinicians and managers. "Generic changes" (e.g. changes in interpersonal relations or cultural changes), were often not perceived as change. The study highlights the significance of generic change in evaluations of change processes. Most participants were clinicians limiting inter-professional comparisons. Some clinical staff failed to recognise changes they accomplished or their significance, perceiving change differently to others within their professional group. These findings have implications for policy and research. They should be considered when developing frameworks for assessing quality improvements and staff engagement with change. This is the first qualitative study exploring participants' experience of peer review for quality improvement in healthcare. The study adds to previous research into UK health service improvement, which has had a more restricted focus on inter-professional differences.

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

PubMed

Olthof, A W; van Ooijen, P M A

2016-09-01

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

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

PubMed

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

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

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

PubMed

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

1996-11-30

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

Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency.

PubMed

Parker, Timothy H; Griffith, Simon C; Bronstein, Judith L; Fidler, Fiona; Foster, Susan; Fraser, Hannah; Forstmeier, Wolfgang; Gurevitch, Jessica; Koricheva, Julia; Seppelt, Ralf; Tingley, Morgan W; Nakagawa, Shinichi

2018-06-01

Peer review is widely considered fundamental to maintaining the rigour of science, but it often fails to ensure transparency and reduce bias in published papers, and this systematically weakens the quality of published inferences. In part, this is because many reviewers are unaware of important questions to ask with respect to the soundness of the design and analyses, and the presentation of the methods and results; also some reviewers may expect others to be responsible for these tasks. We therefore present a reviewers' checklist of ten questions that address these critical components. Checklists are commonly used by practitioners of other complex tasks, and we see great potential for the wider adoption of checklists for peer review, especially to reduce bias and facilitate transparency in published papers. We expect that such checklists will be well received by many reviewers.

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Review: Review of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidance on the GLP Requirements for Peer Review of Histopathology.

PubMed

Fikes, James D; Patrick, Daniel J; Francke, Sabine; Frazier, Kendall S; Reindel, James F; Romeike, Annette; Spaet, Robert H; Tomlinson, Lindsay; Schafer, Kenneth A

2015-10-01

In 2014, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) issued guidance no. 16, Guidance on the GLP Requirements for Peer Review of Histopathology. The stated purpose of the guidance document is "to provide guidance to pathologists, test facility management, study directors and quality assurance personnel on how the peer review of histopathology should be planned, managed, documented, and reported in order to meet Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) expectations and requirements." On behalf of and in collaboration with the global societies of toxicologic pathology, the Society of Toxicologic Pathology initiated a review of OECD guidance no. 16. The objectives of this review are to provide a unified interpretation of the guidance, to recommend compliant processes for organizations to implement, and to avoid inconsistent process adaptations across the industry. This review of the guidance document is the product of a global collaboration with other societies of toxicologic pathology and provides a section-by-section international consensus view and interpretation of the OECD guidance on peer review. © 2015 by The Author(s).

IAU astroEDU: an open-access platform for peer-reviewed astronomy education activities

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Heenatigala, Thilina; Russo, Pedro; Strubbe, Linda; Gomez, Edward

2015-08-01

astroEDU is an open access platform for peer-reviewed astronomy education activities. It addresses key problems in educational repositories such as variability in quality, not maintained or updated regularly, limited content review, and more. This is achieved through a peer-review process similar to what scholarly articles are based on. Activities submitted are peer-reviewed by an educator and a professional astronomer which gives the credibility to the activities. astroEDU activities are open-access in order to make the activities accessible to educators around the world while letting them discover, review, distribute and remix the activities. The activity submission process allows authors to learn how to apply enquiry-based learning into the activity, identify the process skills required, how to develop core goals and objectives, and how to evaluate the activity to determine the outcome. astroEDU is endorsed by the International Astronomical Union meaning each activity is given an official stamp by the international organisation for professional astronomers.

How are we assessing near-peer teaching in undergraduate health professional education? A systematic review.

PubMed

Irvine, Susan; Williams, Brett; McKenna, Lisa

2017-03-01

Near Peer teaching (NPT) is reported as an effective pedagogical approach to student learning and performance. Studies in medicine, nursing and health sciences have relied mainly on self-reports to describe its benefits, focusing on psychomotor and cognitive aspects of learning. Despite increasing research reports on peer teaching internationally, little is known about the various domains of learning used in assessment of performance and objective learning outcomes of NPT. To determine the domains of learning and assessment outcomes used in NPT in undergraduate health professional education. Quantitative systematic review was conducted in accord with the PRISMA protocol and the Joanna Briggs Institute processes. A wide literature search was conducted for the period 1990-November 2015 of fourteen databases. Grey literature was undertaken from all key research articles. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were eligible for consideration, including measured learning outcomes of near-peer teaching in undergraduate education in nursing, medicine and health sciences. Set limitations included publications after 1990 (2015 inclusive), English language and objective learning outcomes. A quality appraisal process involving two independent reviewers was used to analyse the data. Of 212 selected articles, 26 were included in the review. Terminology was confusing and found to be a barrier to the review process. Although some studies demonstrated effective learning outcomes resulting from near-peer teaching, others were inconclusive. Studies focused on cognitive and psychomotor abilities of learners with none assessing metacognition, affective behaviours or learning outcomes from quality of understanding. The studies reviewed focused on cognitive and psychomotor abilities of learners. Even though evidence clearly indicates that metacognition and affective behaviours have direct influence on learning and performance, indicating more research around this topic is warranted. Methodological quality of the studies and lack of theoretical frameworks underpinned by educational psychology may have contributed to inconsistencies in learning outcomes reported. Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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 hypothesised and not definitively demonstrated. Authors adhere more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews, showing difficulties in adhering to high methodological standards at the latest research phases. To boost paper quality and impact, authors should be aware of future requirements of reporting guidelines at the very beginning of their study. Trial registration and protocol Although registries do not include trials of peer review, the protocol design was submitted to sponsored research projects (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, PI081903). PMID:22108262

Online physician ratings fail to predict actual performance on measures of quality, value, and peer review.

PubMed

Daskivich, Timothy J; Houman, Justin; Fuller, Garth; Black, Jeanne T; Kim, Hyung L; Spiegel, Brennan

2018-04-01

Patients use online consumer ratings to identify high-performing physicians, but it is unclear if ratings are valid measures of clinical performance. We sought to determine whether online ratings of specialist physicians from 5 platforms predict quality of care, value of care, and peer-assessed physician performance. We conducted an observational study of 78 physicians representing 8 medical and surgical specialties. We assessed the association of consumer ratings with specialty-specific performance scores (metrics including adherence to Choosing Wisely measures, 30-day readmissions, length of stay, and adjusted cost of care), primary care physician peer-review scores, and administrator peer-review scores. Across ratings platforms, multivariable models showed no significant association between mean consumer ratings and specialty-specific performance scores (β-coefficient range, -0.04, 0.04), primary care physician scores (β-coefficient range, -0.01, 0.3), and administrator scores (β-coefficient range, -0.2, 0.1). There was no association between ratings and score subdomains addressing quality or value-based care. Among physicians in the lowest quartile of specialty-specific performance scores, only 5%-32% had consumer ratings in the lowest quartile across platforms. Ratings were consistent across platforms; a physician's score on one platform significantly predicted his/her score on another in 5 of 10 comparisons. Online ratings of specialist physicians do not predict objective measures of quality of care or peer assessment of clinical performance. Scores are consistent across platforms, suggesting that they jointly measure a latent construct that is unrelated to performance. Online consumer ratings should not be used in isolation to select physicians, given their poor association with clinical performance.

Implementation and evaluation of a peer review process for advanced practice nurses in a university hospital setting.

PubMed

Bergum, Shelly K; Canaan, Talitha; Delemos, Christi; Gall, Elizabeth Funke; McCracken, Bonnie; Rowen, Dave; Salvemini, Steve; Wiens, Kimberly

2017-07-01

Over the past decade, implementation of the peer review process for the development of the advanced practice nurse (APN) has been emphasized. However, little exists in the literature regarding APN peer review. The peer review process is intended to help demonstrate competency of care, enhance quality improvement measures, and foster the professional growth of the APN. APNs serving on a professional governance council within a university teaching hospital developed a model of peer review for APNs. Nine months after the tool was implemented, an anonymous follow-up survey was conducted. A follow-up request was sent 4 weeks later to increase the number of respondents. Likert scales were used to elicit subjective data regarding the process. Of 81 APNs who participated in the survey, more than half (52%) felt that the process would directly improve their professional practice. Survey results show that the peer review process affected APN professional practice positively. Additional research might include pathways for remediation and education of staff, evaluation of alternate methods to improve application to clinical practice, and collection of outcome data. The models presented provide a foundation for future refinement to accommodate different APN practice settings. ©2017 American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

Reciprocal peer review for quality improvement: an ethnographic case study of the Improving Lung Cancer Outcomes Project.

PubMed

Aveling, Emma-Louise; Martin, Graham; Jiménez García, Senai; Martin, Lisa; Herbert, Georgia; Armstrong, Natalie; Dixon-Woods, Mary; Woolhouse, Ian

2012-12-01

Peer review offers a promising way of promoting improvement in health systems, but the optimal model is not yet clear. We aimed to describe a specific peer review model-reciprocal peer-to-peer review (RP2PR)-to identify the features that appeared to support optimal functioning. We conducted an ethnographic study involving observations, interviews and documentary analysis of the Improving Lung Cancer Outcomes Project, which involved 30 paired multidisciplinary lung cancer teams participating in facilitated reciprocal site visits. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Fundamental features of the model include multidisciplinary participation, a focus on discussion and observation of teams in action, rather than paperwork; facilitated reflection and discussion on data and observations; support to develop focused improvement plans. Five key features were identified as important in optimising this model: peers and pairing methods; minimising logistic burden; structure of visits; independent facilitation; and credibility of the process. Facilitated RP2PR was generally a positive experience for participants, but implementing improvement plans was challenging and required substantial support. RP2PR appears to be optimised when it is well organised; a safe environment for learning is created; credibility is maximised; implementation and impact are supported. RP2PR is seen as credible and legitimate by lung cancer teams and can act as a powerful stimulus to produce focused quality improvement plans and to support implementation. Our findings have identified how RP2PR functioned and may be optimised to provide a constructive, open space for identifying opportunities for improvement and solutions.

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

PubMed

Bornmann, Lutz; Daniel, Hans-Dieter

2010-10-14

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

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

PubMed Central

Bornmann, Lutz; Daniel, Hans-Dieter

2010-01-01

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

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.

Testing the Rebound Peer Review Concept

PubMed Central

Choi, Augustine M.K.

2013-01-01

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

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.

Does Peer Review of Radiation Plans Affect Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature

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

Brunskill, Kelsey; Nguyen, Timothy K.; Boldt, R. Gabriel

Purpose: Peer review is a recommended component of quality assurance in radiation oncology; however, it is resource-intensive and its effect on patient care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the published data to assess the reported clinical impact of peer review on radiation treatment plans. Methods and Materials: A systematic review of published English studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and abstracts published from major radiation oncology scientific meeting proceedings. For inclusion, the studies were required to report the effect of peer review on ≥1 element ofmore » treatment planning (eg, target volume or organ-at-risk delineation, dose prescription or dosimetry). Results: The initial search strategy identified 882 potentially eligible studies, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text review and final analysis. Across a total of 11,491 patient cases, peer review programs led to modifications in a weighted mean of 10.8% of radiation treatment plans. Five studies differentiated between major and minor changes and reported weighted mean rates of change of 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The most common changes were related to target volume delineation (45.2% of changed plans), dose prescription or written directives (24.4%), and non-target volume delineation or normal tissue sparing (7.5%). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that peer review leads to changes in clinical care in approximately 1 of every 9 cases overall. This is similar to the reported rates of change in peer review studies from other oncology-related specialties, such as radiology and pathology.« less

Does Peer Review of Radiation Plans Affect Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

PubMed

Brunskill, Kelsey; Nguyen, Timothy K; Boldt, R Gabriel; Louie, Alexander V; Warner, Andrew; Marks, Lawrence B; Palma, David A

2017-01-01

Peer review is a recommended component of quality assurance in radiation oncology; however, it is resource-intensive and its effect on patient care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the published data to assess the reported clinical impact of peer review on radiation treatment plans. A systematic review of published English studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and abstracts published from major radiation oncology scientific meeting proceedings. For inclusion, the studies were required to report the effect of peer review on ≥1 element of treatment planning (eg, target volume or organ-at-risk delineation, dose prescription or dosimetry). The initial search strategy identified 882 potentially eligible studies, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text review and final analysis. Across a total of 11,491 patient cases, peer review programs led to modifications in a weighted mean of 10.8% of radiation treatment plans. Five studies differentiated between major and minor changes and reported weighted mean rates of change of 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The most common changes were related to target volume delineation (45.2% of changed plans), dose prescription or written directives (24.4%), and non-target volume delineation or normal tissue sparing (7.5%). Our findings suggest that peer review leads to changes in clinical care in approximately 1 of every 9 cases overall. This is similar to the reported rates of change in peer review studies from other oncology-related specialties, such as radiology and pathology. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Evaluating the care of general medicine inpatients: how good is implicit review?

PubMed

Hayward, R A; McMahon, L F; Bernard, A M

1993-04-01

Peer review often consists of implicit evaluations by physician reviewers of the quality and appropriateness of care. This study evaluated the ability of implicit review to measure reliably various aspects of care on a general medicine inpatient service. Retrospective review of patients' charts, using structured implicit review, of a stratified random sample of consecutive admissions to a general medicine ward. A university teaching hospital. Twelve internists were trained in structured implicit review and reviewed 675 patient admissions (with 20% duplicate reviews for a total of 846 reviews). Although inter-rater reliabilities for assessments of overall quality of care and preventable deaths (kappa = 0.5) were adequate for aggregate comparisons (for example, comparing mean ratings on two hospital wards), they were inadequate for reliable evaluations of single patients using one or two reviewers. Reviewers' agreement about most focused quality problems (for example, timeliness of diagnostic evaluation and clinical readiness at time of discharge) and about the appropriateness of hospital ancillary resource use was poor (kappa < or = 0.2). For most focused implicit measures, bias due to specific reviewers who were systematically more harsh or lenient (particularly for evaluation of resource-use appropriateness) accounted for much of the variation in reviewers' assessments, but this was not a substantial problem for the measure of overall quality. Reviewers rarely reported being unable to evaluate the quality of care because of deficiencies in documentation in the patient's chart. For assessment of overall quality and preventable deaths of general medicine inpatients, implicit review by peers had moderate degrees of reliability, but for most other specific aspects of care, physician reviewers could not agree. Implicit review was particularly unreliable at evaluating the appropriateness of hospital resource use and the patient's readiness for discharge, two areas where this type of review is often used.

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

PubMed

Deveugele, Myriam; Silverman, Jonathan

2017-11-01

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

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

PubMed

Benson, P J

2015-10-01

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

Systematic review of peer education intervention programmes among individuals with type 2 diabetes.

PubMed

Gatlin, Tricia K; Serafica, Reimund; Johnson, Michael

2017-12-01

To systematically review published randomised controlled trials of peer education interventions among adults with type 2 diabetes. Systematic reviews have shown mixed results for peer support interventions to improve diabetes self-management. Given the effectiveness of diabetes education by healthcare professionals, peer education interventions may be a useful alternative approach. This review addressed that gap. Systematic review. A systematic search of published randomised controlled trials between 2006-2016 was conducted using the keywords diabetes, type 2 diabetes, randomised controlled trials, self-management, peer education and peer support. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Jadad scale. Seven studies were included in the final review, and the Jadad scores ranged from 8-10 of a possible 13 points. There was no consistent design, setting, or outcome measurement among the studies. There were two types of peer education interventions compared to traditional diabetes education: face-to-face or a combination of face-to-face and telephone/texting. The most common clinical outcome measure was HbA1c. Two of six studies showed statistically significant improvement in HbA1c between intervention and control groups. An increase in diabetes knowledge was also statistically significant in two of five studies. Peer education could be successful in improving clinical outcomes. No evidence was found indicating that healthcare provider education was superior in regard to clinical knowledge or behavioural or psychological outcome measures than peer education. HbA1c was statistically significantly lower in some peer education groups compared to control groups. There is evidence that peer education can be useful in achieving positive clinical outcomes such as decreasing HbA1c levels and increasing diabetes knowledge. A certified diabetes educator or a trained healthcare professional should not be overlooked though when using peer educators. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2010-12-01

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

Alignment of single-case design (SCD) research with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing with the what Works Clearinghouse standards for SCD research.

PubMed

Wendel, Erica; Cawthon, Stephanie W; Ge, Jin Jin; Beretvas, S Natasha

2015-04-01

The authors assessed the quality of single-case design (SCD) studies that assess the impact of interventions on outcomes for individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH). More specifically, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for SCD research were used to assess design quality and the strength of evidence of peer-reviewed studies available in the peer-reviewed, published literature. The analysis yielded four studies that met the WWC standards for design quality, of which two demonstrated moderate to strong evidence for efficacy of the studied intervention. Results of this review are discussed in light of the benefits and the challenges to applying the WWC design standards to research with DHH individuals and other diverse, low-incidence populations. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

The peer review system (PRS) for quality assurance and treatment improvement in radiation therapy

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Le, Anh H. T.; Kapoor, Rishabh; Palta, Jatinder R.

2012-02-01

Peer reviews are needed across all disciplines of medicine to address complex medical challenges in disease care, medical safety, insurance coverage handling, and public safety. Radiation therapy utilizes technologically advanced imaging for treatment planning, often with excellent efficacy. Since planning data requirements are substantial, patients are at risk for repeat diagnostic procedures or suboptimal therapeutic intervention due to a lack of knowledge regarding previous treatments. The Peer Review System (PRS) will make this critical radiation therapy information readily available on demand via Web technology. The PRS system has been developed with current Web technology, .NET framework, and in-house DICOM library. With the advantages of Web server-client architecture, including IIS web server, SOAP Web Services and Silverlight for the client side, the patient data can be visualized through web browser and distributed across multiple locations by the local area network and Internet. This PRS will significantly improve the quality, safety, and accessibility, of treatment plans in cancer therapy. Furthermore, the secure Web-based PRS with DICOM-RT compliance will provide flexible utilities for organization, sorting, and retrieval of imaging studies and treatment plans to optimize the patient treatment and ultimately improve patient safety and treatment quality.

32 CFR 199.15 - Quality and utilization review peer review organization program.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... CHAMPUS program. In recognition of the similarity of purpose and design between the Medicare and CHAMPUS... by OCHAMPUS as subject to a pattern of abuse shall be the subject of intensified quality assurance.... (iv) Notify OCHAMPUS of all such actions. (2) Findings related to a pattern of inappropriate practices...

32 CFR 199.15 - Quality and utilization review peer review organization program.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... CHAMPUS program. In recognition of the similarity of purpose and design between the Medicare and CHAMPUS... by OCHAMPUS as subject to a pattern of abuse shall be the subject of intensified quality assurance.... (iv) Notify OCHAMPUS of all such actions. (2) Findings related to a pattern of inappropriate practices...

Strategic Planning, Assessment and Accountability: Their Impact on the Establishment of Centers of Excellence in Academic Departments. AIR 1998 Annual Forum Paper.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Pollicino, Elizabeth B.; Hall, Clover W.

This paper reviews the literature on academic quality programs and examines issues faced at one institution in which two initiatives emphasizing student outcomes and faculty performance as indicators of quality are underway. In its review of the literature the paper focuses on concepts such as total quality management, peer or student evaluation…

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

Formalising multidisciplinary peer review: developing a haematological malignancy-specific electronic proforma and standard operating procedure to facilitate procedural efficiency and evidence-based clinical practice.

PubMed

Trotman, Judith; Trinh, Jimmy; Kwan, Yiu Lam; Estell, Jane A; Fletcher, Julie; Archer, Kate; Lee, Kenneth; Foo, Kerwin; Curnow, Jennifer; Bianchi, Alessandra; Wignall, Lynda; Verner, Emma; Gasiorowski, Robin; Siedlecka, Elizabeth; Cunningham, Ilona

2017-05-01

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings aimed at facilitating peer review have become standard practice in oncology. However, there is scant literature on the optimal structure and conduct of such meetings. To develop a process for formal peer review of patients with haematological malignancies and to audit any resulting changes made to the management recommendations of the treating physician. A standard operating procedure (SOP) for MDT meetings was developed essentially to integrate clinical peer review with weekly pathology and radiology meetings. The centrepiece is the electronic submission of a patient-specific proforma (Microsoft InfoPath) prior to the meeting. It serves as the template for presentation, discussion and recording of recommendations and conclusions. The final verified document is stored in the electronic patient record, and a copy is sent to the general practitioner. The proposed management plans were compared to the consensus recommendations of the meeting for the first 4 years since inception. Both SOP and proforma underwent continual improvements. These provided the framework for the conduct of a robust weekly MDT meeting for peer review of the management of patients with haematological malignancies. On 20% of occasions, patient management plans were altered to optimise patient care as a direct consequence on peer review at the MDT. Our streamlined process, in its ultimate format, has provided a mature and efficient forum for formal peer review in a genuine multidisciplinary environment. Both initial data and informal feedback support its ongoing activity as an integral component of delivering quality patient care. © 2016 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

Assuring Quality in Online Offerings: Insights from a University's Faculty

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Budden, Connie B.; Budden, Heather L.; Hall, Michelle; Longman, Debbie G.

2015-01-01

As the growth of online education offered by universities accelerates and spreads, universities are increasingly grappling with concerns related to widespread availability and the maintenance of academic quality. The "Quality Matters at Southeastern" Program fosters quality through a peer review process and offers a certification process…

Peer-Delivered Recovery Support Services for Addictions in the United States: A Systematic Review.

PubMed

Bassuk, Ellen L; Hanson, Justine; Greene, R Neil; Richard, Molly; Laudet, Alexandre

2016-04-01

This systematic review identifies, appraises, and summarizes the evidence on the effectiveness of peer-delivered recovery support services for people in recovery from alcohol and drug addiction. Nine studies met criteria for inclusion in the review. They were assessed for quality and outcomes including substance use and recovery-related factors. Despite significant methodological limitations found in the included studies, the body of evidence suggests salutary effects on participants. Current limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Improved patient notes from medical students during web-based teaching using faculty-calibrated peer review and self-assessment.

PubMed

McCarty, Teresita; Parkes, Marie V; Anderson, Teresa T; Mines, Jan; Skipper, Betty J; Grebosky, James

2005-10-01

This study examines the effectiveness of Calibrated Peer Review (CPR), a Web-based writing development program, to teach and assess medical students' patient note-writing skills in a standardized fashion. At the end of the clerkship year, 67 medical students were divided into three groups, introduced to CPR, and instructed in patient note-writing. Students then wrote notes for three clinical cases, presented in different order to each group. After training on faculty-calibrated standards, students evaluated their peers' notes and their own notes. Trained faculty, blinded to author, order, and group, also graded student notes. Faculty gave lower scores than students, but both groups found students' scores improved significantly from the first to the third note written. Student-written patient notes improved in quality while using CPR. The program uses approaches valued in medicine (accurate peer review and self-reflection) to enhance performance.

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

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

Warner, J. S.

2010-01-01

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

Acknowledgements to referees.

PubMed

De Angelis, Valerio

2015-01-01

The quality of The Journal of Headache and Pain depends on the qualified and regular collaboration of renowned scientists, who devoted their time to constructively review the submitted articles.We are indebted to the following experts who reviewed papers that completed the peer-reviewing process within 2014.

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

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2014-01-01

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

An Exploratory Study: Assessment of Modeled Dioxin ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

EPA has released an external review draft entitled, An Exploratory Study: Assessment of Modeled Dioxin Exposure in Ceramic Art Studios(External Review Draft). The public comment period and the external peer-review workshop are separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the document. In addition to consideration by EPA, all public comments submitted in accordance with this notice will also be forwarded to EPA’s contractor for the external peer-review panel prior to the workshop. EPA has realeased this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. The purpose of this report is to describe an exploratory investigation of potential dioxin exposures to artists/hobbyists who use ball clay to make pottery and related products.

Defining "peerness": Developing peer supports for parents with mental illnesses.

PubMed

Nicholson, Joanne; Valentine, Anne

2018-06-01

This article addresses critical considerations in the development of peer supports for parents with mental illnesses, focusing on the question of what makes a peer a peer in the parent peer specialist domain. The implementation and testing of parent peer supports requires specification of the critical components of the model, including the qualities, characteristics, and unique contributions of the parent peer specialist. Themes emerged in Parent Peer Specialist Project Advisory Group discussions, with members drawing from lived experience, practice expertise, and conversations with experts. In addition to literature review, strategic stakeholder interviews were conducted. Lived experience of mental illness and family life, training, and ongoing support for parent peer specialists, along with key ingredients conveyed by perceived peer-parent similarity, will likely enhance the benefits of peer supports to parents and promote job satisfaction and career advancement for parent peer specialists. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Biochemia Medica has started using the CrossCheck plagiarism detection software powered by iThenticate

PubMed Central

Šupak-Smolčić, Vesna; Šimundić, Ana-Maria

2013-01-01

In February 2013, Biochemia Medica has joined CrossRef, which enabled us to implement CrossCheck plagiarism detection service. Therefore, all manuscript submitted to Biochemia Medica are now first assigned to Research integrity editor (RIE), before sending the manuscript for peer-review. RIE submits the text to CrossCheck analysis and is responsible for reviewing the results of the text similarity analysis. Based on the CrossCheck analysis results, RIE subsequently provides a recommendation to the Editor-in-chief (EIC) on whether the manuscript should be forwarded to peer-review, corrected for suspected parts prior to peer-review or immediately rejected. Final decision on the manuscript is, however, with the EIC. We hope that our new policy and manuscript processing algorithm will help us to further increase the overall quality of our Journal. PMID:23894858

Improving outcomes using German Inpatient Quality Indicators in conjunction with peer review procedures.

PubMed

Mansky, Thomas; Völzke, Tatjana; Nimptsch, Ulrike

2015-01-01

Some hospital comparisons seem to generate confusion because different methods of outcome comparisons lead to different results in hospital rankings. This article questions the concept of overall comparisons of hospitals, which are multiproduct enterprises and may have specialties that provide good results in some areas despite having worse outcomes in others. Therefore, the authors argue for a disease specific view of outcome measurement. The concept of the German Inpatient Quality Indicators is explained. These indicators cover volume, mortality, and other information by a disease specific approach, which includes information for potential patients as well as specific feedback to the physicians responsible for the respective specialty. This article focuses on the feedback to the hospitals and explains how these indicators can be used for improvement in conjunction with a peer review process. The indicators provide information to the hospitals regarding their relative position because German reference values are available for all indicators. Thus, the indicators can serve as a trigger instrument for identifying possible quality problems. Based on these indications, peer review can be used to analyze the treatment processes and to eventually verify weaknesses and define actions for improvement. The first studies indicate that the use of this approach within hospital quality management can largely improve hospital outcomes in hospitals with subpar results compared to the German average. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Clinical Case Reporting in the Peer-Reviewed Physical Therapy Literature: Time to Move Toward Functioning.

PubMed

Davenport, Todd E

2015-12-01

Physical therapists increasingly are contributing clinical case reports to the health literature, which form the basis for higher quality evidence that has been incorporated into clinical practice guidelines. Yet, few resources exist to assist physical therapists with the basic mechanics and quality standards of producing a clinical case report. This situation is further complicated by the absence of uniform standards for quality in case reporting. The importance of including a concise yet comprehensive description of patient functioning in all physical therapy case reports suggest the potential appropriateness of basing quality guidelines on the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) model. The purpose of this paper is to assist physical therapists in creating high-quality clinical case reports for the peer-reviewed literature using the ICF model as a guiding framework. Along these lines, current recommendations related to the basic mechanics of writing a successful clinical case report are reviewed, as well and a proposal for uniform clinical case reporting requirements is introduced with the aim to improve the quality and feasibility of clinical case reporting in physical therapy that are informed by the ICF model. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Emerging trends in peer review—a survey

PubMed Central

Walker, Richard; Rocha da Silva, Pascal

2015-01-01

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

What do we know about preventing school violence? A systematic review of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Lester, Soraya; Lawrence, Cayleigh; Ward, Catherine L

2017-03-01

Many children across the world are exposed to school violence, which undermines their right to education and adversely affects their development. Studies of interventions for school violence suggest that it can be prevented. However, this evidence base is challenging to navigate. We completed a systematic review of interventions to reduce four types of school violence: (a) peer violence; (b) corporal punishment; (c) student-on-teacher violence and (d) teacher-on-student violence. Reviewers independently searched databases and journals. Included studies were published between 2005 and 2015; in English; considered school-based interventions for children and measured violence as an outcome. Many systematic reviews were found, thus we completed a systematic review of systematic reviews. Only systematic reviews on interventions for intimate partner violence (IPV) and peer aggression were found. These reviews were generally of moderate quality. Research on both types of violence was largely completed in North America. Only a handful of programmes demonstrate promise in preventing IPV. Cognitive behavioral, social-emotional and peer mentoring/mediation programmes showed promise in reducing the levels of perpetration of peer aggression. Further research needs to determine the long-term effects of interventions, potential moderators and mediators of program effects, program effects across different contexts and key intervention components.

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. © The Author(s) 2016.

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

PubMed

1997-07-02

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

Instructional Design and Online Learning: A Quality Assurance Study

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Monroe, Rose M.

2011-01-01

The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in the evaluations of online course quality using the Quality Matters model among four groups of reviewers: instructional designers, faculty with subject-matter expertise, peer faculty with no subject-matter expertise, and administrators. A causal-comparative design was utilized to…

Peer review: a tool to enhance clinical teaching.

PubMed

Gusic, Maryellen; Hageman, Heather; Zenni, Elisa

2013-10-01

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

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

PubMed

Lippi, Giuseppe

2018-02-01

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

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

PubMed Central

2018-01-01

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

Induction of labour: a continuous quality improvement and peer review program to improve the quality of care

PubMed Central

Harris, Susan; Buchinski, Bev; Gryzbowski, Stefan; Janssen, Patti; Mitchell, G.W. Erle; Farquharson, Duncan

2000-01-01

This article describes a program developed to improve the process of planned induction of labour and to reduce the rates of inappropriate induction. The setting is a tertiary-care maternity hospital in urban Vancouver, BC, in which 7000 deliveries take place annually. Approximately 65% of these can be considered primary care; the remainder are secondary- or tertiary-level cases. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods were used by a multidisciplinary team, which included nursing staff, physicians, health records personnel and a CQI facilitator. Interventions included the development of a new induction-booking process, clear criteria for induction, feedback to caregivers about changes and a peer review system to oversee and maintain improvement. The overall induction rate for the institution decreased, and this change has been maintained. PMID:11079064

A Scoping Review of Peer-led Education in Patient Safety Training

PubMed Central

McLachlan, Andrew J.; Chen, Timothy F.

2018-01-01

Objective. To examine the literature pertaining to the use of peer-led education in patient safety. Findings. Four studies met the inclusion criteria: two were conducted in health care students and two in medical practitioners. Three studies used pre-post evaluation, with one containing a comparator group. One study a post-intervention evaluation only. All studies undertook Kirkpatrick Level 2 evaluations, showing significant improvements in attitudes and knowledge. One study undertook Level 3 and 4 evaluations, showing improvement in self-reported behaviors and engagement in quality improvement initiatives. Summary. There are few studies evaluating peer-led education in patient safety and formal and high-quality evaluations are lacking. PMID:29606704

A Systematic Review of Published Respondent-Driven Sampling Surveys Collecting Behavioral and Biologic Data.

PubMed

Johnston, Lisa G; Hakim, Avi J; Dittrich, Samantha; Burnett, Janet; Kim, Evelyn; White, Richard G

2016-08-01

Reporting key details of respondent-driven sampling (RDS) survey implementation and analysis is essential for assessing the quality of RDS surveys. RDS is both a recruitment and analytic method and, as such, it is important to adequately describe both aspects in publications. We extracted data from peer-reviewed literature published through September, 2013 that reported collected biological specimens using RDS. We identified 151 eligible peer-reviewed articles describing 222 surveys conducted in seven regions throughout the world. Most published surveys reported basic implementation information such as survey city, country, year, population sampled, interview method, and final sample size. However, many surveys did not report essential methodological and analytical information for assessing RDS survey quality, including number of recruitment sites, seeds at start and end, maximum number of waves, and whether data were adjusted for network size. Understanding the quality of data collection and analysis in RDS is useful for effectively planning public health service delivery and funding priorities.

The privilege and burden of peer review.

PubMed

Blume, Arthur W; Schmaling, Karen B

2016-01-01

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

Redrawing the frontiers in the age of post-publication review

PubMed Central

Galbraith, David W.

2015-01-01

Publication forms the core structure supporting the development and transmission of scientific knowledge. For this reason, it is essential that the highest standards of quality control be maintained, in particular to ensure that the information being transmitted allows reproducible replication of the described experiments, and that the interpretation of the results is sound. Quality control has traditionally involved editorial decisions based on anonymous pre-publication peer review. Post-publication review of individual articles took the lesser role since it did not feed directly back to the original literature. Rapid advances in computer and communications technologies over the last thirty years have revolutionized scientific publication, and the role and scope of post-publication review has greatly expanded. This perspective examines the ways in which pre- and post-publication peer review influence the scientific literature, and in particular how they might best be redrawn to deal with the twin problems of scientific non-reproducibility and fraud increasingly encountered at the frontiers of science. PMID:26097488

32 CFR 199.15 - Quality and utilization review peer review organization program.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... different geographical locations or for different types of providers. (B) For healthcare services provided... TRICARE/CHAMPUS Policy Manual, or until the approved transplant occurs. (D) For healthcare services.... (3) Outlier review. Claims which qualify for additional payment as a long-stay outlier or as a cost...

32 CFR 199.15 - Quality and utilization review peer review organization program.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... different geographical locations or for different types of providers. (B) For healthcare services provided... TRICARE/CHAMPUS Policy Manual, or until the approved transplant occurs. (D) For healthcare services.... (3) Outlier review. Claims which qualify for additional payment as a long-stay outlier or as a cost...

Quality Matters[TM] Accessibility Survey: Institutional Practices and Policies for Online Courses

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Frey, Barbara A.; King, Denise K.

2011-01-01

Quality Matters (QM) is a professional organization that offers a faculty-centered, peer review process to certify the quality of online and blended courses. The purpose of this white paper is to share the results of a Quality Matters accessibility benchmarking study administered to 84 subscriber institutions. The primary goal of the survey was to…

Psychosocial and career outcomes of peer mentorship in medical resident education: a systematic review protocol.

PubMed

Pethrick, Helen; Nowell, Lorelli; Oddone Paolucci, Elizabeth; Lorenzetti, Liza; Jacobsen, Michele; Clancy, Tracey; Lorenzetti, Diane L

2017-08-31

Many medical residents lack ready access to social and emotional supports that enable them to successfully cope with the challenges associated with medical residency. This absence of support has been shown to lead to high levels of burnout, decreased mental wellbeing, and difficulty mastering professional competencies in this population. While there is emerging evidence that peer mentoring can be an important source of psychosocial and career-related support for many individuals, the extent of the evidence regarding the benefits of peer mentorship in medical residency education has not yet been established. We describe a protocol for a systematic review to assess the effects of peer mentoring on medical residents' mental wellbeing, social connectedness, and professional competencies. Studies included in this review will be those that report on peer-mentoring relationships among medical residents. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies will be eligible for inclusion. No date or language limits will be applied. We will search EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, Education Research Complete, and Academic Research Complete databases to identify relevant studies. Two authors will independently assess all abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion and study quality and extract study data in duplicate. This is the first systematic review to explicitly explore the role of peer mentoring in the context of medical residency education. We anticipate that the findings from this review will raise awareness of the benefits and challenges associated with peer-mentoring relationships, further the development and implementation of formal peer-mentoring programs for medical residents, and, through identifying gaps in the existing literature, inform future research efforts. This protocol has not been registered in PROSPERO or any other publicly accessible registry.

Potpourri.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Orlans, Harold

1997-01-01

Offers notes and anecdotes concerning an article on the "New York Times Book Review," marginally useful research, Denis Diderot and politics, peer review of journal articles, loss of valuable literary criticism manuscripts, social sciences education, great mathematician Paul Erdos, quality of political judgment, and creation education.…

Measuring tele-ICU impact: does it optimize quality outcomes for the critically ill patient?

PubMed

Goran, Susan F

2012-04-01

To determine the relationship between tele-ICU (intensive care unit) implementations and improvement in quality measures and patient outcomes. Tele-ICUs were designed to leverage scarce critical-care experts and promised to improve patient quality. Abstracts and peer-reviewed articles were reviewed to identify the associations between tele-ICU programmes and clinical outcomes, cost savings, and customer satisfaction. Few peer-reviewed studies are available and many variables in each study limit the ability to associate study conclusions to the overall tele-ICU programme. Further research is required to explore the impact of the tele-ICU on patient/family satisfaction. Research findings are highly dependent upon the level of ICU acceptance. The tele-ICU, in collaboration with the ICU team, can be a valuable tool for the enhancement of quality goals although the ability to demonstrate cost savings is extremely complex. Studies clearly indicate that tele-ICU nursing vigilance can enhance patient safety by preventing potential patient harm. Nursing managers and leaders play a vital part in optimizing the quality role of the tele-ICU through supportive modelling and the maximization of ICU integration. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The learner as co-creator: A new peer review and self-assessment feedback form created by student nurses.

PubMed

Duers, Lorraine E

2017-11-01

Engagement with peer review and self-assessment is not always regarded by student nurses as an activity that results in a positive learning experience. Literature indicates that withdrawal from the learning process becomes attractive to individuals affected by a negative experience of peer review. Literature also provides examples of student nurses' feeling 'torn to shreds' during the process of peer review, resulting in loss of confidence and self-esteem. An influencing factor in such situations appears to be the absence of specific learner-driven criteria against which student nurses can assess peer and self-performance. The idea was thus ignited, that creation and utilisation of a learner-driven feedback form might potentially prevent, or at least minimise, the possibility of negative peer review experience. Set within the context of a pre-registration nursing programme, within a Higher Education institution, student nurses (n=25), created a peer review/self-assessment feedback form. Its potential cross-discipline, global applicability is reasonably speculated. Purposive sampling, followed by Stratified Random sampling, maximised participant variation. Data collection took place on 34 occasions, utilising focus group discussions using Nominal Group Technique, a practical task which was video recorded for mediating artefact purposes, and individual interviews. Analysis was concept and theme driven. The study found that participants desired a new feedback form that specifically asks the evaluator to judge human qualities, such as 'compassion' and 'kindness', in addition to the skills and knowledge criteria that any peer review or self-assessment form used currently had incorporated. Providing the participants with the opportunity to develop criteria, against which performance could be measured, with emphasis being afforded to student inclusivity and resultant shift in power balance from the educator to the learner, embraces the idea of teaching and learning in the 21st Century. Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

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

2017-09-15

Systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications highlighted that interventions were limited and have little impact. This study aims to compare the accuracy of early career peer reviewers who use an innovative online tool to the usual peer reviewer process in evaluating the completeness of reporting and switched primary outcomes in completed reports. This is a cross-sectional study of individual two-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the BioMed Central series medical journals, BMJ , BMJ Open and Annals of Emergency Medicine and indexed with the publication type 'Randomised Controlled Trial'. First, we will develop an online tool and training module based (a) on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist and the Explanation and Elaboration document that would be dedicated to junior peer reviewers for assessing the completeness of reporting of key items and (b) the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Outcome Monitoring Project process used to identify switched outcomes in completed reports of the primary results of RCTs when initially submitted. Then, we will compare the performance of early career peer reviewers who use the online tool to the usual peer review process in identifying inadequate reporting and switched outcomes in completed reports of RCTs at initial journal submission. The primary outcome will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript. The secondary outcomes will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript for the CONSORT items and the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio to detect the item as adequately reported and to identify a switch in outcomes. We aim to include 120 RCTs and 120 early career peer reviewers. The research protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the INSERM Institutional Review Board (21 January 2016). The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent. NCT03119376. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

The PSRO hospital review system.

PubMed

Goran, M J; Roberts, J S; Kellogg, M A; Fielding, J; Jessee, W

1975-04-01

The 1972 Social Security amendments contained the landmark Professional Standards Review Organization (PSRO) provisions as well as several sections upgrading existing utilization review (UR) requirements under Medicare and Medicaid. With issuance of the PSRO Program Manual and the recent publication of the new UR regulations, HEW for the first time has brought Medicare and Medicaid hospital review requirements into conformity and made them compatible with and supportive of the PSRO program. This article defines the PSRO hospital review system, describes how the three major components-concurrent review, medical care evaluation studies, and profile analysis-interrelate and provides examples of each of these components. Under utilization review requirements or PSRO, hospitals will be required to implement an integrated system of review designed to assure appropriate utilization practices and improve the quality of care. These aims are to be accomplished through the application of concepts of peer review, the use of norms, criteria, and standards, the identification of deficiencies in the quality, administration, or appropriateness of health care services, and their correction through linkage with programs of continuing medical education. Although PSROs are initially responsible for review in hospitals, they will likely provide the locus for a community-wide system of peer review for all services provided under National Health Insurance.

75 FR 29769 - Notice of Meetings

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-05-27

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Notice of...., Appendix 2), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces meetings of scientific peer review groups. The subcommittees listed below are part of the Agency's Health Services Research Initial...

75 FR 5091 - Notice of Meetings

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-02-01

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Notice of...., Appendix 2), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces meetings of scientific peer review groups. The subcommittees listed below are part of the Agency's Health Services Research Initial...

75 FR 56553 - Notice of Meetings

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-09-16

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Notice of...., Appendix 2), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces meetings of scientific peer review groups. The subcommittees listed below are part of the Agency's Health Services Research Initial...

HOW EFFECTIVELY DOES MEDICAL CARE ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSES? EVALUATION OF PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE IN OPHTHALMOLOGY RELATED TO WELLNESS

PubMed Central

Spaeth, George L.; Monteiro de Barros, Daniela S.; Gheith, Moataz; Siam, Ghada Ali; Nagarsheth, Mehul

2007-01-01

Purpose To get an idea of whether the issue of what makes people healthier is studied in ophthalmology by determining the proportion of articles dealing with that subject. Methods Prospective review of all articles published in 3 consecutive issues of 7 peer-reviewed ophthalmology journals, using a grading system in which A signified an article that clearly dealt with a subject expected to have an impact on health or quality of life, or that considered health or quality of life itself directly; B indicated an article similar to A, but not directly concerned with the issue of health; C signified an article similar to B but more distantly related to health or quality of life; and D was the grade given when there was no relationship at all to health or quality of life. Grading was done independently by 3 graders. A literature review on the subject was also performed. Results Thirty-three articles received a grade of A, 229 of B, 740 of C, and 81 of D. There were more articles that had no relationship at all to health or quality of life than there were articles dealing directly with those issues. Conclusions On the basis of a review of the literature and of over 1000 articles, ophthalmologists do not appear to give much priority to issues of quality of life or health. How validly these conclusions can be generalized to general clinicians is not known. PMID:18427612

Scoping review of potential quality indicators for hip fracture patient care

PubMed Central

Pitzul, Kristen B; Munce, Sarah E P; Perrier, Laure; Beaupre, Lauren; Morin, Suzanne N; McGlasson, Rhona; Jaglal, Susan B

2017-01-01

Objective The purpose of this study is to identify existing or potential quality of care indicators (ie, current indicators as well as process and outcome measures) in the acute or postacute period, or across the continuum of care for older adults with hip fracture. Design Scoping review. Setting All care settings. Search strategy English peer-reviewed studies published from January 2000 to January 2016 were included. Literature search strategies were developed, and the search was peer-reviewed. Two reviewers independently piloted all forms, and all articles were screened in duplicate. Results The search yielded 2729 unique articles, of which 302 articles were included (11.1%). When indicators (eg, in-hospital mortality, acute care length of stay) and potential indicators (eg, comorbidities developed in hospital, walking ability) were grouped by the outcome or process construct they were trying to measure, the most common constructs were measures of mortality (outcome), length of stay (process) and time-sensitive measures (process). There was heterogeneity in definitions within constructs between studies. There was also a paucity of indicators and potential indicators in the postacute period. Conclusions To improve quality of care for patients with hip fracture and create a more efficient healthcare system, mechanisms for the measurement of quality of care across the entire continuum, not just during the acute period, are required. Future research should focus on decreasing the heterogeneity in definitions of quality indicators and the development and implementation of quality indicators for the postacute period. PMID:28325859

Peer consultation on relationship between PAC profile and toxicity of petroleum substances.

PubMed

Patterson, Jacqueline; Maier, Andrew; Kohrman-Vincent, Melissa; Dourson, Michael L

2013-11-01

An expert peer consultation panel reviewed a report by the PAC Analysis Task Group, which hypothesized that systemic, developmental, and reproductive toxicity observed in repeated-dose dermal toxicity studies was related to polycyclic aromatic compound (PAC) content. Peer consultations seek to solicit scientific and technical input from experts on the scientific basis and merits of the subject report. This peer consultation panel included nine scientists with expertise in petroleum chemistry, biostatistics, toxicology, risk assessment, structure activity, and reproductive and developmental toxicology. The panel evaluated the technical quality of the PAC report and provided recommendations for improving the statistical and biological approaches. The PAC report authors revised their methods and documentation, which are published elsewhere in this supplement. A review of the post peer consultation manuscripts confirmed that many of the key suggestions from expert panel members were considered and incorporated. In cases where the PAC report authors did not fully incorporate panel suggestions from the peer consultation, they have provided an explanation and support for their decision. This peer consultation demonstrates the value of formal engagement of peers in development of new scientific methods and approaches. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The relationship between physician burnout and quality of healthcare in terms of safety and acceptability: a systematic review

PubMed Central

Dewa, Carolyn S; Loong, Desmond; Bonato, Sarah; Trojanowski, Lucy

2017-01-01

Objectives This study reviews the current state of the published peer-reviewed literature related to physician burnout and two quality of care dimensions. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to address the question, ‘How does physician burnout affect the quality of healthcare related to the dimensions of acceptability and safety?’ Design Using a multiphase screening process, this systematic literature review is based on publically available peer-reviewed studies published between 2002 and 2017. Six electronic databases were searched: (1) MEDLINE Current, (2) MEDLINE In-process, (3) MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, (4) PsycINFO, (5) Embase and (6) Web of Science. Setting Physicians practicing in civilian settings. Participants Practicing physicians who have completed training. Primary and secondary outcome measures Quality of healthcare related to acceptability (ie, patient satisfaction, physician communication and physician attitudes) and safety (ie, minimising risks or harm to patients). Results 4114 unique citations were identified. Of these, 12 articles were included in the review. Two studies were rated as having high risk of bias and 10 as having moderate risk. Four studies were conducted in North America, four in Europe, one in the Middle East and three in East Asia. Results of this systematic literature review suggest there is moderate evidence that burnout is associated with safety-related quality of care. Because of the variability in the way patient acceptability-related quality of care was measured and the inconsistency in study findings, the evidence supporting the relationship between burnout and patient acceptability-related quality of care is less strong. Conclusions The focus on direct care-related quality highlights additional ways that physician burnout affects the healthcare system. These studies can help to inform decisions about how to improve patient care by addressing physician burnout. Continued work looking at the relationship between dimensions of acceptability-related quality of care measures and burnout is needed to advance the field. PMID:28637730

A Systematic Review of the Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in Adults with Intellectual Disability, 2003-2010

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Buckles, Jason; Luckasson, Ruth; Keefe, Elizabeth

2013-01-01

Research regarding the prevalence of psychiatric conditions co-occurring with intellectual disability in adults was reviewed. Particular attention was paid to the qualities of sampling and diagnostic methodology, which have been identified as needs in two recent reviews. Sixteen articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2003 and 2009…

Peer Assessment in MOOCs: The Relationship between Peer Reviewers' Ability and Authors' Essay Performance

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Huisman, Bart; Admiraal, Wilfried; Pilli, Olga; van de Ven, Maarten; Saab, Nadira

2018-01-01

In a relatively short period of time, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have become a considerable topic of research and debate, and the number of available MOOCs is rapidly growing. Along with issues of formal recognition and accreditation, this growth in the number of MOOCs being developed increases the relevance of assessment quality. Within…

Review: typically-developing students' views and experiences of inclusive education.

PubMed

Bates, Helen; McCafferty, Aileen; Quayle, Ethel; McKenzie, Karen

2015-01-01

The present review aimed to summarize and critique existing qualitative studies that have examined typically-developing students' views of inclusive education (i.e. the policy of teaching students with special educational needs in mainstream settings). Guidelines from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination were followed, outlining the criteria by which journal articles were identified and critically appraised. Narrative Synthesis was used to summarize findings across studies. Fourteen studies met the review's inclusion criteria and were subjected to quality assessment. Analysis revealed that studies were of variable quality: three were of "good" methodological quality, seven of "medium" quality, and four of "poor" quality. With respect to findings, three overarching themes emerged: students expressed mostly negative attitudes towards peers with disabilities; were confused by the principles and practices of inclusive education; and made a number of recommendations for improving its future provision. A vital determinant of the success of inclusive education is the extent to which it is embraced by typically-developing students. Of concern, this review highlights that students tend not to understand inclusive education, and that this can breed hostility towards it. More qualitative research of high methodological quality is needed in this area. Implications for Rehabilitation Typically-developing students are key to the successful implementation of inclusive education. This review shows that most tend not to understand it, and can react by engaging in avoidance and/or targeted bullying of peers who receive additional support. Schools urgently need to provide teaching about inclusive education, and increase opportunities for contact between students who do and do not receive support (e.g. cooperative learning).

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

PubMed Central

2004-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Eysenbach, Gunther

2004-09-30

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

Meeting the challenge of assessing clinical competence of occupational therapists within a program management environment.

PubMed

Salvatori, Penny; Simonavicius, Nijole; Moore, Joan; Rimmer, Georgina; Patterson, Michele

2008-02-01

Program management models have raised concerns among occupational therapists about professional standards related to clinical competence, performance review procedures, and quality improvement initiatives. This paper describes how a chart-stimulated recall (CSR) peer-review process and interview tool was revised, implemented, and evaluated as a pilot project to assess the clinical competence of occupational therapy staff at a large urban health centre in southern Ontario. Fourteen pairs (n=28) of occupational therapists representing various practice areas participated in this project. Half served as peer assessors and half as interviewees. Peer assessors conducted an independent chart review followed by a one-hour personal interview with a peer partner to discuss clinical management issues related to the client cases. Each interviewer rated his or her partner's clinical competence in eight areas of performance using a 7-point Likert scale. Results indicated that the CSR tool could discriminate among occupational therapists in terms of overall levels of clinical competence and also identify specific areas of concern that could be targeted for professional development. Feedback from participants was positive. The CSR tool was found to be useful for assessing clinical competence of occupational therapists in this large health centre as a quality improvement initiative within that discipline group. Further research is needed to establish the reliability and validity of the CSR tool.

Chronic disease management for recently homeless veterans: a clinical practice improvement program to apply home telehealth technology to a vulnerable population.

PubMed

Gabrielian, Sonya; Yuan, Anita; Andersen, Ronald M; McGuire, James; Rubenstein, Lisa; Sapir, Negar; Gelberg, Lillian

2013-03-01

Although vulnerable populations may benefit from in-home health information technologies (HIT) that promote disease self-management, there is a "digital divide" in which these groups are often unlikely to use such programs. We describe the early phases of applying and testing an existing Veterans Affairs (VA) HIT-care management program, Care Coordination Home Telehealth (CCHT), to recently homeless Veterans in the US Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program. Peers were used to support patient participation. CCHT uses in-home messaging devices to provide health education and daily questions about clinical indicators from chronic illness care guidelines, with patient responses reviewed by VHA nurses. Patients could also receive adjunctive peer support. We used medical record review, Veteran interviews, and staff surveys to "diagnose" barriers to CCHT use, assess program acceptability, explore the role of peer support, and inform future quality improvement. Fourteen eligible Veterans in HUD-VASH agreed to CCHT participation. Ten of these Veterans opted to have adjunctive peer support and the other 4 enrolled in CCHT usual care. Although barriers to enrollment/engagement must be addressed, this subset of Veterans in HUD-VASH was satisfied with CCHT. Most Veterans did not require support from peers to engage in CCHT but valued peer social assistance amidst the isolation felt in their scattered-site homes. HIT tools hold promise for in-home care management for recently housed Veterans. Patient-level barriers to enrollment must be addressed in the next steps of quality improvement, testing and evaluating peer-driven CCHT recruitment.

Assessing app quality through expert peer review: a case study from the gray matters study.

PubMed

Hartin, Phillip J; Cleland, Ian; Nugent, Chris D; McClean, Sally I; Tschanz, JoAnn; Clark, Christine; Norton, Maria C

2016-08-01

Health apps focused on inciting behavior change are becoming increasingly popular. Nevertheless, many lack underlying evidence base, scientific credibility and have limited clinical effectiveness. It is therefore important that apps are well-informed, scientifically credible, peer reviewed and evidence based. This paper presents the use of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) to assess the quality of the Grey Matters app, a cross platform app to deliver health education material and track behavior change across multi-domains with the aim of reducing the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. The Gray Matters app shows promising results following reviews from 5 Expert raters, achieving a mean overall MARS score of 4.45 ± 0.14. Future work will involve undertaking of a detailed content analysis of behavior change apps to identify common themes and features which may lead to the successful facilitation of sustained behavior change.

Medicare program; peer review organization contracts: solicitation of statements of interest from in-state organizations--Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming--HCFA. Notice.

PubMed

1998-07-29

This notice, in accordance with section 1153(i) of the Social Security Act, gives at least 6 months' advance notice of the expiration dates of contracts with out-of-State Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review Organizations. It also specifies the period of time in which in-State organizations may submit a statement of interest so that they may be eligible to compete for these contracts.

Entering new publication territory in chemoinformatics and chemical information science.

PubMed

Bajorath, Jürgen

2015-01-01

The F1000Research publishing platform offers the opportunity to launch themed article collections as a part of its dynamic publication environment. The idea of article collections is further expanded through the generation of publication channels that focus on specific scientific areas or disciplines. This editorial introduces the Chemical Information Science channel of F1000Research designed to collate high-quality publications and foster a culture of open peer review. Articles will be selected by guest editor(s) and a group of experts, the channel Editorial Board, and subjected to open peer review.

Supervising community health workers in low-income countries – a review of impact and implementation issues

PubMed Central

Hill, Zelee; Dumbaugh, Mari; Benton, Lorna; Källander, Karin; Strachan, Daniel; Asbroek, Augustinus ten; Tibenderana, James; Kirkwood, Betty; Meek, Sylvia

2014-01-01

Background Community health workers (CHWs) are an increasingly important component of health systems and programs. Despite the recognized role of supervision in ensuring CHWs are effective, supervision is often weak and under-supported. Little is known about what constitutes adequate supervision and how different supervision strategies influence performance, motivation, and retention. Objective To determine the impact of supervision strategies used in low- and middle-income countries and discuss implementation and feasibility issues with a focus on CHWs. Design A search of peer-reviewed, English language articles evaluating health provider supervision strategies was conducted through November 2013. Included articles evaluated the impact of supervision in low- or middle-income countries using a controlled, pre-/post- or observational design. Implementation and feasibility literature included both peer-reviewed and gray literature. Results A total of 22 impact papers were identified. Papers were from a range of low- and middle-income countries addressing the supervision of a variety of health care providers. We classified interventions as testing supervision frequency, the supportive/facilitative supervision package, supervision mode (peer, group, and community), tools (self-assessment and checklists), focus (quality assurance/problem solving), and training. Outcomes included coverage, performance, and perception of quality but were not uniform across studies. Evidence suggests that improving supervision quality has a greater impact than increasing frequency of supervision alone. Supportive supervision packages, community monitoring, and quality improvement/problem-solving approaches show the most promise; however, evaluation of all strategies was weak. Conclusion Few supervision strategies have been rigorously tested and data on CHW supervision is particularly sparse. This review highlights the diversity of supervision approaches that policy makers have to choose from and, while choices should be context specific, our findings suggest that high-quality supervision that focuses on supportive approaches, community monitoring, and/or quality assurance/problem solving may be most effective. PMID:24815075

Peer tutoring programs in health professions schools.

PubMed

Santee, Jennifer; Garavalia, Linda

2006-06-15

Peer tutoring programs may be one method of maintaining quality of pharmacy education in the face of growing student enrollment and a small faculty body. A critical review of the literature was performed to ascertain whether peer tutoring programs improve or maintain the academic performance of health care professional students. Various electronic databases and abstracts from past American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy's annual meetings were searched to identify pertinent research. Only those articles with quantitative data, an experimental design, and comparative statistical analysis were included for review. Most studies found that peer tutoring had a positive impact on academic performance. These results may not be readily generalizable as there were numerous methodological flaws and limited descriptions of the programs and participants. Studies with better designs and more detail are needed to answer definitively whether peer tutoring is of benefit. Details of what resources were required should be included in the study to allow the reader to determine the feasibility of the intervention.

Peer Tutoring Programs in Health Professions Schools

PubMed Central

Garavalia, Linda

2006-01-01

Objective Peer tutoring programs may be one method of maintaining quality of pharmacy education in the face of growing student enrollment and a small faculty body. A critical review of the literature was performed to ascertain whether peer tutoring programs improve or maintain the academic performance of health care professional students. Methods Various electronic databases and abstracts from past American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy's annual meetings were searched to identify pertinent research. Only those articles with quantitative data, an experimental design, and comparative statistical analysis were included for review. Results Most studies found that peer tutoring had a positive impact on academic performance. These results may not be readily generalizable as there were numerous methodological flaws and limited descriptions of the programs and participants. Implications Studies with better designs and more detail are needed to answer definitively whether peer tutoring is of benefit. Details of what resources were required should be included in the study to allow the reader to determine the feasibility of the intervention. PMID:17136190

Indigenous health program evaluation design and methods in Australia: a systematic review of the evidence.

PubMed

Lokuge, Kamalini; Thurber, Katherine; Calabria, Bianca; Davis, Meg; McMahon, Kathryn; Sartor, Lauren; Lovett, Raymond; Guthrie, Jill; Banks, Emily

2017-10-01

Indigenous Australians experience a disproportionately higher burden of disease compared to non-Indigenous Australians. High-quality evaluation of Indigenous health programs is required to inform health and health services improvement. We aimed to quantify methodological and other characteristics of Australian Indigenous health program evaluations published in the peer-reviewed literature. Systematic review of peer-reviewed literature (November 2009-2014) on Indigenous health program evaluation. We identified 118 papers describing evaluations of 109 interventions; 72.0% were university/research institution-led. 82.2% of evaluations included a quantitative component; 49.2% utilised quantitative data only and 33.1% used both quantitative and qualitative data. The most common design was a before/after comparison (30.5%, n=36/118). 7.6% of studies (n=9/118) used an experimental design: six individual-level and three cluster-randomised controlled trials. 56.8% (67/118) reported on service delivery/process outcomes (versus health or health risk factor outcomes) only. Given the number of Indigenous health programs that are implemented, few evaluations overall are published in the peer-reviewed literature and, of these, few use optimal methodologies such as mixed methods and experimental design. Implications for public health: Multiple strategies are required to increase high-quality, accessible evaluation in Indigenous health, including supporting stronger research-policy-practice partnerships and capacity building for evaluation by health services and government. © 2017 The Authors.

Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science.

PubMed

Campbell, Lesley G; Mehtani, Siya; Dozier, Mary E; Rinehart, Janice

2013-01-01

Here we present the first empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that a gender-heterogeneous problem-solving team generally produced journal articles perceived to be higher quality by peers than a team comprised of highly-performing individuals of the same gender. Although women were historically underrepresented as principal investigators of working groups, their frequency as PIs at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis is now comparable to the national frequencies in biology and they are now equally qualified, in terms of their impact on the accumulation of ecological knowledge (as measured by the h-index). While women continue to be underrepresented as working group participants, peer-reviewed publications with gender-heterogeneous authorship teams received 34% more citations than publications produced by gender-uniform authorship teams. This suggests that peers citing these publications perceive publications that also happen to have gender-heterogeneous authorship teams as higher quality than publications with gender uniform authorship teams. Promoting diversity not only promotes representation and fairness but may lead to higher quality science.

Gender-Heterogeneous Working Groups Produce Higher Quality Science

PubMed Central

Campbell, Lesley G.; Mehtani, Siya; Dozier, Mary E.; Rinehart, Janice

2013-01-01

Here we present the first empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that a gender-heterogeneous problem-solving team generally produced journal articles perceived to be higher quality by peers than a team comprised of highly-performing individuals of the same gender. Although women were historically underrepresented as principal investigators of working groups, their frequency as PIs at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis is now comparable to the national frequencies in biology and they are now equally qualified, in terms of their impact on the accumulation of ecological knowledge (as measured by the h-index). While women continue to be underrepresented as working group participants, peer-reviewed publications with gender-heterogeneous authorship teams received 34% more citations than publications produced by gender-uniform authorship teams. This suggests that peers citing these publications perceive publications that also happen to have gender-heterogeneous authorship teams as higher quality than publications with gender uniform authorship teams. Promoting diversity not only promotes representation and fairness but may lead to higher quality science. PMID:24205372

A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on the Costs of Implementing Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits at Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (Potws) in the Great Lakes Region (External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

EPA has released this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy ...

Using a Teaching Intervention and Calibrated Peer Review™ Diagnostics to Improve Visual Communication Skills.

PubMed

Saterbak, Ann; Moturu, Anoosha; Volz, Tracy

2018-03-01

Rice University's bioengineering department incorporates written, oral, and visual communication instruction into its undergraduate curriculum to aid student learning and to prepare students to communicate their knowledge and discoveries precisely and persuasively. In a tissue culture lab course, we used a self- and peer-review tool called Calibrated Peer Review™ (CPR) to diagnose student learning gaps in visual communication skills on a poster assignment. We then designed an active learning intervention that required students to practice the visual communication skills that needed improvement and used CPR to measure the changes. After the intervention, we observed that students performed significantly better in their ability to develop high quality graphs and tables that represent experimental data. Based on these outcomes, we conclude that guided task practice, collaborative learning, and calibrated peer review can be used to improve engineering students' visual communication skills.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation

PubMed Central

Jadad, Alejandro R; Moher, Michael; Browman, George P; Booker, Lynda; Sigouin, Christopher; Fuentes, Mario; Stevens, Robert

2000-01-01

Objective To evaluate the clinical, methodological, and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the treatment of asthma and to compare those published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper based journals. Design Analysis of studies identified from Medline, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, personal collections, and reference lists. Studies Articles describing a systematic review or a meta-analysis of the treatment of asthma that were published as a full report, in any language or format, in a peer reviewed journal or the Cochrane Library. Main outcome measures General characteristics of studies reviewed and methodological characteristics (sources of articles; language restrictions; format, design, and publication status of studies included; type of data synthesis; and methodological quality). Results 50 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. More than half were published in the past two years. Twelve reviews were published in the Cochrane Library and 38 were published in 22 peer reviewed journals. Forced expiratory volume in one second was the most frequently used outcome, but few reviews evaluated the effect of treatment on costs or patient preferences. Forty reviews were judged to have serious or extensive flaws. All six reviews associated with industry were in this group. Seven of the 10 most rigorous reviews were published in the Cochrane Library. Conclusions Most reviews published in peer reviewed journals or funded by industry have serious methodological flaws that limit their value to guide decisions. Cochrane reviews are more rigorous and better reported than those published in peer reviewed journals. PMID:10688558

Peer review in design: Understanding the impact of collaboration on the review process and student perception

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Mandala, Mahender Arjun

A cornerstone of design and design education is frequent situated feedback. With increasing class sizes, and shrinking financial and human resources, providing rich feedback to students becomes increasingly difficult. In the field of writing, web-based peer review--the process of utilizing equal status learners within a class to provide feedback to each other on their work using networked computing systems--has been shown to be a reliable and valid source of feedback in addition to improving student learning. Designers communicate in myriad ways, using the many languages of design and combining visual and descriptive information. This complex discourse of design intent makes peer reviews by design students ambiguous and often not helpful to the receivers of this feedback. Furthermore, engaging students in the review process itself is often difficult. Teams can complement individual diversity and may assist novice designers collectively resolve complex task. However, teams often incur production losses and may be impacted by individual biases. In the current work, we look at utilizing a collaborative team of reviewers, working collectively and synchronously, in generating web based peer reviews in a sophomore engineering design class. Students participated in a cross-over design, conducting peer reviews as individuals and collaborative teams in parallel sequences. Raters coded the feedback generated on the basis of their appropriateness and accuracy. Self-report surveys and passive observation of teams conducting reviews captured student opinion on the process, its value, and the contrasting experience they had conducting team and individual reviews. We found team reviews generated better quality feedback in comparison to individual reviews. Furthermore, students preferred conducting reviews in teams, finding the process 'fun' and engaging. We observed several learning benefits of using collaboration in reviewing including improved understanding of the assessment criteria, roles, expectations, and increased team reflection. These results provide insight into how to improve the review process for instructors and researchers, and forms a basis for future research work in this area. With respect to facilitating peer review process in design based classrooms, we also present recommendations for creating effective review system design and implementation in classroom supported by research and practical experience.

45 CFR 60.3 - Definitions.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... of a patient(s) or quality of health care services; (2) Any recommendation by a peer review... with the primary purpose of evaluating the quality of patient care practices or services ordered or... defined rules, policies, or procedures for such a proceeding. Health care entity means, for purposes of...

The Rockford School of Medicine Undergraduate Quality Assurance Program

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Barr, Daniel; And Others

1976-01-01

An undergraduate program of ambulatory care quality assurance is described which has been operational at the Rockford School of Medicine for three years. Focus is on involving students in peer review and related audit activities. Results of preliminary evaluation are reported and generalizations offered. (JT)

QUALITY SCIENCE IN THE COURTROOM: US EPA QA AND PEER REVIEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES COMPARED TO THE DAUBERT FACTORS

EPA Science Inventory

Protection of the environment is, in part, dependent on the quality of data used in decision making. Whether the decisions are applied to science itself or to the laws governing people and their living conditions, good quality data are expected by two disciplines with distinct d...

The UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project--a feasibility study of large-scale clinical service peer review.

PubMed

Roberts, Christopher M; Buckingham, Rhona J; Stone, Robert A; Lowe, Derek; Pearson, Michael G

2010-10-01

Service provision and clinical outcomes for patients admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease remain unacceptably variable despite guidelines and performance feedback of national audit, data. This study aims to assess the impact of mutual peer review on service improvement. The initial phase of this study was to assess the feasibility and determine the practicalities of delivering such a peer review programme on a large scale. All UK acute hospitals were invited to participate in a reciprocal peer review programme administered by a central team from three UK health organizations. Hospitals with the most resources were paired with those with the least (as defined in a baseline survey) and pairs randomized on a 3:2 basis into intervention or control groups. A number of key quality indicators were derived to measure service levels at the beginning and end of the study. Peer review teams included clinicians and managers from acute and primary care organizations and when possible a patient representative. Visits were focussed on four key areas of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease service. Teams were to agree service improvements and submit plans signed off by participants. Monthly change diaries were to be used to record progress towards agreed goals. A total of 100 hospitals participated in the programme. Overall, 52 of 54 peer review visits took place within a 4-week time frame and all units submitted service improvement plans within an agreed time frame. Secondary care representatives participated in all visits, primary care in 30 but patients in only 17. The mean number of diaries returned was 2, but 94% of units returned initial and final versions. It is possible to deliver successful large-scale mutual peer review using a limited but focussed programme. Participation of patients and use of change diaries requires further evaluation. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

77 FR 66852 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Worker Training

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-11-07

...; Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Worker Training AGENCY: National Institute of Environmental Health... Sciences (NIEHS) was given major responsibility for initiating a worker safety and health training program... workers and their communities by delivering high-quality, peer-reviewed safety and health curricula to...

‘It will harm business and increase illicit trade’: an evaluation of the relevance, quality and transparency of evidence submitted by transnational tobacco companies to the UK consultation on standardised packaging 2012

PubMed Central

Evans-Reeves, K A; Hatchard, J L; Gilmore, A B

2015-01-01

Introduction Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) submitted evidence to the 2012 UK Consultation on standardised packaging (SP) to argue the policy will have detrimental economic impacts and increase illicit tobacco trade. Methods A content analysis of the four TTC submissions to the consultation assessed the relevance and quality of evidence TTCs cited to support their arguments. Investigative research was used to determine whether the cited evidence was industry connected. Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the relevance and quality of industry-connected and independent from the industry evidence. The extent to which TTCs disclosed financial conflicts of interest (COI) when citing evidence was examined. Results We obtained 74 pieces of TTC-cited evidence. The quality of the evidence was poor. TTCs cited no independent, peer-reviewed evidence that supported their arguments. Nearly half of the evidence was industry-connected (47%, 35/74). None of this industry-connected evidence was published in peer-reviewed journals (0/35) and 66% (23/35) of it was opinion only. Industry-connected evidence was of significantly poorer quality than independent evidence (p<0.001). COIs were not disclosed by TTCs in 91% (32/35) of cases. Conclusions In the absence of peer-reviewed research to support their arguments, TTCs relied on evidence they commissioned and the opinions of TTC-connected third-parties. Such connections were not disclosed by TTCs when citing this evidence and were time consuming to uncover. In line with Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and broader transparency initiatives, TTCs should be required to disclose their funding of all third-parties and any COIs when citing evidence. PMID:25472733

On the Role of Impact Evaluation of Quality Assurance from the Strategic Perspective of Quality Assurance Agencies in the European Higher Education Area

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Damian, Radu; Grifoll, Josep; Rigbers, Anke

2015-01-01

In this paper the current national legislations, the quality assurance approaches and the activities of impact analysis of three quality assurance agencies from Romania, Spain and Germany are described from a strategic perspective. The analysis shows that the general methodologies (comprising, for example, self-evaluation reports, peer reviews,…

Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review.

PubMed

Ghosh, Satrajit S; Klein, Arno; Avants, Brian; Millman, K Jarrod

2012-01-01

Peer-reviewed publications are the primary mechanism for sharing scientific results. The current peer-review process is, however, fraught with many problems that undermine the pace, validity, and credibility of science. We highlight five salient problems: (1) reviewers are expected to have comprehensive expertise; (2) reviewers do not have sufficient access to methods and materials to evaluate a study; (3) reviewers are neither identified nor acknowledged; (4) there is no measure of the quality of a review; and (5) reviews take a lot of time, and once submitted cannot evolve. We propose that these problems can be resolved by making the following changes to the review process. Distributing reviews to many reviewers would allow each reviewer to focus on portions of the article that reflect the reviewer's specialty or area of interest and place less of a burden on any one reviewer. Providing reviewers materials and methods to perform comprehensive evaluation would facilitate transparency, greater scrutiny, and replication of results. Acknowledging reviewers makes it possible to quantitatively assess reviewer contributions, which could be used to establish the impact of the reviewer in the scientific community. Quantifying review quality could help establish the importance of individual reviews and reviewers as well as the submitted article. Finally, we recommend expediting post-publication reviews and allowing for the dialog to continue and flourish in a dynamic and interactive manner. We argue that these solutions can be implemented by adapting existing features from open-source software management and social networking technologies. We propose a model of an open, interactive review system that quantifies the significance of articles, the quality of reviews, and the reputation of reviewers.

Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review

PubMed Central

Ghosh, Satrajit S.; Klein, Arno; Avants, Brian; Millman, K. Jarrod

2012-01-01

Peer-reviewed publications are the primary mechanism for sharing scientific results. The current peer-review process is, however, fraught with many problems that undermine the pace, validity, and credibility of science. We highlight five salient problems: (1) reviewers are expected to have comprehensive expertise; (2) reviewers do not have sufficient access to methods and materials to evaluate a study; (3) reviewers are neither identified nor acknowledged; (4) there is no measure of the quality of a review; and (5) reviews take a lot of time, and once submitted cannot evolve. We propose that these problems can be resolved by making the following changes to the review process. Distributing reviews to many reviewers would allow each reviewer to focus on portions of the article that reflect the reviewer's specialty or area of interest and place less of a burden on any one reviewer. Providing reviewers materials and methods to perform comprehensive evaluation would facilitate transparency, greater scrutiny, and replication of results. Acknowledging reviewers makes it possible to quantitatively assess reviewer contributions, which could be used to establish the impact of the reviewer in the scientific community. Quantifying review quality could help establish the importance of individual reviews and reviewers as well as the submitted article. Finally, we recommend expediting post-publication reviews and allowing for the dialog to continue and flourish in a dynamic and interactive manner. We argue that these solutions can be implemented by adapting existing features from open-source software management and social networking technologies. We propose a model of an open, interactive review system that quantifies the significance of articles, the quality of reviews, and the reputation of reviewers. PMID:22529798

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

PubMed

Fox, Matthew P; Lash, Timothy L

2017-05-15

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

45 CFR 2516.820 - What types of internal evaluation activities are required of programs?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... required to: (a) Continuously assess management effectiveness, the quality of services provided, and the... evaluation methods, such as community advisory councils, participant advisory councils, peer reviews, quality... following data: (1) The total number of participants in each program and basic demographic characteristics...

Systematically Evaluating the Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Programmes in Leading to Improvements in Institutional Performance

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lillis, Deirdre

2012-01-01

Higher education institutions worldwide invest significant resources in their quality assurance systems. Little empirical evidence exists that demonstrates the effectiveness (or otherwise) of these systems. Methodological approaches for determining effectiveness are also underdeveloped. Self-study-with-peer-review is a widely used model for…

Methodology of quality improvement projects for the Texas Medicare population.

PubMed

Pendergrass, P W; Abel, R L; Bing, M; Vaughn, R; McCauley, C

1998-07-01

The Texas Medical Foundation, the quality improvement organization for the state of Texas, develops local quality improvement projects for the Medicare population. These projects are developed as part of the Health Care Quality Improvement Program undertaken by the Health Care Financing Administration. The goal of a local quality improvement project is to collaborate with providers to identify and reduce the incidence of unintentional variations in the delivery of care that negatively impact outcomes. Two factors are critical to the success of a quality improvement project. First, as opposed to peer review that is based on implicit criteria, quality improvement must be based on explicit criteria. These criteria represent key steps in the delivery of care that have been shown to improve outcomes for a specific disease. Second, quality improvement must be performed in partnership with the health care community. As such, the health care community must play an integral role in the design and evaluation of a quality improvement project and in the design and implementation of the resulting quality improvement plan. Specifically, this article provides a historical perspective for the transition from peer review to quality improvement. It discusses key steps used in developing and implementing local quality improvement projects including topic selection, quality indicator development, collaborator recruitment, and measurement of performance/improvement. Two Texas Medical Foundation projects are described to highlight the current methodology and to illustrate the impact of quality improvement projects.

Role of Science at EPA

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

Decision-making is driven by research with the highest standards for integrity, peer review, transparency, and ethics. Ongoing positive impacts include reducing pollution, improving air quality, defining exposure pathways, and protecting water sources.

Chronic disease management for recently homeless Veterans: a clinical practice improvement program to apply home telehealth technology to a vulnerable population

PubMed Central

Gabrielian, Sonya; Yuan, Anita; Andersen, Ronald M.; McGuire, James; Rubenstein, Lisa; Sapir, Negar; Gelberg, Lillian

2013-01-01

Background Though vulnerable populations may benefit from in-home health information technologies (HIT) that promote disease self-management, there is a “digital divide” in which these groups are often unlikely to use such programs. We describe the early phases of applying and testing an existing Veterans Administration (VA) HIT care management program, Care Coordination Home Telehealth (CCHT), to recently homeless Veterans in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program. Peers were used to support patient participation. Methods CCHT uses in-home messaging devices to provide health education and daily questions about clinical indicators from chronic illness care guidelines, with patient responses reviewed by VA nurses. Patients could also receive adjunctive peer support. We used medical record review, Veteran interviews, and staff surveys to “diagnose” barriers to CCHT use, assess program acceptability, explore the role of peer support, and inform future quality improvement. Subjects Fourteen eligible Veterans in HUD-VASH agreed to CCHT participation. Ten of these Veterans opted to have adjunctive peer support and the other four enrolled in CCHT usual care. Results Though barriers to enrollment/engagement must be addressed, this subset of Veterans in HUD-VASH was satisfied with CCHT. Most Veterans did not require support from peers to engage in CCHT but valued peer social assistance amidst the isolation felt in their scattered-site homes. Conclusions HIT tools hold promise for in-home care management for recently housed Veterans. Patient-level barriers to enrollment must be addressed in the next steps of quality improvement, testing and evaluating peer-driven CCHT recruitment. PMID:23407011

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

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-05-14

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

Basins 4.0 Climate Assessment Tool (Cat): Supporting Documentation and User Manual (External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

EPA has released of the draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines (IQGs). This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agenc...

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: Four Case Studies of Water Utility Practices (External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

EPA has released this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy ...

AIR QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PARTICULATE MATTER DOCUMENT

EPA Science Inventory

A Planning Document was produced by NCEA/RTP and reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) (62 FR 55201, October 23, 1997). In FY99, a workshop draft of the PM AQCD was completed, a peer input workshop held, and an External Review Draft released for public ...

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.

Quality indicators for hip fracture patients: a scoping review protocol

PubMed Central

Pitzul, Kristen B; Munce, Sarah E P; Perrier, Laure; Beaupre, Lauren; Morin, Suzanne N; McGlasson, Rhona; Jaglal, Susan B

2014-01-01

Introduction Hip fractures are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality and care of hip fracture patients places a heavy burden on healthcare systems due to prolonged recovery time. Measuring quality of care delivered to hip fracture patients is important to help target efforts to improve care for patients and efficiency of the health system. The purpose of this study is to synthesise the evidence surrounding quality of care indicators for patients who have sustained a hip fracture. Using a scoping review methodology, the research question that will be addressed is: “What patient, institutional, and system-level indicators are currently in use or proposed for measuring quality of care across the continuum for individuals following a hip fracture?”. Methods and analysis We will employ the methodological frameworks used by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. The synthesis will be limited to quality of care indicators for individuals who suffered low trauma hip fracture. All English peer-reviewed studies published from the year 2000-most recent will be included. Literature search strategies will be developed using medical subject headings and text words related to hip fracture quality indicators and the search will be peer-reviewed. Numerous electronic databases will be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, followed by screening of the full text of potentially relevant articles to determine final inclusion. Abstracted data will include study characteristics and indicator definitions. Dissemination To improve quality of care for patients and create a more efficient healthcare system, mechanisms for the measurement of quality of care are required. The implementation of quality of care indicators enables stakeholders to target areas for improvement in service delivery. Knowledge translation activities will occur throughout the review with dissemination of the project goals and findings to local, national, and international stakeholders. PMID:25335964

Quality indicators for hip fracture patients: a scoping review protocol.

PubMed

Pitzul, Kristen B; Munce, Sarah E P; Perrier, Laure; Beaupre, Lauren; Morin, Suzanne N; McGlasson, Rhona; Jaglal, Susan B

2014-10-21

Hip fractures are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality and care of hip fracture patients places a heavy burden on healthcare systems due to prolonged recovery time. Measuring quality of care delivered to hip fracture patients is important to help target efforts to improve care for patients and efficiency of the health system. The purpose of this study is to synthesise the evidence surrounding quality of care indicators for patients who have sustained a hip fracture. Using a scoping review methodology, the research question that will be addressed is: "What patient, institutional, and system-level indicators are currently in use or proposed for measuring quality of care across the continuum for individuals following a hip fracture?". We will employ the methodological frameworks used by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. The synthesis will be limited to quality of care indicators for individuals who suffered low trauma hip fracture. All English peer-reviewed studies published from the year 2000-most recent will be included. Literature search strategies will be developed using medical subject headings and text words related to hip fracture quality indicators and the search will be peer-reviewed. Numerous electronic databases will be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, followed by screening of the full text of potentially relevant articles to determine final inclusion. Abstracted data will include study characteristics and indicator definitions. To improve quality of care for patients and create a more efficient healthcare system, mechanisms for the measurement of quality of care are required. The implementation of quality of care indicators enables stakeholders to target areas for improvement in service delivery. Knowledge translation activities will occur throughout the review with dissemination of the project goals and findings to local, national, and international stakeholders. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

A review of the current state of digital plate reading of cultures in clinical microbiology.

PubMed

Rhoads, Daniel D; Novak, Susan M; Pantanowitz, Liron

2015-01-01

Digital plate reading (DPR) is increasingly being adopted as a means to facilitate the analysis and improve the quality and efficiency within the clinical microbiology laboratory. This review discusses the role of DPR in the context of total laboratory automation and explores some of the platforms currently available or in development for digital image capturing of microbial growth on media. The review focuses on the advantages and challenges of DPR. Peer-reviewed studies describing the utility and quality of these novel DPR systems are largely lacking, and professional guidelines for DPR implementation and quality management are needed. Further development and more widespread adoption of DPR is anticipated.

A review of the current state of digital plate reading of cultures in clinical microbiology

PubMed Central

Rhoads, Daniel D.; Novak, Susan M.; Pantanowitz, Liron

2015-01-01

Digital plate reading (DPR) is increasingly being adopted as a means to facilitate the analysis and improve the quality and efficiency within the clinical microbiology laboratory. This review discusses the role of DPR in the context of total laboratory automation and explores some of the platforms currently available or in development for digital image capturing of microbial growth on media. The review focuses on the advantages and challenges of DPR. Peer-reviewed studies describing the utility and quality of these novel DPR systems are largely lacking, and professional guidelines for DPR implementation and quality management are needed. Further development and more widespread adoption of DPR is anticipated. PMID:26110091

Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles.

PubMed

Lee, Kirby P; Schotland, Marieka; Bacchetti, Peter; Bero, Lisa A

2002-06-05

The ability to identify scientific journals that publish high-quality research would help clinicians, scientists, and health-policy analysts to select the most up-to-date medical literature to review. To assess whether journal characteristics of (1) peer-review status, (2) citation rate, (3) impact factor, (4) circulation, (5) manuscript acceptance rate, (6) MEDLINE indexing, and (7) Brandon/Hill Library List indexing are predictors of methodological quality of research articles, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 243 original research articles involving human subjects published in general internal medical journals. The mean (SD) quality score of the 243 articles was 1.37 (0.22). All journals reported a peer-review process and were indexed on MEDLINE. In models that controlled for article type (randomized controlled trial [RCT] or non-RCT), journal citation rate was the most statistically significant predictor (0.051 increase per doubling; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.037-0.065; P<.001). In separate analyses by article type, acceptance rate was the strongest predictor for RCT quality (-0.113 per doubling; 95% CI, -0.148 to -0.078; P<.001), while journal citation rate was the most predictive factor for non-RCT quality (0.051 per doubling; 95% CI, 0.044-0.059; P<.001). High citation rates, impact factors, and circulation rates, and low manuscript acceptance rates and indexing on Brandon/Hill Library List appear to be predictive of higher methodological quality scores for journal articles.

A qualitative synthesis of the positive and negative impacts related to delivery of peer-based health interventions in prison settings.

PubMed

South, Jane; Woodall, James; Kinsella, Karina; Bagnall, Anne-Marie

2016-09-29

Peer interventions involving prisoners in delivering peer education and peer support in a prison setting can address health need and add capacity for health services operating in this setting. This paper reports on a qualitative synthesis conducted as part of a systematic review of prison-based peer interventions. One of the review questions aimed to investigate the positive and negative impacts of delivering peer interventions within prison settings. This covered organisational and process issues relating to peer interventions, including prisoner and staff views. A qualitative synthesis of qualitative and mixed method studies was undertaken. The overall study design comprised a systematic review involving searching, study selection, data extraction and validity assessment. Studies reporting interventions with prisoners or ex-prisoners delivering education or support to prisoners resident in any type of prison or young offender institution, all ages, male and female, were included. A thematic synthesis was undertaken with a subset of studies reporting qualitative data (n = 33). This involved free coding of text reporting qualitative findings to develop a set of codes, which were then grouped into thematic categories and mapped back to the review question. Themes on process issues and wider impacts were grouped into four thematic categories: peer recruitment training and support; organisational support; prisoner relationships; prison life. There was consistent qualitative evidence on the need for organisational support within the prison to ensure smooth implementation and on managing security risks when prisoners were involved in service delivery. A suite of factors affecting the delivery of peer interventions and the wider organisation of prison life were identified. Alongside reported benefits of peer delivery, some reasons for non-utilisation of services by other prisoners were found. There was weak qualitative evidence on wider impacts on the prison system, including better communication between staff and prisoners. Gaps in evidence were identified. The quality of included studies limited the strength of the conclusions. The main conclusion is that peer interventions cannot be seen as independent of prison life and health services need to work in partnership with prison services to deliver peer interventions. More research is needed on long-term impacts. PROSPERO ref: CRD42012002349 .

'Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?': observations on how peer review panels function.

PubMed

Coveney, John; Herbert, Danielle L; Hill, Kathy; Mow, Karen E; Graves, Nicholas; Barnett, Adrian

2017-01-01

In Australia, the peer review process for competitive funding is usually conducted by a peer review group in conjunction with prior assessment from external assessors. This process is quite mysterious to those outside it. The purpose of this research was to throw light on grant review panels (sometimes called the 'black box') through an examination of the impact of panel procedures, panel composition and panel dynamics on the decision-making in the grant review process. A further purpose was to compare experience of a simplified review process with more conventional processes used in assessing grant proposals in Australia. This project was one aspect of a larger study into the costs and benefits of a simplified peer review process. The Queensland University of Technology (QUT)-simplified process was compared with the National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC) more complex process. Grant review panellists involved in both processes were interviewed about their experience of the decision-making process that assesses the excellence of an application. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Each transcription was de-identified and returned to the respondent for review. Final transcripts were read repeatedly and coded, and similar codes were amalgamated into categories that were used to build themes. Final themes were shared with the research team for feedback. Two major themes arose from the research: (1) assessing grant proposals and (2) factors influencing the fairness, integrity and objectivity of review. Issues such as the quality of writing in a grant proposal, comparison of the two review methods, the purpose and use of the rebuttal, assessing the financial value of funded projects, the importance of the experience of the panel membership and the role of track record and the impact of group dynamics on the review process were all discussed. The research also examined the influence of research culture on decision-making in grant review panels. One of the aims of this study was to compare a simplified review process with more conventional processes. Generally, participants were supportive of the simplified process. Transparency in the grant review process will result in better appreciation of the outcome. Despite the provision of clear guidelines for peer review, reviewing processes are likely to be subjective to the extent that different reviewers apply different rules. The peer review process will come under more scrutiny as funding for research becomes even more competitive. There is justification for further research on the process, especially of a kind that taps more deeply into the 'black box' of peer review.

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

Maximising Benefit from Defence Research: A Review of Defence Research and Technology for Alignment, Quality and Exploitation

DTIC Science & Technology

2006-09-01

exploited and that we get best value for money from our investment. We announced in the Strategy that we had set in place an evidence-based peer review of...currently meets the Department’s needs. The study was also to set a benchmark for future regular reviews of the programme to ensure quality, value for...The level of resources devoted to such research should be seen in the context of the overall value of expenditure flowing from such decisions. The

A systematic review of interventions aiming to improve involvement in physical activity among adults with intellectual disability.

PubMed

Brooker, Katie; van Dooren, Kate; McPherson, Lyn; Lennox, Nick; Ware, Robert

2015-03-01

Evidence suggests that most adults with intellectual disability do not participate in sufficient amounts of physical activity (PA). A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies that reported an intervention aiming to improve PA levels of adults with intellectual disability was conducted. Keywords related to intellectual disability and physical activity were used to search relevant databases. Studies were excluded if they did not measure PA as an outcome for adults with intellectual disability, were non-English, and were not peer-reviewed. All relevant studies were included in the review regardless of methodological quality and design. Six articles met the inclusion criteria. These included health education or health promotion programs with PA, nutrition, and weight loss components. The quality of studies included in this review was generally poor. Most studies used a prepost design, sample sizes were small, and measurement tools were used that are not valid and reliable for the population assessed. PA interventions have the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of people with intellectual disability, a vulnerable group who require attention from public health practitioners and researchers. Given the health inequities that exist, public health researchers should target efforts to improve PA levels among this group.

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”. ...

Can online networks provide quality answers to questions about occupational safety and health?

PubMed

Rhebergen, Martijn D F; Lenderink, Annet F; van Dijk, Frank J H; Hulshof, Carel T J

2012-05-01

To assess whether experts can provide high-quality answers to occupational safety and health (OSH) questions in online Question & Answer (Q&A) networks. The authors evaluated the quality of answers provided by qualified experts in two Dutch online networks: ArboAntwoord and the Helpdesk of the Netherlands Center for Occupational Diseases. A random sample of 594 answers was independently evaluated by two raters using nine answer quality criteria. An additional criterion, the agreement of answers with the best available evidence, was explored by peer review of a sample of 42 answers. Reviewers performed an evidence search in Medline. The median answer quality score of ArboAntwoord (N=295) and the Netherlands Center for Occupational Diseases Helpdesk (N=299) was 8 of 9 (IQR 2). The inter-rater reliability of the first nine quality criteria was high (κ 0.82-0.90, p<0.05). A question answered by two or more experts had a greater probability of a high-quality score than questions answered by one expert (OR 4.9, 95% CI 2.7 to 9.0). Answers most often scored insufficient on the use of evidence to underpin the answer (36% and 38% for the networks, respectively) and on conciseness (35% and 31%, respectively). Peer review demonstrated that 43%-72% of the answers in both online networks were in complete agreement with the best available evidence. OSH experts are able to provide quality answers in online OSH Q&A networks. Our answer quality appraisal instrument was feasible and provided information on how to improve answer quality.

Quality of reporting in oncology studies: A systematic analysis of literature reviews and prospects.

PubMed

Rivoirard, Romain; Bourmaud, Aurélie; Oriol, Mathieu; Tinquaut, Fabien; Méry, Benoîte; Langrand-Escure, Julien; Vallard, Alexis; Fournel, Pierre; Magné, Nicolas; Chauvin, Franck

2017-04-01

The present review gives an overview of systematic reviews published in peer reviewed Journals analysing quality of reporting in oncology studies. PUBMED and Cochrane library were searched to identify systematic reviews assessing quality of reporting for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBS). Recommendations and primary endpoints used to assess the quality of reporting were described. Intrinsic quality of reporting was analyzed using an Overall Quality Score for literature Reviews (OQSR). Main evaluation themes were overall quality of reporting (20/58) and reporting of Health-Related Quality Of Life (HRQOL) in RCTs (7/58). Reporting recommendations used were not detailed in 56.9% of reviews. Insufficient reporting for the methodological description (randomization, blinding details, and allocation concealment) and the rationale for using specific measure of HRQOL were highlighted. OQSR was significantly higher for reviews published between 2010 and 2014 (after the PRISMA Publication), as compared to those published between 1996-2009 (median OQSR 10 (10-11) versus median OQSR 9 (6-10) respectively, p=0.0053). Intrinsic quality of reporting is satisfactory and has been improved in the last years. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

The preprint debate: What are the issues?

PubMed

da Silva, Jaime A Teixeira

2018-04-01

The debate surrounding preprints is increasing. Preprint proponents claim that preprints are a way to shore up trust in academic publishing, that they provide an additional 'quality' screen prior to traditional peer review, that they can assist with the replication crisis plaguing science in part by making negative or contradictory results public, and that they speed up the publishing process because fundamental results can be presented early, serving as timely reports for the purposes of tenure or grant funding. Preprint skeptics and critics claim that preprints may represent a risk and a danger to quality-based academic publishing because they are documents that have not been carefully and thoroughly vetted prior to their release into the public domain. Thus, academics who cite invalid, poorly vetted, or false facts could cause harm, not unlike the unscholarly 'predatory' open access movement. Feedback on work from lesser-known groups, or on less glamorous topics, may be null or worse than from traditional peer review, annulling an initial key objective of preprints. Although there is no widespread empirical evidence or data yet regarding some of these issues, academics should be aware of the ideological, financial, and political tug-of-war taking place before deciding if they wish to publish their important findings as a preprint prior or simultaneous to submitting to a regular journal for peer review.

Low-value clinical practices in injury care: a scoping review protocol.

PubMed

Moore, Lynne; Boukar, Khadidja Malloum; Tardif, Pier-Alexandre; Stelfox, Henry T; Champion, Howard; Cameron, Peter; Gabbe, Belinda; Yanchar, Natalie; Kortbeek, John; Lauzier, François; Légaré, France; Archambault, Patrick; Turgeon, Alexis F

2017-07-12

Preventable injuries lead to 200 000 hospital stays, 60 000 disabilities, and 13 000 deaths per year in Canada with direct costs of $20 billion. Overall, potentially unnecessary medical interventions are estimated to consume up to 30% of healthcare resources and may expose patients to avoidable harm. However, little is known about overuse for acute injury care. We aim to identify low-value clinical practices in injury care. We will perform a scoping review of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature to identify research articles, reviews, recommendations and guidelines that identify at least one low-value clinical practice specific to injury populations. We will search Medline, EMBASE, COCHRANE central, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge databases, websites of government agencies, professional societies and patient advocacy organisations, thesis holdings and conference proceedings. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies for eligibility and extract data from included articles using a prepiloted and standardised electronic data abstraction form. Low-value clinical practices will be categorised using an extension of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conceptual framework and data will be presented using narrative synthesis. Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. This study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, international scientific meetings, and to knowledge users through clinical and healthcare quality associations. This review will contribute new knowledge on low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. Our results will support the development indicators to measure resource overuse and inform policy makers on potential targets for deadoption in injury care. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Low-value clinical practices in injury care: a scoping review protocol

PubMed Central

Moore, Lynne; Boukar, Khadidja Malloum; Tardif, Pier-Alexandre; Stelfox, Henry T; Champion, Howard; Cameron, Peter; Gabbe, Belinda; Yanchar, Natalie; kortbeek, John; Lauzier, François; Légaré, France; Archambault, Patrick; Turgeon, Alexis F

2017-01-01

Introduction Preventable injuries lead to 200 000 hospital stays, 60 000 disabilities, and 13 000 deaths per year in Canada with direct costs of $20 billion. Overall, potentially unnecessary medical interventions are estimated to consume up to 30% of healthcare resources and may expose patients to avoidable harm. However, little is known about overuse for acute injury care. We aim to identify low-value clinical practices in injury care. Methods and analysis We will perform a scoping review of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature to identify research articles, reviews, recommendations and guidelines that identify at least one low-value clinical practice specific to injury populations. We will search Medline, EMBASE, COCHRANE central, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge databases, websites of government agencies, professional societies and patient advocacy organisations, thesis holdings and conference proceedings. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies for eligibility and extract data from included articles using a prepiloted and standardised electronic data abstraction form. Low-value clinical practices will be categorised using an extension of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conceptual framework and data will be presented using narrative synthesis. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. This study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, international scientific meetings, and to knowledge users through clinical and healthcare quality associations. This review will contribute new knowledge on low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. Our results will support the development indicators to measure resource overuse and inform policy makers on potential targets for deadoption in injury care. PMID:28706101

Hospital-related cost of sepsis: A systematic review.

PubMed

Arefian, Habibollah; Heublein, Steffen; Scherag, André; Brunkhorst, Frank Martin; Younis, Mustafa Z; Moerer, Onnen; Fischer, Dagmar; Hartmann, Michael

2017-02-01

This article systematically reviews research on the costs of sepsis and, as a secondary aim, evaluates the quality of economic evaluations reported in peer-reviewed journals. We systematically searched the MEDLINE, National Health Service (Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Economic Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment), Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry and Web of Knowledge databases for studies published between January 2005 and June 2015. We selected original articles that provided cost and cost-effectiveness analyses, defined sepsis and described their cost calculation method. Only studies that considered index admissions and re-admissions in the first 30 days were published in peer-reviewed journals and used standard treatments were considered. All costs were adjusted to 2014 US dollars. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) for various costs of sepsis were calculated. The quality of economic studies was assessed using the Drummond 10-item checklist. Overall, 37 studies met our eligibility criteria. The median of the mean hospital-wide cost of sepsis per patient was $32,421 (IQR $20,745-$40,835), and the median of the mean ICU cost of sepsis per patient was $27,461 (IQR $16,007-$31,251). Overall, the quality of economic studies was low. Estimates of the hospital-related costs of sepsis varied considerably across the included studies depending on the method used for cost calculation, the type of sepsis and the population that was examined. A standard model for conducting cost improve the quality of studies on the costs of sepsis. Copyright © 2016 The British Infection Association. All rights reserved.

The characteristics of national health initiatives promoting earlier cancer diagnosis among adult populations: a systematic review protocol

PubMed Central

Calanzani, Natalia; Weller, David; Campbell, Christine

2017-01-01

Introduction The increasing burden of cancer morbidity and mortality has led to the development of national health initiatives to promote earlier cancer diagnosis and improve cancer survival. This protocol describes a systematic review aiming to identify the evidence about such initiatives among the adult population. We will describe their components, stakeholders and target populations, and summarise their outcomes. Methods and analysis We will search databases and websites for peer-reviewed publications and grey literature on national health initiatives in high-income countries as defined by the World Bank. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies will be included and assessed for their methodological quality. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction will be carried out independently by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis will be used to analyse the findings. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review analyses secondary data and ethical approval is not required. Review findings will be helpful to researchers, policy makers, governments and other key stakeholders developing similar initiatives and assessing cancer outcomes. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal in order to reach a diverse group of healthcare professionals, researchers and policy makers. This systematic review protocol is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42016047233). PMID:28698336

European urology: quality, impact, online.

PubMed

Catto, James W F; Montorsi, Francesco; Schulman, Claude

2013-10-01

European Urology provides contemporary, cutting-edge urologic research, guidance, and discussion. The journal continues to invite collaborative reviews, to invest in rapid but fair peer review, to seek the best research, and to serve the needs of readers and patients. Copyright © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Assessing Assessment Quality: Criteria for Quality Assurance in Design of (Peer) Assessment for Learning--A Review of Research Studies

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Tillema, Harm; Leenknecht, Martijn; Segers, Mien

2011-01-01

The interest in "assessment for learning" (AfL) has resulted in a search for new modes of assessment that are better aligned to students' learning how to learn. However, with the introduction of new assessment tools, also questions arose with respect to the quality of its measurement. On the one hand, the appropriateness of traditional,…

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

PubMed

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

2008-01-01

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

Toward an Understanding of the Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Unconventional Natural Gas Development: A Categorical Assessment of the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature, 2009-2015.

PubMed

Hays, Jake; Shonkoff, Seth B C

2016-01-01

The body of science evaluating the potential impacts of unconventional natural gas development (UNGD) has grown significantly in recent years, although many data gaps remain. Still, a broad empirical understanding of the impacts is beginning to emerge amidst a swell of research. The present categorical assessment provides an overview of the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2009-2015 as it relates to the potential impacts of UNGD on public health, water quality, and air quality. We have categorized all available original research during this time period in an attempt to understand the weight and direction of the scientific literature. Our results indicate that at least 685 papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that are relevant to assessing the impacts of UNGD. 84% of public health studies contain findings that indicate public health hazards, elevated risks, or adverse health outcomes; 69% of water quality studies contain findings that indicate potential, positive association, or actual incidence of water contamination; and 87% of air quality studies contain findings that indicate elevated air pollutant emissions and/or atmospheric concentrations. This paper demonstrates that the weight of the findings in the scientific literature indicates hazards and elevated risks to human health as well as possible adverse health outcomes associated with UNGD. There are limitations to this type of assessment and it is only intended to provide a snapshot of the scientific knowledge based on the available literature. However, this work can be used to identify themes that lie in or across studies, to prioritize future research, and to provide an empirical foundation for policy decisions.

Urological research in sub-Saharan Africa: a retrospective cohort study of abstracts presented at the Nigerian Association of Urological Surgeons conferences.

PubMed

Bello, Jibril Oyekunle

2013-11-14

Nigeria is one of the top three countries in Africa in terms of science research output and Nigerian urologists' biomedical research output contributes to this. Each year, urologists in Nigeria gather to present their recent research at the conference of the Nigerian Association of Urological Surgeons (NAUS). These abstracts are not thoroughly vetted as are full length manuscripts published in peer reviewed journals but the information they disseminate may affect clinical practice of attendees. This study aims to describe the characteristics of abstracts presented at the annual conferences of NAUS, the quality of the abstracts as determined by the subsequent publication of full length manuscripts in peer-review indexed journals and the factors that influence such successful publication. Abstracts presented at the 2007 to 2010 NAUS conferences were identified through conference abstracts books. Using a strict search protocol, publication in peer-reviewed journals was determined. The abstracts characteristics were analyzed and their quality judged by subsequent successful publishing of full length manuscripts. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 16.0 software to determine factors predictive of successful publication. Only 75 abstracts were presented at the NAUS 2007 to 2010 conferences; a quarter (24%) of the presented abstracts was subsequently published as full length manuscripts. Median time to publication was 15 months (range 2-40 months). Manuscripts whose result data were analyzed with 'beyond basic' statistics of frequencies and averages were more likely to be published than those with basic or no statistics. Quality of the abstracts and thus subsequent publication success is influenced by the use of 'beyond basic' statistics in analysis of the result data presented. There is a need for improvement in the quality of urological research from Nigeria.

28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.106 - Number of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

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 collaboration. PMID:23087639

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

PubMed

Charlton, Bruce G

2004-01-01

In recent years, the perception has grown that conflicts of interest are having a detrimental effect on medical science as it influences health policy and clinical practice, leading medical journals to enforce self-declaration of potential biases in the attempt to counteract or compensate for the problem. Conflict of interest (CoI) declarations have traditionally been considered inappropriate in pure science since its evaluation systems themselves constitute a mechanism for eliminating the effect of individual biases. Pure science is primarily evaluated by 'peer usage', in which scientific information is 'replicated' by being incorporated in the work of other scientists, and tested by further observation of the natural world. Over the long-term, the process works because significant biases impair the quality of science, and bad science tends to be neglected or refuted. However, scientific evaluation operates slowly over years and decades, and only a small proportion of published work is ever actually evaluated. But most of modern medical science no longer conforms to the model of pure science, and may instead be conceptualized as a system of 'applied' science having different aims and evaluation processes. The aim of applied medical science is to solve pre-specified problems, and to provide scientific information ready for implementation immediately following publication. The primary evaluation process of applied science is peer review, not peer usage. Peer review is much more rapid (with a timescale of weeks or months) and cheaper than peer usage and (consequently) has a much wider application: peer review is a prospective validation while peer usage is retrospective. Since applied science consists of incremental advances on existing knowledge achieved using established techniques, its results can usually be reliably evaluated by peer review. However, despite its considerable convenience, peer review has significant limitations related to its reliance on opinion. One major limitation of peer review has proved to be its inability to deal with conflicts of interest, especially in a 'big science' context when prestigious scientists may have similar biases, and conflicts of interest are widely shared among peer reviewers. When applied medical science has been later checked against the slower but more valid processes of peer usage, it seems that reliance on peer review may allow damaging distortions to become 'locked-in' to clinical practice and health policy for considerable periods. Scientific progress is generally underpinned by increasing specialization. Medical journals should specialize in the communication of scientific information, and they have neither the resources nor the motivation to investigate and measure conflicts of interest. Effectively dealing with the problem of conflicts of interest in applied medical science firstly requires a more explicit demarcation between the communications media of pure medical science and applied medical science. Greater specialization of these activities would then allow distinctive aims and evaluation systems to evolve with the expectation of improved performance in both pure and applied systems. In future, applied medical science should operate with an assumption of bias, with the onus of proof on applied medical scientists to facilitate the 'data transparency' necessary to validate their research. Journals of applied medical science will probably require more rigorous processes of peer review than at present, since their publications are intended to be ready for implementation. But since peer review does not adequately filter-out conflicts of interest in applied medical science, there is a need for the evolution of specialist post-publication institutional mechanisms. The suggested solution is to encourage the establishment of independent 'CoI consultancy' services, whose role would be to evaluate conflicts of interest and other biases in published applied medical science prior to their implementation. Such services would be paid-for by the groups who intend to implement applied medical research.

TU-EF-BRD-04: Summing It Up: The Future of Quality and Safety Research

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

Ford, E.

Research related to quality and safety has been a staple of medical physics academic activities for a long time. From very early on, medical physicists have developed new radiation measurement equipment and analysis techniques, created ever increasingly accurate dose calculation models, and have vastly improved imaging, planning, and delivery techniques. These and other areas of interest have improved the quality and safety of radiotherapy for our patients. With the advent of TG-100, quality and safety is an area that will garner even more research interest in the future. As medical physicists pursue quality and safety research in greater numbers, itmore » is worthwhile to consider what actually constitutes research on quality and safety. For example, should the development of algorithms for real-time EPID-based in-vivo dosimetry be defined as “quality and safety” research? How about the clinical implementation of such as system? Surely the application of failure modes and effects analysis to a clinical process would be considered quality and safety research, but is this type of research that should be included in the medical physics peer-reviewed literature? The answers to such questions are of critical importance to set researchers in a direction that will provide the greatest benefit to our field and the patients we serve. The purpose of this symposium is to consider what constitutes research in the arena of quality and safety and differentiate it from other research directions. The key distinction here is developing the tool itself (e.g. algorithms for EPID dosimetry) vs. studying the impact of the tool with some quantitative metric. Only the latter would I call quality and safety research. Issues of ‘basic’ versus ‘applied’ quality and safety research will be covered as well as how the research results should be structured to provide increasing levels of support that a quality and safety intervention is effective and sustainable. Examples from existing peer-reviewed research will be used to highlight the main points. Historical, medical physicists have leveraged many areas of applied physics, engineering and biology to improve radiotherapy. Research on quality and safety is another area where physicists can have an impact. The key to further progress is to clearly define what constitutes quality and safety research for those interested in doing such research and the reviewers of that research. Learning Objectives: List several tools of quality and safety with references to peer-reviewed literature. Describe effects of mental workload on performance. Outline research in quality and safety indicators and technique analysis. Understand what quality and safety research needs to be going forward. Understand the links between cooperative group trials and quality and safety research.« less

TU-EF-BRD-01: Topics in Quality and Safety Research and Level of Evidence

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

Pawlicki, T.

Research related to quality and safety has been a staple of medical physics academic activities for a long time. From very early on, medical physicists have developed new radiation measurement equipment and analysis techniques, created ever increasingly accurate dose calculation models, and have vastly improved imaging, planning, and delivery techniques. These and other areas of interest have improved the quality and safety of radiotherapy for our patients. With the advent of TG-100, quality and safety is an area that will garner even more research interest in the future. As medical physicists pursue quality and safety research in greater numbers, itmore » is worthwhile to consider what actually constitutes research on quality and safety. For example, should the development of algorithms for real-time EPID-based in-vivo dosimetry be defined as “quality and safety” research? How about the clinical implementation of such as system? Surely the application of failure modes and effects analysis to a clinical process would be considered quality and safety research, but is this type of research that should be included in the medical physics peer-reviewed literature? The answers to such questions are of critical importance to set researchers in a direction that will provide the greatest benefit to our field and the patients we serve. The purpose of this symposium is to consider what constitutes research in the arena of quality and safety and differentiate it from other research directions. The key distinction here is developing the tool itself (e.g. algorithms for EPID dosimetry) vs. studying the impact of the tool with some quantitative metric. Only the latter would I call quality and safety research. Issues of ‘basic’ versus ‘applied’ quality and safety research will be covered as well as how the research results should be structured to provide increasing levels of support that a quality and safety intervention is effective and sustainable. Examples from existing peer-reviewed research will be used to highlight the main points. Historical, medical physicists have leveraged many areas of applied physics, engineering and biology to improve radiotherapy. Research on quality and safety is another area where physicists can have an impact. The key to further progress is to clearly define what constitutes quality and safety research for those interested in doing such research and the reviewers of that research. Learning Objectives: List several tools of quality and safety with references to peer-reviewed literature. Describe effects of mental workload on performance. Outline research in quality and safety indicators and technique analysis. Understand what quality and safety research needs to be going forward. Understand the links between cooperative group trials and quality and safety research.« less

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

PubMed

Cleaton-Jones, P

2008-03-01

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

Biomechanics of fencing sport: A scoping review

PubMed Central

Chen, Tony Lin-Wei; Wong, Duo Wai-Chi; Wang, Yan; Ren, Sicong; Yan, Fei

2017-01-01

Objectives The aim of our scoping review was to identify and summarize current evidence on the biomechanics of fencing to inform athlete development and injury prevention. Design Scoping review. Method Peer-reviewed research was identified from electronic databases using a structured keyword search. Details regarding experimental design, study group characteristics and measured outcomes were extracted from retrieved studies, summarized and information regrouped under themes for analysis. The methodological quality of the evidence was evaluated. Results Thirty-seven peer-reviewed studies were retrieved, the majority being observational studies conducted with experienced and elite athletes. The methodological quality of the evidence was “fair” due to the limited scope of research. Male fencers were the prevalent group studied, with the lunge and use of a foil weapon being the principal movement evaluated. Motion capture and pedabarography were the most frequently used data collection techniques. Conclusions Elite fencers exhibited sequential coordination of upper and lower limb movements with coherent patterns of muscle activation, compared to novice fencers. These elite features of neuromuscular coordination resulted in higher magnitudes of forward linear velocity of the body center of mass and weapon. Training should focus on explosive power. Sex- and equipment-specific effects could not be evaluated based on available research. PMID:28187164

Peer-review Platform for Astronomy Education Activities

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Heenatigala, Thilina; Russo, Pedro; Gomez, Edward; Strubbe, Linda

2015-08-01

Astronomy educators and teachers worldwide commonly request and search for high-quality astronomy activities to do with their students. Hundreds of astronomy education activities exist, as well as many resource repositories to find them. However, the quality of such resources is highly variable as they are not updated regularly or limited with content review. Since its launch in 2013, astroEDU has been addressing these issues and more by following a peer-review process. Each activity submitted is reviewed by an educator and a professional astronomer, balancing both the scientific and educational value of the content. Moreover, the majority of the reviewers are invited from IAU commissions related to the field of the activity, as an effort to get IAU members actively involved in the project. The website code, activities and layout design are open-access in order to make them accessible and adoptable for educators around the world. Furthermore the platform harnesses the OAD volunteer database to develop existing astronomy education activities into the astroEDU activity format. Published activities are also pushed to partner repositories and each activity is registered for DOI, allowing authors to cite their work. To further test the activities and improve the platform, astroEDU editorial team organises workshops.

Criteria for Assessing Quality in Academic Research: The Views of Biomedical Scientists, Clinical Scientists and Social Scientists

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Albert, Mathieu; Laberge, Suzanne; McGuire, Wendy

2012-01-01

This study empirically addresses the claim made by Gibbons et al ("The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies." Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1994) that a novel form of quality control (associated with Mode 2 knowledge production) is supplementing the "traditional" peer-review process…

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

PubMed

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

2016-06-01

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

Configurations of Adolescents' Peer Experiences: Associations With Parent-Child Relationship Quality and Parental Problem Behavior.

PubMed

Kretschmer, Tina; Sentse, Miranda; Meeus, Wim; Verhulst, Frank C; Veenstra, René; Oldehinkel, Albertine J

2016-09-01

Adolescents' peer experiences embrace behavior, relationship quality, status, and victimization, but studies that account for multiple dimensions are rare. Using latent profile modeling and measures of peer behavior, relationship quality, peer status, and victimization assessed from 1,677 adolescents, four profiles were identified: High Quality, Low Quality, Low Quality Victimized, and Deviant Peers. Multinomial logistic regressions showed that negative parent-child relationships in preadolescence reduced the likelihood of High Quality peer relations in mid-adolescence but only partly differentiated between the other three profiles. Moderation by gender was partly found with girls showing greater sensitivity to parent-child relationship quality with respect to peer experiences. Results underline the multifaceted nature of peer experiences, and practical and theoretical implications are discussed. © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Research on Adolescence © 2015 Society for Research on Adolescence.

TU-EF-BRD-03: Mental Workload and Performance

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

Mazur, L.

Research related to quality and safety has been a staple of medical physics academic activities for a long time. From very early on, medical physicists have developed new radiation measurement equipment and analysis techniques, created ever increasingly accurate dose calculation models, and have vastly improved imaging, planning, and delivery techniques. These and other areas of interest have improved the quality and safety of radiotherapy for our patients. With the advent of TG-100, quality and safety is an area that will garner even more research interest in the future. As medical physicists pursue quality and safety research in greater numbers, itmore » is worthwhile to consider what actually constitutes research on quality and safety. For example, should the development of algorithms for real-time EPID-based in-vivo dosimetry be defined as “quality and safety” research? How about the clinical implementation of such as system? Surely the application of failure modes and effects analysis to a clinical process would be considered quality and safety research, but is this type of research that should be included in the medical physics peer-reviewed literature? The answers to such questions are of critical importance to set researchers in a direction that will provide the greatest benefit to our field and the patients we serve. The purpose of this symposium is to consider what constitutes research in the arena of quality and safety and differentiate it from other research directions. The key distinction here is developing the tool itself (e.g. algorithms for EPID dosimetry) vs. studying the impact of the tool with some quantitative metric. Only the latter would I call quality and safety research. Issues of ‘basic’ versus ‘applied’ quality and safety research will be covered as well as how the research results should be structured to provide increasing levels of support that a quality and safety intervention is effective and sustainable. Examples from existing peer-reviewed research will be used to highlight the main points. Historical, medical physicists have leveraged many areas of applied physics, engineering and biology to improve radiotherapy. Research on quality and safety is another area where physicists can have an impact. The key to further progress is to clearly define what constitutes quality and safety research for those interested in doing such research and the reviewers of that research. Learning Objectives: List several tools of quality and safety with references to peer-reviewed literature. Describe effects of mental workload on performance. Outline research in quality and safety indicators and technique analysis. Understand what quality and safety research needs to be going forward. Understand the links between cooperative group trials and quality and safety research.« less

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.

Indigenous Youth Peer-Led Health Promotion in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States: A Systematic Review of the Approaches, Study Designs, and Effectiveness.

PubMed

Vujcich, Daniel; Thomas, Jessica; Crawford, Katy; Ward, James

2018-01-01

Youth peer-led interventions have become a popular way of sharing health information with young people and appear well suited to Indigenous community contexts. However, no systematic reviews focusing on Indigenous youth have been published. We conducted a systematic review to understand the range and characteristics of Indigenous youth-led health promotion projects implemented and their effectiveness. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and ProQuest Social Sciences databases was conducted, supplemented by gray literature searches. Included studies focused on interventions where young Indigenous people delivered health information to age-matched peers. Twenty-four studies were identified for inclusion, based on 20 interventions (9 Australian, 4 Canadian, and 7 from the United States of America). Only one intervention was evaluated using a randomized controlled study design. The majority of evaluations took the form of pre-post studies. Methodological limitations were identified in a majority of studies. Study outcomes included improved knowledge, attitude, and behaviors. Currently, there is limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of peer-led health interventions with Indigenous young people, and the literature is dominated by Australian-based sexual health interventions. More systematic research investigating the effectiveness of peer-led inventions is required, specifically with Indigenous populations. To improve health outcomes for Indigenous youth, greater knowledge of the mechanisms and context under which peer-delivered health promotion is effective in comparison to other methods of health promotion is needed.

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

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-07-29

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

Quality and Correlates of Peer Relationships in Youths with Chronic Pain.

PubMed

La Buissonnière-Ariza, Valérie; Hart, Dennis; Schneider, Sophie C; McBride, Nicole M; Cepeda, Sandra L; Haney, Brandon; Tauriello, Sara; Glenn, Shannon; Ung, Danielle; Huszar, Peter; Tetreault, Lisa; Petti, Erin; Winesett, S Parrish; Storch, Eric A

2018-04-10

Youths with chronic pain may experience difficulties with peer relationships. We investigated the quality and correlates of peer relationships in a sample of 181 youths with chronic pain. A majority of youths were satisfied with their relationships with peers; however, levels were highly variable. Higher functional impairment and depression levels predicted lower peer relationship quality, controlling for demographic and other pain-related factors. In addition, peer relationship quality and pain severity predicted child depression and anxiety symptoms, whereas peer relationship quality only predicted anger symptoms. Relationship quality moderated the association between pain severity and functional impairment, suggesting that strong relationships with peers may buffer the effects of pain on functioning. Peer relationships seem particularly important for the adjustment and psychological well-being of youths with chronic pain. Particular attention should be given to functionally impaired and depressed children, who may be at higher risk of peer difficulties.

Peer review of RELAP5/MOD3 documentation

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

Craddick, W.G.

1993-12-31

A peer review was performed on a portion of the documentation of the RELAP5/MOD3 computer code. The review was performed in two phases. The first phase was a review of Volume 3, Developmental Assessment problems, and Volume 4, Models and Correlations. The reviewers for this phase were Dr. Peter Griffith, Dr. Yassin Hassan, Dr. Gerald S. Lellouche, Dr. Marino di Marzo and Mr. Mark Wendel. The reviewers recommended a number of improvements, including using a frozen version of the code for assessment guided by a validation plan, better justification for flow regime maps and extension of models beyond their datamore » base. The second phase was a review of Volume 6, Quality Assurance of Numerical Techniques in RELAP5/MOD3. The reviewers for the second phase were Mr. Mark Wendel and Dr. Paul T. Williams. Recommendations included correction of numerous grammatical and typographical errors and better justification for the use of Lax`s Equivalence Theorem.« less

Pioneering quality assessment in European cancer centers: a data analysis of the organization for European cancer institutes accreditation and designation program.

PubMed

Saghatchian, Mahasti; Thonon, Frédérique; Boomsma, Femke; Hummel, Henk; Koot, Bert; Harrison, Chris; Rajan, Abinaya; de Valeriola, Dominique; Otter, Renée; Laranja Pontes, José; Lombardo, Claudio; McGrath, Eoin; Ringborg, Ulrik; Tursz, Thomas; van Harten, Wim

2014-09-01

In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program. The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits. Volumes of various functions and activities dedicated to care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs. The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next step. Copyright © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Pragmatic, consensus-based minimum standards and structured interview to guide the selection and development of cancer support group leaders: a protocol paper.

PubMed

Pomery, Amanda; Schofield, Penelope; Xhilaga, Miranda; Gough, Karla

2017-06-30

Across the globe, peer support groups have emerged as a community-led approach to accessing support and connecting with others with cancer experiences. Little is known about qualities required to lead a peer support group or how to determine suitability for the role. Organisations providing assistance to cancer support groups and their leaders are currently operating independently, without a standard national framework or published guidelines. This protocol describes the methods that will be used to generate pragmatic consensus-based minimum standards and an accessible structured interview with user manual to guide the selection and development of cancer support group leaders. We will: (A) identify and collate peer-reviewed literature that describes qualities of support group leaders through a systematic review; (B) content analyse eligible documents for information relevant to requisite knowledge, skills and attributes of group leaders generally and specifically to cancer support groups; (C) use an online reactive Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts to produce a clear, suitable, relevant and appropriate structured interview comprising a set of agreed questions with behaviourally anchored rating scales; (D) produce a user manual to facilitate standard delivery of the structured interview; (E) pilot the structured interview to improve clinical utility; and (F) field test the structured interview to develop a rational scoring model and provide a summary of existing group leader qualities. The study is approved by the Department Human Ethics Advisory Group of The University of Melbourne. The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent, with participants able to withdraw at any time. The results will be disseminated at research conferences and peer review journals. Presentations and free access to the developed structured interview and user manual will be available to cancer agencies. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Pragmatic, consensus-based minimum standards and structured interview to guide the selection and development of cancer support group leaders: a protocol paper

PubMed Central

Schofield, Penelope; Xhilaga, Miranda; Gough, Karla

2017-01-01

Introduction Across the globe, peer support groups have emerged as a community-led approach to accessing support and connecting with others with cancer experiences. Little is known about qualities required to lead a peer support group or how to determine suitability for the role. Organisations providing assistance to cancer support groups and their leaders are currently operating independently, without a standard national framework or published guidelines. This protocol describes the methods that will be used to generate pragmatic consensus-based minimum standards and an accessible structured interview with user manual to guide the selection and development of cancer support group leaders. Methods and analysis We will: (A) identify and collate peer-reviewed literature that describes qualities of support group leaders through a systematic review; (B) content analyse eligible documents for information relevant to requisite knowledge, skills and attributes of group leaders generally and specifically to cancer support groups; (C) use an online reactive Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts to produce a clear, suitable, relevant and appropriate structured interview comprising a set of agreed questions with behaviourally anchored rating scales; (D) produce a user manual to facilitate standard delivery of the structured interview; (E) pilot the structured interview to improve clinical utility; and (F) field test the structured interview to develop a rational scoring model and provide a summary of existing group leader qualities. Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by the Department Human Ethics Advisory Group of The University of Melbourne. The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent, with participants able to withdraw at any time. The results will be disseminated at research conferences and peer review journals. Presentations and free access to the developed structured interview and user manual will be available to cancer agencies. PMID:28667202

Peer-to-peer mentoring for individuals with early inflammatory arthritis: feasibility pilot.

PubMed

Sandhu, Sharron; Veinot, Paula; Embuldeniya, Gayathri; Brooks, Sydney; Sale, Joanna; Huang, Sicong; Zhao, Alex; Richards, Dawn; Bell, Mary J

2013-03-01

To examine the feasibility and potential benefits of early peer support to improve the health and quality of life of individuals with early inflammatory arthritis (EIA). Feasibility study using the 2008 Medical Research Council framework as a theoretical basis. A literature review, environmental scan, and interviews with patients, families and healthcare providers guided the development of peer mentor training sessions and a peer-to-peer mentoring programme. Peer mentors were trained and paired with a mentee to receive (face-to-face or telephone) support over 12 weeks. Two academic teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Nine pairs consisting of one peer mentor and one mentee were matched based on factors such as age and work status. Mentee outcomes of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/biological treatment use, self-efficacy, self-management, health-related quality of life, anxiety, coping efficacy, social support and disease activity were measured using validated tools. Descriptive statistics and effect sizes were calculated to determine clinically important (>0.3) changes. Peer mentor self-efficacy was assessed using a self-efficacy scale. Interviews conducted with participants examined acceptability and feasibility of procedures and outcome measures, as well as perspectives on the value of peer support for individuals with EIA. Themes were identified through constant comparison. Mentees experienced improvements in the overall arthritis impact on life, coping efficacy and social support (effect size >0.3). Mentees also perceived emotional, informational, appraisal and instrumental support. Mentors also reported benefits and learnt from mentees' fortitude and self-management skills. The training was well received by mentors. Their self-efficacy increased significantly after training completion. Participants' experience of peer support was informed by the unique relationship with their peer. All participants were unequivocal about the need for peer support for individuals with EIA. The intervention was well received. Training, peer support programme and outcome measures were demonstrated to be feasible with modifications. Early peer support may augment current rheumatological care. NCT01054963, NCT01054131.

Early Citability of Data vs Peer-Review like Data Publishing Procedures

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Stockhause, Martina; Höck, Heinke; Toussaint, Frank; Lautenschlager, Michael

2014-05-01

The World Data Center for Climate (WDCC) hosted at the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ) was one of the first data centers, which established a peer-review like data publication procedure resulting in DataCite DOIs. Data in the long-term archive (LTA) is diligently reviewed by data managers and data authors to grant high quality and widely reusability of the published data. This traditional data publication procedure for LTA data bearing DOIs is very time consuming especially for WDCC's high data volumes of climate model data in the order of multiple TBytes. Data is shared with project members and selected scientists months before the data is long-term archived. The scientific community analyses and thus reviews the data leading to data quality improvements. Scientists wish to cite these unstable data in scientific publications before the long-term archiving and the thorough data review process are finalized. A concept for early preprint DOIs for shared but not yet long-term archived data is presented. Requirements on data documentation, persistence and quality and use cases for preprint DOIs within the data life-cycle are discussed as well as questions of how to document the differences of the two DOI types and how to relate them to each other with the recommendation to use LTA DOIs in citations. WDCC wants to offer an additional user service for early citations of data of basic quality without compromising the LTA DOIs, i.e. WDCC's standard DOIs, as trustworthy indicator for high quality data. Referencing Links: World Data Center for Climate (WDCC): http://www.wdc-climate.de German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ): http://www.dkrz.de DataCite: http://datacite.org

VERIFYING THE VOC CONTROL PERFORMANCE OF BIOREACTORS

EPA Science Inventory

The paper describes the verification testing approach used to collect high-quality, peer-reviewed data on the performance of bioreaction-based technologies for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The verification protocol that describes the approach for these tests ...

'It will harm business and increase illicit trade': an evaluation of the relevance, quality and transparency of evidence submitted by transnational tobacco companies to the UK consultation on standardised packaging 2012.

PubMed

Evans-Reeves, K A; Hatchard, J L; Gilmore, A B

2015-06-01

Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) submitted evidence to the 2012 UK Consultation on standardised packaging (SP) to argue the policy will have detrimental economic impacts and increase illicit tobacco trade. A content analysis of the four TTC submissions to the consultation assessed the relevance and quality of evidence TTCs cited to support their arguments. Investigative research was used to determine whether the cited evidence was industry connected. Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the relevance and quality of industry-connected and independent from the industry evidence. The extent to which TTCs disclosed financial conflicts of interest (COI) when citing evidence was examined. We obtained 74 pieces of TTC-cited evidence. The quality of the evidence was poor. TTCs cited no independent, peer-reviewed evidence that supported their arguments. Nearly half of the evidence was industry-connected (47%, 35/74). None of this industry-connected evidence was published in peer-reviewed journals (0/35) and 66% (23/35) of it was opinion only. Industry-connected evidence was of significantly poorer quality than independent evidence (p<0.001). COIs were not disclosed by TTCs in 91% (32/35) of cases. In the absence of peer-reviewed research to support their arguments, TTCs relied on evidence they commissioned and the opinions of TTC-connected third-parties. Such connections were not disclosed by TTCs when citing this evidence and were time consuming to uncover. In line with Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and broader transparency initiatives, TTCs should be required to disclose their funding of all third-parties and any COIs when citing evidence. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Systematic evaluation of clinical practice guidelines for pharmacogenomics.

PubMed

Beckett, Robert D; Kisor, David F; Smith, Thomas; Vonada, Brooke

2018-06-01

To systematically assess methodological quality of pharmacogenomics clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines published through 2017 were reviewed by at least three independent reviewers using the AGREE II instrument, which consists of 23 items grouped into 6 domains and 2 items representing an overall assessment. Items were assessed on a seven-point rating scale, and aggregate quality scores were calculated. 31 articles were included. All guidelines were published as peer-reviewed articles and 90% (n = 28) were endorsed by professional organizations. Mean AGREE II domain scores (maximum score 100%) ranged from 46.6 ± 11.5% ('applicability') to 78.9 ± 11.4% ('clarity of presentation'). Median overall quality score was 72.2% (IQR: 61.1-77.8%). Quality of pharmacogenomics guidelines was generally high, but variable, for most AGREE II domains.

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

PubMed

Reiner, Bruce I

2017-12-01

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

Effect Size for Token Economy Use in Contemporary Classroom Settings: A Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Soares, Denise A.; Harrison, Judith R.; Vannest, Kimberly J.; McClelland, Susan S.

2016-01-01

Recent meta-analyses of the effectiveness of token economies (TEs) report insufficient quality in the research or mixed effects in the results. This study examines the contemporary (post-Public Law 94-142) peer-reviewed published single-case research evaluating the effectiveness of TEs. The results are stratified across quality of demonstrated…

Circle the Wagons & Bust out the Big Guns! Tame the "Wild West" of Distance Librarianship Using Quality Matters™ Benchmarks

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Pickens, Kathleen; Witte, Ginna

2015-01-01

The Quality Matters™ (QM) Program is utilized by over 700 colleges and universities to ensure that online course design meets standards imperative to student success in a Web-based classroom. Although a faculty-driven peer-review process, QM provides assessment from a student perspective, thereby identifying opportunities for improvement that may…

Final Independent External Peer Review Report Supplemental Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Report for Center Hill Dam, Caney Fork River, DeKalb County, Tennessee

DTIC Science & Technology

2013-09-25

level will not overtop the main embankment dam but will encroach into the 3.6-feet of freeboard allotted for wind and wave run-up. This encroachment...In particular, short-term impacts on noise, air quality, water quality, migratory birds , fisheries, and traffic during construction have not been...term effects of project construction, specifically the short-term, temporary impacts on noise, air quality, water quality, migratory birds , fisheries

28 CFR 34.110 - Management of peer reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

An automated electronic system for managing radiation treatment plan peer review reduces missed reviews at a large, high-volume academic center.

PubMed

Gabriel, Peter E; Woodhouse, Kristina D; Lin, Alexander; Finlay, Jarod C; Young, Richard B; Volz, Edna; Hahn, Stephen M; Metz, James M; Maity, Amit

Assuring quality in cancer care through peer review has become increasingly important in radiation oncology. In 2012, our department implemented an automated electronic system for managing radiation treatment plan peer review. The purpose of this study was to compare the overall impact of this electronic system to our previous manual, paper-based system. In an effort to improve management, an automated electronic system for case finding and documentation of review was developed and implemented. The rates of missed initial reviews, late reviews, and missed re-reviews were compared for the pre- versus postelectronic system cohorts using Pearson χ 2 test and relative risk. Major and minor changes or recommendations were documented and shared with the assigned clinical provider. The overall rate of missed reviews was 7.6% (38/500) before system implementation versus 0.4% (28/6985) under the electronic system (P < .001). In terms of relative risk, courses were 19.0 times (95% confidence interval, 11.8-30.7) more likely to be missed for initial review before the automated system. Missed re-reviews occurred in 23.1% (3/13) of courses in the preelectronic system cohort and 6.6% (10/152) of courses in the postelectronic system cohort (P = .034). Late reviews were more frequent during high travel or major holiday periods. Major changes were recommended in 2.2% and 2.8% in the pre- versus postelectronic systems, respectively. Minor changes were recommended in 5.3% of all postelectronic cases. The implementation of an automated electronic system for managing peer review in a large, complex department was effective in significantly reducing the number of missed reviews and missed re-reviews when compared to our previous manual system. Copyright © 2016 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The Effects of Giving Feedback on the Persuasive Writing of Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Students

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Philippakos, Zoi A.; MacArthur, Charles A.

2016-01-01

Peer review is a reciprocal process in which writers both give and receive feedback. Both activities may contribute to student learning; however, few studies have examined the effects of giving feedback separately. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of giving feedback on the quality of the reviewers' own persuasive writing.…

A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Combined Sewer Overflow (Cso) Mitigation in the Great Lakes and New England Regions (External Review Draft)

EPA Science Inventory

EPA has released this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy ...

The ethics of peer review in bioethics

PubMed Central

Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

2014-01-01

A good deal has been written on the ethics of peer review, especially in the scientific and medical literatures. In contrast, we are unaware of any articles on the ethics of peer review in bioethics. Recognising this gap, we evaluate the extant proposals regarding ethical standards for peer review in general and consider how they apply to bioethics. We argue that scholars have an obligation to perform peer review based on the extent to which they personally benefit from the peer review process. We also argue, contrary to existing proposals and guidelines, that it can be appropriate for peer reviewers to benefit in their own scholarship from the manuscripts they review. With respect to bioethics in particular, we endorse double-blind review and suggest several ways in which the peer review process might be improved. PMID:24131903

Diagnostic image quality in gynaecological ultrasound: Who should measure it, what should we measure and how?

PubMed Central

Knapp, Karen

2013-01-01

Assessment of diagnostic image quality in gynaecological ultrasound is an important aspect of imaging department quality assurance. This may be addressed through audit, but who should undertake the audit, what should be measured and how, remains contentious. The aim of this study was to identify whether peer audit is a suitable method of assessing the diagnostic quality of gynaecological ultrasound images. Nineteen gynaecological ultrasound studies were independently assessed by six sonographers utilising a pilot version of an audit tool. Outcome measures were levels of inter-rater agreement using different data collection methods (binary scores, Likert scale, continuous scale), effect of ultrasound study difficulty on study score and whether systematic differences were present between reviewers of different clinical grades and length of experience. Inter-rater agreement ranged from moderate to good depending on the data collection method. A continuous scale gave the highest level of inter-rater agreement with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.73. A strong correlation (r = 0.89) between study difficulty and study score was yielded. Length of clinical experience between reviewers had no effect on the audit scores, but individuals of a higher clinical grade gave significantly lower scores than those of a lower grade (p = 0.04). Peer audit is a promising tool in the assessment of ultrasound image quality. Continuous scales seem to be the best method of data collection implying a strong element of heuristically driven decision making by reviewing ultrasound practitioners. PMID:27433192

Hospital staff registered nurses' perception of horizontal violence, peer relationships, and the quality and safety of patient care.

PubMed

Purpora, Christina; Blegen, Mary A; Stotts, Nancy A

2015-01-01

To test hypotheses from a horizontal violence and quality and safety of patient care model: horizontal violence (negative behavior among peers) is inversely related to peer relations, quality of care and it is positively related to errors and adverse events. Additionally, the association between horizontal violence, peer relations, quality of care, errors and adverse events, and nurse and work characteristics were determined. A random sample (n= 175) of hospital staff Registered Nurses working in California. Nurses participated via survey. Bivariate and multivariate analyses tested the study hypotheses. Hypotheses were supported. Horizontal violence was inversely related to peer relations and quality of care, and positively related to errors and adverse events. Including peer relations in the analyses altered the relationship between horizontal violence and quality of care but not between horizontal violence, errors and adverse events. Nurse and hospital characteristics were not related to other variables. Clinical area contributed significantly in predicting the quality of care, errors and adverse events but not peer relationships. Horizontal violence affects peer relationships and the quality and safety of patient care as perceived by participating nurses. Supportive peer relationships are important to mitigate the impact of horizontal violence on quality of care.

UK Doubles Its "World-Leading" Research in Life Sciences and Medicine in Six Years: Testing the Claim?

PubMed

Wooding, Steven; Van Leeuwen, Thed N; Parks, Sarah; Kapur, Shitij; Grant, Jonathan

2015-01-01

The UK, like some other countries, carries out a periodic review of research quality in universities and the most recent Research Excellence Framework (REF) reported a doubling (103% increase) in its "world leading" or so-called "4*" research outputs in the areas of life sciences and medicine between 2008 and 2014. This is a remarkable improvement in six years and if validated internationally could have profound implications for health sciences. We compared the reported changes in 4* quality to bibliometric measures of quality for the 56,639 articles submitted to the RAE 2008 and the 50,044 articles submitted to the REF 2014 to Panel A, which assesses the life sciences, including medicine. UK research submitted to the RAE and REF was of better quality than worldwide research on average. While we found evidence for some increase in the quality of top UK research articles, a 10-25% increase in the top 10%ile papers, depending upon the metrics used, we could not find evidence to support a 103% increase in quality. Instead we found that as compared to the RAE, the REF results implied a lower citation %ile threshold for declaring a 4*. There is a wide discrepancy between bibliometric indices and peer-review panel judgements between the RAE 2008 and REF 2014. It is possible that the changes in the funding regime between 2008 and 2014 that significantly increased the financial premium for 4* articles may have influenced research quality evaluation. For the advancement of science and health, evaluation of research quality requires consistency and validity - the discrepancy noted here calls for a closer examination of mass peer-review methods like the REF.

UK Doubles Its “World-Leading” Research in Life Sciences and Medicine in Six Years: Testing the Claim?

PubMed Central

Wooding, Steven; Van Leeuwen, Thed N.; Parks, Sarah; Kapur, Shitij; Grant, Jonathan

2015-01-01

Background The UK, like some other countries, carries out a periodic review of research quality in universities and the most recent Research Excellence Framework (REF) reported a doubling (103% increase) in its “world leading” or so-called “4*” research outputs in the areas of life sciences and medicine between 2008 and 2014. This is a remarkable improvement in six years and if validated internationally could have profound implications for health sciences. Methods We compared the reported changes in 4* quality to bibliometric measures of quality for the 56,639 articles submitted to the RAE 2008 and the 50,044 articles submitted to the REF 2014 to Panel A, which assesses the life sciences, including medicine. Findings UK research submitted to the RAE and REF was of better quality than worldwide research on average. While we found evidence for some increase in the quality of top UK research articles, a 10-25% increase in the top 10%ile papers, depending upon the metrics used, we could not find evidence to support a 103% increase in quality. Instead we found that as compared to the RAE, the REF results implied a lower citation %ile threshold for declaring a 4*. Interpretation There is a wide discrepancy between bibliometric indices and peer-review panel judgements between the RAE 2008 and REF 2014. It is possible that the changes in the funding regime between 2008 and 2014 that significantly increased the financial premium for 4* articles may have influenced research quality evaluation. For the advancement of science and health, evaluation of research quality requires consistency and validity – the discrepancy noted here calls for a closer examination of mass peer-review methods like the REF. PMID:26204117

A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education.

PubMed

Secomb, Jacinta

2008-03-01

The purpose of this review is to provide a framework for peer teaching and learning in the clinical education of undergraduate health science students in clinical practice settings and make clear the positive and negative aspects of this teaching and learning strategy. The practice of using peers incidentally or purposefully in the clinical education of apprentice or undergraduate health science students is a well-established tradition and commonly practiced, but lacks definition in its implementation. The author conducted a search of health science and educational electronic databases using the terms peer, clinical education and undergraduate. The set limitations were publications after 1980 (2005 inclusive), English language and research papers. Selection of studies occurred: based on participant, intervention, research method and learning outcomes, following a rigorous critical and quality appraisal with a purposefully developed tool. The results have been both tabled and collated in a narrative summary. Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria, representing five countries and four health science disciplines. This review reported mostly positive outcomes on the effectiveness of peer teaching and learning; it can increase student's confidence in clinical practice and improve learning in the psychomotor and cognitive domains. Negative aspects were also identified; these include poor student learning if personalities or learning styles are not compatible and students spending less individualized time with the clinical instructor. Peer teaching and learning is an effective educational intervention for health science students on clinical placements. Preclinical education of students congruent with the academic timetable increases student educational outcomes from peer teaching and learning. Strategies are required prior to clinical placement to accommodate incompatible students or poor student learning. The findings from this systematic review, although not statistically significant, do have pragmatic implications for clinical practice. It can increase clinical placement opportunities for undergraduate health students, assist clinical staff with workload pressures and increase clinician time with clients, while further developing students' knowledge, skills and attitudes.

The effectiveness of peer mentoring in promoting a positive transition to higher education for first-year undergraduate students: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

PubMed

Carragher, Jean; McGaughey, Jennifer

2016-04-22

The global transfer of nursing and midwifery education to higher education institutes has led to student nurses and midwives experiencing challenges previously faced by traditional third-level students, including isolation, loneliness, financial difficulties and academic pressure. These challenges can contribute to increased stress and anxiety levels which may be detrimental to the successful transition to higher education, thus leading to an increase in attrition rates. Peer mentoring as an intervention has been suggested to be effective in supporting students in the transition to third-level education through enhancing a sense of belongingness and improving student satisfaction, engagement and retention rates. This proposed systematic review aims to determine the effectiveness of peer mentoring in enhancing levels of student engagement, sense of belonging and overall satisfaction of first-year undergraduate students following transition into higher education. MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, ProQuest, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO and CENTRAL databases will be searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies on the implementation of peer assessment strategies in higher education institutes (HEIs) or universities for full-time, first-year adult students (>17 years). Included studies will be limited to the English language. The quality of included studies will be assessed using a validated Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The findings will be presented as a narrative synthesis or meta-analysis as appropriate following sequential explanatory synthesis. The review will provide clear, non-biased evidence-based guidance to all third-level educators on the effectiveness of peer-mentoring programmes for first-year undergraduates. The review is necessary to help establish which type of peer mentoring is most effective. The evidence from qualitative and quantitative studies drawn from the international literature will be utilised to illustrate the best way to implement and evaluate peer mentoring as an effective intervention and will be useful in guiding future research and practice in this area. These findings may be applied internationally across all disciplines.

45 CFR 1388.9 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

Peer Review in Higher Education: Student Perceptions before and after Participation

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Mulder, Raoul A.; Pearce, Jon M.; Baik, Chi

2014-01-01

Peer review is integral to academic endeavour, but opportunities for students to benefit from peer review in higher education remain limited, and relatively little is known about how student perceptions influence their appreciation of peer review. University student perceptions were examined before and after experiencing student peer review in…

Peer Review: Has It a Future?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Soh, Kay Cheng

2013-01-01

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

40 CFR 194.27 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

Reciprocal benefit to senior and junior peers: An outcome of a pilot research workshop at medical university.

PubMed

Ahsin, Sadia; Abbas, Seyyeda; Zaidi, Noshin; Azad, Nadia; Kaleem, Fatima

2015-08-01

A study was planned to explore and evaluate the role of senior peers in the learning process of their juniors during a Research Methodology workshop, and to assess educational advantages for seniors in leading roles. Twenty medical students participated with 15 juniors (1st to 3rd year) and 5 seniors (final/fourth year) divided into 5 groups with one senior student each at Foundation University Medical College, Islamabad, Pakistan. The seniors supervised and engaged the groups to develop research questions, formulate objectives, review literature, outline study designs, develop study tools/questionnaire and finally shape their projects in synopsis. Overall advantages to both juniors and seniors through this peer-assisted learning model were assessed by feedback proformas with open and closed-ended questions. Senior peers' facilitation was effective in the learning process of junior peers. Senior peers also gained academic benefit by exercising their leadership qualities through teaching and maintaining group dynamics.

Evaluating the effectiveness of peer-based intervention in managing type I diabetes mellitus among children and adolescents: A systematic review

PubMed Central

Kazemi, Sepideh; Parvizy, Soroor; Atlasi, Rasha; Baradaran, Hamid R

2016-01-01

Background: Type 1 diabetes is one of the chronic metabolic disorders among children and adolescents. Peers are also important units in diabetes management through adolescence. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of peer-based intervention in managing type 1 diabetes mellitus among children and adolescents. Methods: Searching articles published prior to December 2013 in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Science Direct, Google scholar, CINAHL and Scopus, we found 8,548 publications. The first reviewer critically appraised the retrieved articles, using the CONSORT and the TREND checklists and then the second-assessor checked them. All abstracts were screened, and only eight full text articles remained for evaluation based on inclusion criteria Results: Eight studies, including five randomized controlled trials, one controlled trial, and two pre-post trials were critically appraised based on CONSORT and the TREND checklists. The outcomes of these studies were as follows: knowledge (three studies), attitude (two studies), performance (one study), clinical parameters— exclusively HbA1c—(four studies), and psychosocial parameters—such as quality of life, coping, self-care, selfconfidence, satisfaction with the perceived social support, social skills, and diabetes-related conflicts Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review revealed that peer-based interventions could help to manage diabetes. While there is a lack of professional or family-based interventions and education, peers can be involved in the process of patient education. As there are few studies in the area of peer-based diabetes management, conducting further interventional studies with robust methodology is highly recommended. PMID:28210607

Evaluating the effectiveness of peer-based intervention in managing type I diabetes mellitus among children and adolescents: A systematic review.

PubMed

Kazemi, Sepideh; Parvizy, Soroor; Atlasi, Rasha; Baradaran, Hamid R

2016-01-01

Background: Type 1 diabetes is one of the chronic metabolic disorders among children and adolescents. Peers are also important units in diabetes management through adolescence. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of peer-based intervention in managing type 1 diabetes mellitus among children and adolescents. Methods: Searching articles published prior to December 2013 in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Science Direct, Google scholar, CINAHL and Scopus, we found 8,548 publications. The first reviewer critically appraised the retrieved articles, using the CONSORT and the TREND checklists and then the second-assessor checked them. All abstracts were screened, and only eight full text articles remained for evaluation based on inclusion criteria Results: Eight studies, including five randomized controlled trials, one controlled trial, and two pre-post trials were critically appraised based on CONSORT and the TREND checklists. The outcomes of these studies were as follows: knowledge (three studies), attitude (two studies), performance (one study), clinical parameters- exclusively HbA1c-(four studies), and psychosocial parameters-such as quality of life, coping, self-care, selfconfidence, satisfaction with the perceived social support, social skills, and diabetes-related conflicts Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review revealed that peer-based interventions could help to manage diabetes. While there is a lack of professional or family-based interventions and education, peers can be involved in the process of patient education. As there are few studies in the area of peer-based diabetes management, conducting further interventional studies with robust methodology is highly recommended.

PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.

PubMed

McGowan, Jessie; Sampson, Margaret; Salzwedel, Douglas M; Cogo, Elise; Foerster, Vicki; Lefebvre, Carol

2016-07-01

To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses. An SR, Web-based survey of experts, and consensus development forum were undertaken to identify checklists that evaluated or validated electronic literature search strategies and to determine which of their elements related to search quality or errors. Systematic review: No new search elements were identified for addition to the existing (2008-2010) PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist, and there was no evidence refuting any of its elements. Results suggested that structured PRESS could identify search errors and improve the selection of search terms. Web-based survey of experts: Most respondents felt that peer review should be undertaken after the MEDLINE search had been prepared but before it had been translated to other databases. Consensus development forum: Of the seven original PRESS elements, six were retained: translation of the research question; Boolean and proximity operators; subject headings; text word search; spelling, syntax and line numbers; and limits and filters. The seventh (skilled translation of the search strategy to additional databases) was removed, as there was consensus that this should be left to the discretion of searchers. An updated PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement was developed, which includes the following four documents: PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist, PRESS 2015 Recommendations for Librarian Practice, PRESS 2015 Implementation Strategies, and PRESS 2015 Guideline Assessment Form. The PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement should help to guide and improve the peer review of electronic literature search strategies. Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions.

PubMed

Adams, Jonathan

2009-01-01

Research assessment in the UK has evolved over a quarter of a century from a loosely structured, peer-review based process to one with a well understood data portfolio and assessment methodology. After 2008, the assessment process will shift again, to the use of indicators based largely on publication and citation data. These indicators will in part follow the format introduced in 2008, with a profiling of assessment outcomes at national and international levels. However, the shift from peer assessment to a quantitative methodology raises critical issues about which metrics are appropriate and informative and how such metrics should be managed to produce weighting factors for funding formulae. The link between publication metrics and other perceptions of research quality needs to be thoroughly tested and reviewed, and may be variable between disciplines. Many of the indicators that drop out of publication data are poorly linked to quality and should not be used at all. There are also issues about which publications are the correct base for assessment, which staff should be included in a review, how subjects should be structured and how the citation data should be normalised to account for discipline-dependent variables. Finally, it is vital to consider the effect that any assessment process will have on the behaviour of those to be assessed.

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION REPORT: BAGHOUSE FILTRATION PRODUCTS--DONALDSON COMPANY, INC. 6277 FILTRATION MEDIA

EPA Science Inventory

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has created the Environmental Technology Verification Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through high quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the des...

75 FR 5317 - Exposure Factors Handbook: 2009 Update

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-02-02

... chemicals. These factors include: Drinking water consumption; mouthing behavior; soil ingestion rates... document solely for the purpose of pre- dissemination peer review under applicable information quality... various factors used in assessing human exposure. This Handbook is aimed at exposure assessors inside the...

High nonpublication rate from publication professionals hinders evidence-based publication practices

PubMed Central

Stretton, Serina; Kenreigh, Charlotte A.; Wagner, Linda T.; Woolley, Karen L.

2016-01-01

Background. The need for timely, ethical, and high-quality reporting of clinical trial results has seen a rise in demand for publication professionals. These publication experts, who are not ghostwriters, work with leading medical researchers and funders around the world to plan and prepare thousands of publications each year. Despite the involvement of publication professionals in an increasing number of peer-reviewed publications, especially those that affect patient care, there is limited evidence-based guidance in the peer-reviewed literature on their publication practices. Similar to the push for editors and the peer-review community to conduct and publish research on publication ethics and the peer-review process, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) has encouraged members to conduct and publish research on publication planning and practices. Our primary objective was to investigate the publication rate of research presented at ISMPP Annual Meetings. Methods. ISMPP Annual Meeting abstract lists (April 2009–April 2014) were searched in November 2014 and data were extracted into a pilot-tested spreadsheet. MEDLINE was searched in December 2014 to determine the publication rate (calculated as the % of presented abstracts published as full papers in peer-reviewed journals). Data were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test (significance: P < .05) by an independent academic statistician. Results. From 2009 to 2014, there were 220 abstracts submitted, 185 accepted, and 164 presented. There were four corresponding publications (publication rate 2.4%). Over time, ISMPP’s abstract acceptance rate (overall: 84.1%) did not change, but the number of abstracts presented increased significantly (P = .02). Most abstracts were presented as posters (81.1%) and most research was observational (72.6%). Most researchers came from the US (78.0%), followed by Europe (17.7%), and the Asia-Pacific region (11.2%). Discussion. Research presented at ISMPP Annual Meetings has rarely been published in peer-reviewed journals. The high rate of nonpublication by publication professionals has now been quantified and is of concern. Publication professionals should do more to contribute to evidence-based publication practices, including, and especially, their own. Unless the barriers to publication are identified and addressed, the practices of publication professionals, which affect thousands of peer-reviewed publications each year, will remain hidden and unproven. PMID:27190715

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2017-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Trautmann, Nancy M.

2009-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Anderson, Neil O.; Flash, Pamela

2014-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.102 - Peer review procedures.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

Peer review and psychiatric physician fitness for duty evaluations: analyzing the past and forecasting the future.

PubMed

Meyer, Donald J; Price, Marilyn

2012-01-01

In the United States, oversight of health care practitioners is delegated to a matrix of health care entities including but not limited to the state medical board which licenses physicians in the relevant jurisdiction. Typically, these organizations have their own codes of professional conduct. When a physician joins one of these health care organizations, legally the physician has entered into a contract with the organization and agreed to be bound by its regulations and procedures. The organization's peer review of a member physician for reasons of investigating questions of health care quality may require a psychiatric fitness for duty evaluation. That assessment is a forensic psychiatric examination to assist the peer review body much as an expert witness would assist the trier of fact in a criminal or civil law adjudication. Experts can better perform these functions if they are familiar with the legal differences that define these agencies' service under administrative as compared to civil or criminal law and procedures. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effectiveness and experiences of families and support workers participating in peer-led parenting support programs delivered as home visiting programs: a comprehensive systematic review.

PubMed

Munns, Ailsa; Watts, Robin; Hegney, Desley; Walker, Roz

2016-10-01

Designing child and family health services to meet the diverse needs of contemporary families is intended to minimize impacts of early disadvantage and subsequent lifelong health and social issues. Innovative programs to engage families with child and family support services have led to interest in the potential value of peer-led home visiting from parents in local communities. There is a range of benefits and challenges identified in a limited number of studies associated with home visiting peer support. The objective of the review is to identify: INCLUSION CRITERIA PARTICIPANTS: Families/parents with one or more children aged zero to four years, peer support workers and their supervisors. Peer-led home visiting parenting support programs that use volunteer or paraprofessional home visitors from the local community compared to standard community maternal-child care. The phenomenon of interest will be the relationships between participants in the program. Quantitative studies: randomized control trials (RCTs). Qualitative studies: grounded theory and qualitative descriptive studies. Parental attitudes and beliefs, coping skills and confidence in parenting, parental stress, compliance with child health checks/links with primary healthcare services, satisfaction with peer support and services and the nature of the relationship between parents and home visitors. The search strategy will include both published and unpublished studies. Seven journal databases and five other sources will be searched. Only studies published in the English language from 2000 to 2015 will be considered. Studies were assessed by two independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) and the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI) as appropriate. Both quantitative and qualitative data were independently extracted by two reviewers using standardized data extraction tools from the JBI-MAStARI and the JBI-QARI, respectively, including qualitative and quantitative details about setting of interventions, phenomena of interest, participants, study methods and outcomes or findings. For quantitative findings, statistical pooling was not possible due to differences in interventions and outcome measures. Findings were presented in narrative form. Qualitative findings were aggregated into categories based on similarity of meaning from which synthesized findings were generated. Quantitative results from two RCTs demonstrated positive impacts of peer-led home visiting parent support programs including more positive parenting attitudes and beliefs, and more child preventative health care visits.Fifteen qualitative findings from two studies were aggregated into five categories from which two synthesized findings emerged. Parents and home visitors identified similar components as contributing to their program's success, these being quality of relationships between parents and home visitors with elements being mutual respect, trust and being valued within the partnership. In addition, home visitors identified importance of enabling strategies to develop relationships. They also needed supportive working environments with clinical staff and management. The current review indicates a positive impact of peer-led home visiting parent support programs, incorporating a framework of partnership between parents and home visitors, on mother-infant dyads. Positive changes in parenting attitudes and beliefs, and increased number of child preventative healthcare visits are supported by the quality of the relationship between parent and home visitor, and home visitors' working environments. The essential characteristics of an effective parent support program are strategies for relationship building between parents and home visitors; ongoing staff and home visitor education to enhance communication, collaboration and working in partnership; supervision by team leaders; and continuous quality improvement. The focus of further research should be on confirmatory studies using an action research methodology and the cost-effectiveness of these models.

A Program Manager’s Guide for Program Improvement in Ongoing Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Programs. The RAND Toolkit, Volume 4

DTIC Science & Technology

2014-01-01

Hughes EFX, Boerstler H, O’Connor EJ. “Assessing the Impact of Continuous Quality Improvement/ Total Quality Management : Concept versus...facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Gery...RAND Program Manager’s Guide helps managers assess program performance, consider options for improvement, implement solutions, then assess whether the

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

PubMed

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

2015-03-20

To assess the effectiveness of self-management support interventions in men with long-term conditions. A quantitative systematic review with meta-analysis. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched to identify published reviews of self-management support interventions. Relevant reviews were screened to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of self-management support interventions conducted in men alone, or which analysed the effects of interventions by sex. Data on relevant outcomes, patient populations, intervention type and study quality were extracted. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of interventions in men, women, and mixed-sex sub-groups. 40 RCTs of self-management support interventions in men, and 20 eligible RCTs where an analysis by sex was reported, were included in the review. Meta-analysis suggested that physical activity, education, and peer support-based interventions have a positive impact on quality of life in men. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to make strong statements about whether self-management support interventions show larger, similar or smaller effects in men compared with women and mixed-sex groups. Clinicians may wish to consider whether certain types of self-management support (eg, physical activity, education, peer support) are particularly effective in men, although more research is needed to fully determine and explore this. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

28 CFR 34.108 - Selection of reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

Assessing the content and quality of information on the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis on the World Wide Web.

PubMed

Pérez-López, Faustino R; Pérez Roncero, Gonzalo R

2006-12-01

To evaluate the content and quality of currently available Internet-based information on the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. A sample was obtained comprising the 75 top sites retrieved with the Google search engine using 'treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis' and then evaluated according to predefined general and specific criteria, content type, language and quality. Using a systematic scoring tool, each site was assessed for factual information provided and site quality. The sites studied were heterogeneous in content and quality. The most frequent type of website corresponded to non-profit organizations (n = 40), followed by commercial sites (n = 19), professional sites (n = 8) and government sites (n = 8). There were no significant differences in the popularity index, medical content score or quality score among the four groups of sites. Twelve websites were papers published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Few sites provided comprehensive medical and complete information on the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis oriented towards consumers. The consumer-oriented webpage with the most balanced and complete information was that of the National Osteoporosis Foundation which, at the same time, had the highest popularity index of all the resources studied. The content and quality of websites concerning the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis are highly varied and sometimes biased. The most frequent high-quality information corresponds to peer-reviewed medical journals. It is necessary to increase the number of resources, with rigorous language that is understandable for consumers, in relation to the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey

PubMed Central

Toews, Ingrid; Glenton, Claire; Lewin, Simon; Berg, Rigmor C.; Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Marusic, Ana; Malicki, Mario; Munthe-Kaas, Heather M.; Meerpohl, Joerg J.

2016-01-01

Background Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention. Methods A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling. Results 1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers “(strongly) agreed” that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% “(strongly) agreed” that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, “(strongly) agreed” that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care. Conclusions The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed. PMID:27487090

Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey.

PubMed

Toews, Ingrid; Glenton, Claire; Lewin, Simon; Berg, Rigmor C; Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Marusic, Ana; Malicki, Mario; Munthe-Kaas, Heather M; Meerpohl, Joerg J

2016-01-01

Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention. A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling. 1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care. The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.

7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

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

Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

PubMed

Liaw, Lucy; Freedman, Jane E; Becker, Lance B; Mehta, Nehal N; Liscum, Laura

2017-08-04

The biomedical research enterprise depends on the fair and objective peer review of research grants, leading to the distribution of resources through efficient and robust competitive methods. In the United States, federal funding agencies and foundations collectively distribute billions of dollars annually to support biomedical research. For the American Heart Association, a Peer Review Subcommittee is charged with establishing the highest standards for peer review. This scientific statement reviews the current literature on peer review practices, describes the current American Heart Association peer review process and those of other agencies, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of American Heart Association peer review practices, and recommends best practices for the future. © 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.

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

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

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

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…

Implementation and Outcomes of a Faculty-Based, Peer Review Manuscript Writing Workshop.

PubMed

Kulage, Kristine M; Larson, Elaine L

2016-01-01

The publication of scholarly work and research findings is an important expectation for nursing faculty; however, academic writing is often neglected, leaving dissemination through manuscript writing an area of concern for the nursing profession. Writing initiatives have been utilized to promote scholarly dissemination in schools of nursing, but those described in the literature have been primarily non-United States based and student focused. This article describes a faculty-based manuscript writing workshop, assesses participants' impressions, and describes its impact on scholarly output. The workshop is a collaborative learning process utilizing peer review to improve manuscript quality and model behaviors for improving writing and peer-reviewing skills. Seventeen workshop participants including three predoctoral students, 6 postdoctoral fellows, and 8 faculty members completed an anonymous workshop survey (81% response rate). All but 1 of 17 manuscripts reviewed in the workshop are published, accepted, or in the review process. All participants indicated that the workshop was a valuable use of time and would recommend it to colleagues. The greatest reported workshop benefit was its function as an impetus to complete and submit manuscripts. We recommend the manuscript writing workshop model for other schools of nursing seeking ways to expand their scholarly output and create accountability for dissemination through manuscript writing. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

28 CFR 34.111 - Compensation.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES Peer Review § 34.111 Compensation. All peer reviewers will be eligible to be paid according to applicable regulations... provided in the OJJDP “Peer Review Guideline”. ...

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

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

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

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers.

PubMed

Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando

2018-01-01

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

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION REPORT: ECR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EARTHLINKED GROUND-SOURCE HEAT PUMP WATER HEATING SYSTEM

EPA Science Inventory

EPA has created the Environmental Technology Verification program to provide high quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance. This data is expected to accelerate the acceptance and use of improved environmental protection technologies. The Greenhouse Gas Technology C...

PEER REVIEW FOR THE CONSUMER VEHICLE CHOICE MODEL

EPA Science Inventory

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has recently sponsored the development of a Consumer Vehicle Choice Model (CVCM) by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The specification by OTAQ to ORNL for consumer choice mod...

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

The ethics of peer review in bioethics.

PubMed

Wendler, David; Miller, Franklin

2014-10-01

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

Developing students' teaching through peer observation and feedback.

PubMed

Rees, Eliot L; Davies, Benjamin; Eastwood, Michael

2015-10-01

With the increasing popularity and scale of peer teaching, it is imperative to develop methods that ensure the quality of teaching provided by undergraduate students. We used an established faculty development and quality assurance process in a novel context: peer observation of teaching for undergraduate peer tutors. We have developed a form to record observations and aid the facilitation of feedback. In addition, experienced peer tutors have been trained to observe peer-taught sessions and provide tutors with verbal and written feedback. We have found peer observation of teaching to be a feasible and acceptable process for improving quality of teaching provided by undergraduate medical students. However, feedback regarding the quality of peer observer's feedback may help to develop students' abilities further.

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…

Effect of peer support interventions on cardiovascular disease risk factors in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PubMed

Patil, Sonal J; Ruppar, Todd; Koopman, Richelle J; Lindbloom, Erik J; Elliott, Susan G; Mehr, David R; Conn, Vicki S

2018-03-23

Peer support by persons affected with diabetes improves peer supporter's diabetes self-management skills. Peer support interventions by individuals who have diabetes or are affected by diabetes have been shown to improve glycemic control; however, its effects on other cardiovascular disease risk factors in adults with diabetes are unknown. We aimed to estimate the effect of peer support interventions on cardiovascular disease risk factors other than glycemic control in adults with diabetes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing peer support interventions to a control condition in adults affected by diabetes that measured any cardiovascular disease risk factors [Body Mass Index, smoking, diet, physical activity, cholesterol level, glucose control and blood pressure]. Quality was assessed by Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We calculated standardized mean difference effect sizes using random effects models. We retrieved 438 citations from multiple databases including OVID MEDLINE, Cochrane database and Scopus, and author searches. Of 233 abstracts reviewed, 16 articles met inclusion criteria. A random effects model in a total of 3243 participants showed a positive effect of peer support interventions on systolic BP with a pooled effect size of 2.07 mmHg (CI 0.35 mmHg to 3.79 mmHg, p = 0.02); baseline pooled systolic blood pressure was 137 mmHg. There was a non-significant effect of peer support interventions on diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index, diet and physical activity. Cardiovascular disease risk factors other than glycemic control outcomes were secondary outcomes in most studies and baseline values were normal or mildly elevated. Only one study reported smoking outcomes. We found a small (2 mmHg) positive effect of peer support interventions on systolic blood pressure in adults with diabetes whose baseline blood pressure was on average minimally elevated. Additional studies need to be conducted to further understand the effect of peer support interventions on high-risk cardiovascular disease risk factors in adults with diabetes.

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

PubMed

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

2015-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-06-17

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

Peer-to-peer mentoring for individuals with early inflammatory arthritis: feasibility pilot

PubMed Central

Sandhu, Sharron; Veinot, Paula; Embuldeniya, Gayathri; Brooks, Sydney; Sale, Joanna; Huang, Sicong; Zhao, Alex; Richards, Dawn; Bell, Mary J

2013-01-01

Objectives To examine the feasibility and potential benefits of early peer support to improve the health and quality of life of individuals with early inflammatory arthritis (EIA). Design Feasibility study using the 2008 Medical Research Council framework as a theoretical basis. A literature review, environmental scan, and interviews with patients, families and healthcare providers guided the development of peer mentor training sessions and a peer-to-peer mentoring programme. Peer mentors were trained and paired with a mentee to receive (face-to-face or telephone) support over 12 weeks. Setting Two academic teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Participants Nine pairs consisting of one peer mentor and one mentee were matched based on factors such as age and work status. Primary outcome measure Mentee outcomes of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/biological treatment use, self-efficacy, self-management, health-related quality of life, anxiety, coping efficacy, social support and disease activity were measured using validated tools. Descriptive statistics and effect sizes were calculated to determine clinically important (>0.3) changes. Peer mentor self-efficacy was assessed using a self-efficacy scale. Interviews conducted with participants examined acceptability and feasibility of procedures and outcome measures, as well as perspectives on the value of peer support for individuals with EIA. Themes were identified through constant comparison. Results Mentees experienced improvements in the overall arthritis impact on life, coping efficacy and social support (effect size >0.3). Mentees also perceived emotional, informational, appraisal and instrumental support. Mentors also reported benefits and learnt from mentees’ fortitude and self-management skills. The training was well received by mentors. Their self-efficacy increased significantly after training completion. Participants’ experience of peer support was informed by the unique relationship with their peer. All participants were unequivocal about the need for peer support for individuals with EIA. Conclusions The intervention was well received. Training, peer support programme and outcome measures were demonstrated to be feasible with modifications. Early peer support may augment current rheumatological care. Trial registration number NCT01054963, NCT01054131. PMID:23457326

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 ...

The psychosocial adjustment of African American youth from single mother homes: the relative contribution of parents and peers.

PubMed

Chester, Charlene; Jones, Deborah J; Zalot, Alecia; Sterrett, Emma

2007-01-01

This study examined the relative roles of parents and peers in the psychosocial adjustment of African American youth (7-15 years old) from single mother homes (N = 242). Main effects of both positive parenting and peer relationship quality were found for youth depressive symptoms. In addition, a main effect of peer relationship quality and an interaction of Positive Parenting x Peer Relationship Quality emerged for youth externalizing symptoms. When mothers engaged in higher levels of positive parenting behavior, peer relationship quality was not associated with youth externalizing symptomatology. When mothers engaged in lower levels of positive parenting behavior, however, higher peer relationship quality was associated with greater youth externalizing symptomatology. Clinical implications and future research directions are discussed.

Healthcare system intervention for prevention of birth injuries - process evaluation of self-assessment, peer review, feedback and agreement for change.

PubMed

Nyström, Monica E; Westerlund, Anna; Höög, Elisabet; Millde-Luthander, Charlotte; Högberg, Ulf; Grunewald, Charlotta

2012-08-24

Patient safety is fundamental in high quality healthcare systems but despite an excellent record of perinatal care in Sweden some children still suffer from substandard care and unnecessary birth injuries. Sustainable patient safety improvements assume changes in key actors' mental models, norms and culture as well as in the tools, design and organisation of work. Interventions positively affecting team mental models on safety issues are a first step to enhancing change. Our purpose was to study a national intervention programme for the prevention of birth injuries with the aim to elucidate how the main interventions of self-assessment, peer review, feedback and written agreement for change affected the teams and their mental model of patient safety, and thereby their readiness for change. Knowledge of relevant considerations before implementing this type of patient safety intervention series could thereby be increased. Eighty participants in twenty-seven maternity units were interviewed after the first intervention sequence of the programme. A content analysis using a priori coding was performed in order to relate results to the anticipated outcomes of three basic interventions: self-assessment, peer review and written feedback, and agreement for change. The self-assessment procedure was valuable and served as a useful tool for elucidating strengths and weaknesses and identifying areas for improvement for a safer delivery in maternity units. The peer-review intervention was appreciated, despite it being of less value when considering the contribution to explicit outcome effects (i.e. new input to team mental models and new suggestions for actions). The feedback report and the mutual agreement on measures for improvements reached when signing the contract seemed exert positive pressures for change. Our findings are in line with several studies stressing the importance of self-evaluation by encouraging a thorough review of objectives, practices and outcomes for the continuous improvement of an organisation. Even though effects of the peer review were limited, feedback from peers, or other change agents involved, and the support that a clear and well-structured action plan can provide are considered to be two important complements to future self-assessment procedures related to patient safety improvement.

Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review.

PubMed

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

2017-06-01

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

Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

Introduction Peer review, a cornerstone of academia, promotes rigor and relevance in scientific publishing. As educators are encouraged to adopt a more scholarly approach to medical education, peer review is becoming increasingly important. Junior educators both receive the reviews of their peers, and are also asked to participate as reviewers themselves. As such, it is imperative for junior clinician educators to be well-versed in the art of peer reviewing their colleagues’ work. In this article, our goal was to identify and summarize key papers that may be helpful for faculty members interested in learning more about the peer-review process and how to improve their reviewing skills. Methods The online discussions of the 2016–17 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator program included a robust discussion about peer review, which highlighted a number of papers on that topic. We sought to augment this list with further suggestions by guest experts and by an open call on Twitter for other important papers. Via this process, we created a list of 24 total papers on the topic of peer review. After gathering these papers, our authorship group engaged in a consensus-building process incorporating Delphi methods to identify the papers that best described peer review, and also highlighted important tips for new reviewers. Results We found and reviewed 24 papers. In our results section, we present our authorship group’s top five most highly rated papers on the topic of peer review. We also summarize these papers with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers. Conclusion We present five key papers on peer review that can be used for faculty development for novice writers and reviewers. These papers represent a mix of foundational and explanatory papers that may provide some basis from which junior faculty members might build upon as they both undergo the peer-review process and act as reviewers in turn. PMID:28611894

A systematic review of the evidence concerning the economic impact of employee-focused health promotion and wellness programs.

PubMed

Lerner, Debra; Rodday, Angie Mae; Cohen, Joshua T; Rogers, William H

2013-02-01

To assess the evidence regarding the economic impact of worker health promotion programs. Peer-reviewed research articles were identified from a database search. Included articles were published between January 2000 and May 2010, described a study conducted in the United States that used an experimental or quasi-experimental study design and analyzed medical, pharmacy (direct), and/or work productivity (indirect) costs. A multidisciplinary review team, following specific criteria, assessed research quality. Of 2030 retrieved articles, 44 met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 were of sufficient quality to be considered evidentiary. Only three analyzed direct and indirect costs. Evidence regarding economic impact is limited and inconsistent. Higher-quality research is needed to demonstrate the value of specific programs.

The quality of adolescents’ peer relationships modulates neural sensitivity to risk taking

PubMed Central

Fuligni, Andrew J.; Lieberman, Matthew D.; Miernicki, Michelle E.; Galván, Adriana

2015-01-01

Adolescents' peer culture plays a key role in the development and maintenance of risk-taking behavior. Despite recent advances in developmental neuroscience suggesting that peers may increase neural sensitivity to rewards, we know relatively little about how the quality of peer relations impact adolescent risk taking. In the current 2-year three-wave longitudinal study, we examined how chronic levels of peer conflict relate to risk taking behaviorally and neurally, and whether this is modified by high-quality peer relationships. Forty-six adolescents completed daily diaries assessing peer conflict across 2 years as well as a measure of peer support. During a functional brain scan, adolescents completed a risk-taking task. Behaviorally, peer conflict was associated with greater risk-taking behavior, especially for adolescents reporting low peer support. High levels of peer support buffered this association. At the neural level, peer conflict was associated with greater activation in the striatum and insula, especially among adolescents reporting low peer support, whereas this association was buffered for adolescents reporting high peer support. Results are consistent with the stress-buffering model of social relationships and underscore the importance of the quality of adolescents’ peer relationships for their risk taking. PMID:24795443

Successfully Coaching Nursing Staff to Publish Outcomes.

PubMed

Kooker, Barbara Molina; Latimer, Renee; Mark, Debra D

2015-12-01

There is a need for bedside nurses to disseminate the results of evidence-based practice quality initiatives to a wider audience through publications in peer-reviewed journals. Barriers to publication are common and include lack of time, skills, experience, confidence, and tangible support. This article describes the structured approach, timeline, writing activities, and coaching guidance used to support the publication of 12 quality improvement articles in 1 nursing journal.

Personality and Psychological Well-Being of Canadian Forces Officer Candidates: The Role of Coping

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-04-01

psychological well-being has important practical implications for military organizations, including reduced costs of selection, reduced attrition, and...seeking behaviour and the effectiveness of using it. In addition, as a part of the BOTC, trainees provide peer-review assessments of leadership ...qualities. OCdts may be less likely to seek social support or otherwise display “weakness” while being evaluated for their leadership qualities. It seems

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.

Methods used in adaptation of health-related guidelines: A systematic survey.

PubMed

Abdul-Khalek, Rima A; Darzi, Andrea J; Godah, Mohammad W; Kilzar, Lama; Lakis, Chantal; Agarwal, Arnav; Abou-Jaoude, Elias; Meerpohl, Joerg J; Wiercioch, Wojtek; Santesso, Nancy; Brax, Hneine; Schünemann, Holger; Akl, Elie A

2017-12-01

Adaptation refers to the systematic approach for considering the endorsement or modification of recommendations produced in one setting for application in another as an alternative to de novo development. To describe and assess the methods used for adapting health-related guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals, and to assess the quality of the resulting adapted guidelines. We searched Medline and Embase up to June 2015. We assessed the method of adaptation, and the quality of included guidelines. Seventy-two papers were eligible. Most adapted guidelines and their source guidelines were published by professional societies (71% and 68% respectively), and in high-income countries (83% and 85% respectively). Of the 57 adapted guidelines that reported any detail about adaptation method, 34 (60%) did not use a published adaptation method. The number (and percentage) of adapted guidelines fulfilling each of the ADAPTE steps ranged between 2 (4%) and 57 (100%). The quality of adapted guidelines was highest for the "scope and purpose" domain and lowest for the "editorial independence" domain (respective mean percentages of the maximum possible scores were 93% and 43%). The mean score for "rigor of development" was 57%. Most adapted guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals do not report using a published adaptation method, and their adaptation quality was variable.

Demystifying Assessment: The Road to Accreditation

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Garfolo, Blaine T.; L'Huillier, Barbara

2015-01-01

Accreditation serves as both a quality assurance and accountability mechanism for our learning institutions. It is a voluntary process of self-regulation and non-governmental peer review supported, in general, by providers of tertiary education and examines the philosophy, goals, programs, facilities, resources, and financial viability of the…

Maintaining quality critical peer review (CPR) as the demand for life cycle assessments increases

EPA Science Inventory

Environmental managers and government policy makers are becoming increasingly aware of the need to follow the holistic approach of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to move us in the right strategic direction to best achieve environmental sustainability. Along with this realization ha...

Impact of peer review audit on occupational health report quality.

PubMed

Lalloo, D; Demou, E; Macdonald, E B

2015-08-01

In a previous report, we described the implementation of a formal process for peer review of occupational health (OH) reports and a method of assessment of the outcomes of this process. The initial audit identified that 27% of OH reports required modifications. To assess formally, following implementation of this process, if changes in practice had occurred, i.e. whether fewer deficiencies were being identified in reports. We repeated a prospective internal audit of all peer reviewed OH reports between September and November 2011. We used an abbreviated assessment form, based on questions 4-8 and 10-12 of the modified SAIL (Sheffield Assessment Instrument for Letters), with four possible outcomes: no action, no changes made to report following discussion with author, changes made without discussion with author and changes made following discussion with author. One hundred seventy-three reports by 10 clinicians were audited. The audit identified a 13% reduction in OH reports requiring modifications (from 27 to 14%) compared with the previous cycle. Where modifications were required, 8% of these were related to minor typographical, spelling and grammar errors and 6% were for more complex reasons. Implementation of this process also produced a reduction in clinical complaints about OH reports from customers, from three in the preceding year to none 2 years later. Peer review improved the standard of OH reports and was associated with a reduction in customer complaints about reports. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine.

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

PubMed

Pytynia, Kristen B

2017-06-01

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

A Critical Analysis of Anesthesiology Podcasts: Identifying Determinants of Success.

PubMed

Singh, Devin; Alam, Fahad; Matava, Clyde

2016-08-17

Audio and video podcasts have gained popularity in recent years. Increasingly, podcasts are being used in the field of medicine as a tool to disseminate information. This format has multiple advantages including highly accessible creation tools, low distribution costs, and portability for the user. However, despite its ongoing use in medical education, there are no data describing factors associated with the success or quality of podcasts. The goal of the study was to assess the landscape of anesthesia podcasts in Canada and develop a methodology for evaluating the quality of the podcast. To achieve our objective, we identified the scope of podcasts in anesthesia specifically, constructed an algorithmic model for measuring success, and identified factors linked to both successful podcasts and a peer-review process. Independent reviewers performed a systematic search of anesthesia-related podcasts on iTunes Canada. Data and metrics recorded for each podcast included podcast's authorship, number posted, podcast series duration, target audience, topics, and social media presence. Descriptive statistics summarized mined data, and univariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with podcast success and a peer-review process. Twenty-two podcasts related to anesthesia were included in the final analysis. Less than a third (6/22=27%) were still active. The median longevity of the podcasts' series was just 13 months (interquartile range: 1-39 months). Anesthesiologists were the target audience for 77% of podcast series with clinical topics being most commonly addressed. We defined a novel algorithm for measuring success: Podcast Success Index. Factors associated with a high Podcast Success Index included podcasts targeting fellows (Spearman R=0.434; P=.04), inclusion of professional topics (Spearman R=0.456-0.603; P=.01-.03), and the use of Twitter as a means of social media (Spearman R=0.453;P=.03). In addition, more than two-thirds (16/22=73%) of podcasts demonstrated evidence of peer review with podcasts targeting anesthesiologists most strongly associated with peer-reviewed podcasts (Spearman R=0.886; P=.004) CONCLUSIONS: We present the first report on the scope of anesthesia podcasts in Canada. We have developed a novel tool for assessing the success of an anesthesiology podcast series and identified factors linked to this success measure as well as evidence of a peer-review process for a given podcast. To enable advancement in this area of anesthesia e-resources, podcast creators and users should consider factors associated with success when creating podcasts. The lack of these aspects may be associated with the early demise of a podcast series.

A Critical Analysis of Anesthesiology Podcasts: Identifying Determinants of Success

PubMed Central

Singh, Devin; Matava, Clyde

2016-01-01

Background Audio and video podcasts have gained popularity in recent years. Increasingly, podcasts are being used in the field of medicine as a tool to disseminate information. This format has multiple advantages including highly accessible creation tools, low distribution costs, and portability for the user. However, despite its ongoing use in medical education, there are no data describing factors associated with the success or quality of podcasts. Objective The goal of the study was to assess the landscape of anesthesia podcasts in Canada and develop a methodology for evaluating the quality of the podcast. To achieve our objective, we identified the scope of podcasts in anesthesia specifically, constructed an algorithmic model for measuring success, and identified factors linked to both successful podcasts and a peer-review process. Methods Independent reviewers performed a systematic search of anesthesia-related podcasts on iTunes Canada. Data and metrics recorded for each podcast included podcast’s authorship, number posted, podcast series duration, target audience, topics, and social media presence. Descriptive statistics summarized mined data, and univariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with podcast success and a peer-review process. Results Twenty-two podcasts related to anesthesia were included in the final analysis. Less than a third (6/22=27%) were still active. The median longevity of the podcasts’ series was just 13 months (interquartile range: 1-39 months). Anesthesiologists were the target audience for 77% of podcast series with clinical topics being most commonly addressed. We defined a novel algorithm for measuring success: Podcast Success Index. Factors associated with a high Podcast Success Index included podcasts targeting fellows (Spearman R=0.434; P=.04), inclusion of professional topics (Spearman R=0.456-0.603; P=.01-.03), and the use of Twitter as a means of social media (Spearman R=0.453;P=.03). In addition, more than two-thirds (16/22=73%) of podcasts demonstrated evidence of peer review with podcasts targeting anesthesiologists most strongly associated with peer-reviewed podcasts (Spearman R=0.886; P=.004) Conclusions We present the first report on the scope of anesthesia podcasts in Canada. We have developed a novel tool for assessing the success of an anesthesiology podcast series and identified factors linked to this success measure as well as evidence of a peer-review process for a given podcast. To enable advancement in this area of anesthesia e-resources, podcast creators and users should consider factors associated with success when creating podcasts. The lack of these aspects may be associated with the early demise of a podcast series. PMID:27731857

48 CFR 215.270 - Peer Reviews.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

A Review and Analysis of Remote Sensing Capability for Air Quality Measurements as a Potential Decision Support Tool Conducted by the NASA DEVELOP Program

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Ross, A.; Richards, A.; Keith, K.; Frew, C.; Boseck, J.; Sutton, S.; Watts, C.; Rickman, D.

2007-01-01

This project focused on a comprehensive utilization of air quality model products as decision support tools (DST) needed for public health applications. A review of past and future air quality measurement methods and their uncertainty, along with the relationship of air quality to national and global public health, is vital. This project described current and future NASA satellite remote sensing and ground sensing capabilities and the potential for using these sensors to enhance the prediction, prevention, and control of public health effects that result from poor air quality. The qualitative uncertainty of current satellite remotely sensed air quality, the ground-based remotely sensed air quality, the air quality/public health model, and the decision making process is evaluated in this study. Current peer-reviewed literature suggests that remotely sensed air quality parameters correlate well with ground-based sensor data. A satellite remote-sensed and ground-sensed data complement is needed to enhance the models/tools used by policy makers for the protection of national and global public health communities

University lobbying

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Richman, Barbara T.

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

The Use of Social Media in Graduate Medical Education: A Systematic Review.

PubMed

Sterling, Madeline; Leung, Peggy; Wright, Drew; Bishop, Tara F

2017-07-01

Despite the growing presence of social media in graduate medical education (GME), few studies have attempted to characterize their effect on residents and their training. The authors conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature to understand the effect of social media on resident (1) education, (2) recruitment, and (3) professionalism. The authors identified English-language peer-reviewed articles published through November 2015 using Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, and ERIC. They extracted and synthesized data from articles that met inclusion criteria. They assessed study quality for quantitative and qualitative studies through, respectively, the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies. Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirteen (44.8%) pertained to residency education. Twitter, podcasts, and blogs were frequently used to engage learners and enhance education. YouTube and wikis were more commonly used to teach technical skills and promote self-efficacy. Six studies (20.7%) pertained to the recruitment process; these suggest that GME programs are transitioning information to social media to attract applicants. Ten studies (34.5%) pertained to resident professionalism. Most were exploratory, highlighting patient and resident privacy, particularly with respect to Facebook. Four of these studies surveyed residents about their social network behavior with respect to their patients, while the rest explored how program directors use it to monitor residents' unprofessional online behavior. The effect of social media platforms on residency education, recruitment, and professionalism is mixed, and the quality of existing studies is modest at best.

Lessons from Peer Support Among Individuals with Mental Health Difficulties: A Review of the Literature

PubMed Central

Miyamoto, Yuki; Sono, Tamaki

2012-01-01

We conducted a comprehensive narrative review and used a systematic search strategy to identify studies related to peer support among adults with mental health difficulties. The purposes of this review were to describe the principles, effects and benefits of peer support documented in the published literature, to discuss challenging aspects of peer support and to investigate lessons from peer support. Fifty-one studies, including 8 review articles and 19 qualitative studies, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Most of the challenges for peer support were related to “role” and “relationship” issues; that is, how peer support providers relate to people who receive peer support and how peer support providers are treated in the system. The knowledge gained from peer support relationships, such as mutual responsibility and interdependence, might be a clue toward redefining the helper-helper relationship as well as the concepts of help and support. PMID:22563347

Quality of nursing diagnoses: evaluation of an educational intervention.

PubMed

Florin, Jan; Ehrenberg, Anna; Ehnfors, Margareta

2005-01-01

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

42 CFR 24.5 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

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

Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review Perspective

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Nicol, David; Thomson, Avril; Breslin, Caroline

2014-01-01

Peer review is a reciprocal process whereby students produce feedback reviews on the work of peers and receive feedback reviews from peers on their own work. Prior research has primarily examined the learning benefits that result from the receipt of feedback reviews, with few studies specifically exploring the merits of producing feedback reviews…

What is open peer review? A systematic review.

PubMed

Ross-Hellauer, Tony

2017-01-01

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

Is the sexual behaviour of young people in sub-Saharan Africa influenced by their peers? A systematic review.

PubMed

Fearon, Elizabeth; Wiggins, Richard D; Pettifor, Audrey E; Hargreaves, James R

2015-12-01

Adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa are highly vulnerable to HIV, other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unintended pregnancies. Evidence for the effectiveness of individual behaviour change interventions in reducing incidence of HIV and other biological outcomes is limited, and the need to address the social conditions in which young people become sexually active is clear. Adolescents' peers are a key aspect of this social environment and could have important influences on sexual behaviour. There has not yet been a systematic review on the topic in sub-Saharan Africa. We searched 4 databases to find studies set in sub-Saharan Africa that included an adjusted analysis of the association between at least one peer exposure and a sexual behaviour outcome among a sample where at least 50% of the study participants were aged between 13 and 20 years. We classified peer exposures using a framework to distinguish different mechanisms by which influence might occur. We found 30 studies and retained 11 that met quality criteria. There were 3 cohort studies, 1 time to event and 7 cross-sectional. The 11 studies investigated 37 different peer exposure-outcome associations. No studies used a biological outcome and all asked about peers in general rather than about specific relationships. Studies were heterogeneous in their use of theoretical frameworks and means of operationalizing peer influence concepts. All studies found evidence for an association between peers and sexual behaviour for at least one peer exposure/outcome/sub-group association. Of all 37 outcome/exposure/sub-group associations tested, there was evidence for 19 (51%). There were no clear patterns by type of peer exposure, outcome or adolescent sub-group. There is a lack conclusive evidence about the role of peers in adolescent sexual behaviour in Sub-Saharan. We argue that longitudinal designs, use of biological outcomes and approaches from social network analysis are priorities for future studies. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Detailed prospective peer review in a community radiation oncology clinic.

PubMed

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

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Murphy Tighe, Sylvia; Bradshaw, Carmel

2013-11-01

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

Nurse managers' conceptions of quality management as promoted by peer supervision.

PubMed

Hyrkäs, Kristiina; Koivula, Meeri; Lehti, Kristiina; Paunonen-Ilmonen, Marita

2003-01-01

The aim of the study was to describe nurse managers' conceptions of quality management in their work as promoted by peer supervision. Quality management is one of the topical issues in a nurse manager's demanding and changing work. As first-line managers, they have a key role in quality management which is seen to create the system and environment for high quality services and quality improvement. Despite the official recommendations and definitions of quality management, several published reports have shown that there is no single solution for quality management. Peer supervision or the support provided by it to nursing managers have rarely been a subject of study. This study was carried out at Tampere University Hospital between 1996 and 1998. The peer supervision intervention was organized once a month, 2 hours at a time and in closed supervisor-led groups of nine nurse managers. Data were collected by themed interviews. Fifteen nurse managers participated in the study. The data were analysed using the phenomenographic method. Two main categories were formed of nurse managers' conceptions. The first described supportive and reflective characteristics of peer supervision. This main category was described by horizontal, hierarchical categories of support from peer group and reflection. The second main category described nurse managers' conceptions of individual development of leadership during peer supervision. This main category was also described by three horizontal categories: personal growth, finding psychological resources and internalization of leadership. The finding of this study show that peer supervision benefited nurse managers in quality management through reflection and support. The reflective and supportive characteristics of peer supervision promoted the nurse managers' individual development, but also that of leadership. It can be concluded that peer supervision promotes quality management in nurse managers' work.

Neural Correlates of Social Influence on Risk Taking and Substance Use in Adolescents.

PubMed

Telzer, Eva H; Rogers, Christina R; Van Hoorn, Jorien

2017-09-01

Adolescents often engage in elevated levels of risk taking that gives rise to substance use. Family and peers constitute the primary contextual risk factors for adolescent substance use. This report reviews how families and peers influence adolescent neurocognitive development to inform their risk taking and subsequent substance use. Developmental neuroscience using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has identified regions of the brain involved in social cognition, cognitive control, and reward processing that are integrally linked to social influence on adolescent risk taking. These neural mechanisms play a role in how peer and family influence (e.g., physical presence, relationship quality, rejection) translates into adolescent substance use. Peers and families can independently, and in tandem, contribute to adolescent substance use, for better or for worse. We propose that future work utilize fMRI to investigate the neural mechanisms involved in different aspects of peer and family influence, and how these contexts uniquely and interactively influence adolescent substance use initiation and escalation across development.

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…

Drinking water quality in Indigenous communities in Canada and health outcomes: a scoping review.

PubMed

Bradford, Lori E A; Okpalauwaekwe, Udoka; Waldner, Cheryl L; Bharadwaj, Lalita A

2016-01-01

Many Indigenous communities in Canada live with high-risk drinking water systems and drinking water advisories and experience health status and water quality below that of the general population. A scoping review of research examining drinking water quality and its relationship to Indigenous health was conducted. The study was undertaken to identify the extent of the literature, summarize current reports and identify research needs. A scoping review was designed to identify peer-reviewed literature that examined challenges related to drinking water and health in Indigenous communities in Canada. Key search terms were developed and mapped on five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE/PubMED, Web of Knowledge, SciVerse Scopus, Taylor and Francis online journal and Google Scholar). Online searches for grey literature using relevant government websites were completed. Sixteen articles (of 518; 156 bibliographic search engines, 362 grey literature) met criteria for inclusion (contained keywords; publication year 2000-2015; peer-reviewed and from Canada). Studies were quantitative (8), qualitative (5) or mixed (3) and included case, cohort, cross-sectional and participatory designs. In most articles, no definition of "health" was given (14/16), and the primary health issue described was gastrointestinal illness (12/16). Challenges to the study of health and well-being with respect to drinking water in Indigenous communities included irregular funding, remote locations, ethical approval processes, small sample sizes and missing data. Research on drinking water and health outcomes in Indigenous communities in Canada is limited and occurs on an opportunistic basis. There is a need for more research funding, and inquiry to inform policy decisions for improvements of water quality and health-related outcomes in Indigenous communities. A coordinated network looking at First Nations water and health outcomes, a database to store and create access to research findings, increased funding and time frames for funding, and more decolonizing and community-based participatory research aimed at understanding the relationship between drinking water quality and health outcomes in First Nations communities in Canada are needed.

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

PubMed

Levitt, S W

1994-02-01

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

28 CFR 34.105 - Peer review methods.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

7 CFR 3400.21 - Scientific peer review for research activities.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

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

28 CFR 34.109 - Qualifications of peer reviewers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

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

Peer Review of Teaching: Sharing Best Practices

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Golparian, Shaya; Chan, Judy; Cassidy, Alice

2015-01-01

In this paper, we share examples of best peer review of teaching practices, drawing on our involvement in the design and implementation of the Peer Review of Teaching program at the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology. We review the history of the Peer Review of Teaching Initiative at the University of British Columbia and explain key…

PEER REVIEW OF PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM HYDRODYNAMIC AND WATER QUALITY (EUTROPHICATION) MODEL

EPA Science Inventory

The Peconic Estuary is located on the eastern end of Long Island, New York. Under the Federal Clean Water Act, the Peconic Estuary was named an "Estuary of National Significance" in 1992. Because of its high concentration of rare, threatened and endangered species and habitats,...

From Manuscript to Article: Publishing Educational Technology Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Niederhauser, Dale S.; Wetzel, Keith; Lindstrom, Denise L.

2004-01-01

The publishing process is often challenging for new educational technology scholars. This article provides insights into the publication process to help them understand and to increase the chances that their work will be accepted for publication in high-quality peer-reviewed journals. Suggestions for developing a program of research, a description…

26 CFR 301.7216-0T - Table of contents.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 26 Internal Revenue 18 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false Table of contents. 301.7216-0T Section 301.7216-0T Internal Revenue INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (CONTINUED) PROCEDURE AND... information for quality, peer, or conflict reviews. (q) through (r) [Reserved] For further guidance, see...

Soil quality assessment: John Doran's challenge and the scientific community response

USDA-ARS?s Scientific Manuscript database

In 1992, Dr. John Doran was asked to provide an ARS peer review for a manuscript reporting on several biological, chemical, and physical properties for soil samples collected from Rozetta and Palsgrove silt loam soils in Wisconsin after 10 years of various crop residue management and tillage treatme...

Evaluation of the ToxRTool's ability to rate the reliability of toxicological data for human health hazard assessments

EPA Science Inventory

Regulatory agencies often utilize results from peer reviewed publications for hazard assessments.A problem in doing so is the lack of well-accepted tools to objectively, efficiently and systematically assess the quality of published toxicological studies. Herein, we evaluated the...

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION REPORT, TEST REPORT OF MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES: MITSUI ENGINEERING & SHIPBUILDING DIESEL PARTICULATE FILTER

EPA Science Inventory

EPA‘s Environmental Technology Verification program is designed to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and cost effective technologies. This is done by providing high-quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those in...

PEER REVIEW AS A QA TOOL FOR PHOTO INTERPRETATION

EPA Science Inventory

Remotely Sensed (RS) images are used in many ways in the EPA. Eventually, the photo may be interpreted. When images are interpreted, attempts are made by humans to determine what is on the ground (or in the air) by examining the photo or image, and the implementation of Quality ...

Design and Development of Web-Based Information Literacy Tutorials

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Su, Shiao-Feng; Kuo, Jane

2010-01-01

The current study conducts a thorough content analysis of recently built or up-to-date high-quality web-based information literacy tutorials contributed by academic libraries in a peer-reviewed database, PRIMO. This research analyzes the topics/skills PRIMO tutorials consider essential and the teaching strategies they consider effective. The…

Assessment of Interpersonal Relations: A Test Review.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brooke, Stephanie L.

1999-01-01

Evaluates the Assessment of Interpersonal Relations (AIR), a measure designed to identify relationship difficulties with parents, peers, and teachers for adolescents. Concludes that the AIR may be a useful tool when assessing the quality of relationships of students, but that additional research evidence is needed to ascertain if the AIR is a…

What makes a phenomenological study phenomenological? An analysis of peer-reviewed empirical nursing studies.

PubMed

Norlyk, Annelise; Harder, Ingegerd

2010-03-01

This article contributes to the debate about phenomenology as a research approach in nursing by providing a systematic review of what nurse researchers hold as phenomenology in published empirical studies. Based on the assumption that presentations of phenomenological approaches in peer-reviewed journals have consequences for the quality of future research, the aim was to analyze articles presenting phenomenological studies and, in light of the findings, raise a discussion about addressing scientific criteria. The analysis revealed considerable variations, ranging from brief to detailed descriptions of the stated phenomenological approach, and from inconsistencies to methodological clarity and rigor. Variations, apparent inconsistencies, and omissions made it unclear what makes a phenomenological study phenomenological. There is a need for clarifying how the principles of the phenomenological philosophy are implemented in a particular study before publishing. This should include an articulation of methodological keywords of the investigated phenomenon, and how an open attitude was adopted.

The use of six sigma in health care management: are we using it to its full potential?

PubMed

DelliFraine, Jami L; Wang, Zheng; McCaughey, Deirdre; Langabeer, James R; Erwin, Cathleen O

2014-01-01

Popular quality improvement tools such as Six Sigma (SS) claim to provide health care managers the opportunity to improve health care quality on the basis of sound methodology and data. However, it is unclear whether this quality improvement tool is being used correctly and improves health care quality. The authors conducted a comprehensive literature review to assess the correct use and implementation of SS and the empirical evidence demonstrating the relationship between SS and improved quality of care in health care organizations. The authors identified 310 articles on SS published in the last 15 years. However, only 55 were empirical peer-reviewed articles, 16 of which reported the correct use of SS. Only 7 of these articles included statistical analyses to test for significant changes in quality of care, and only 16 calculated defects per million opportunities or sigma level. This review demonstrates that there are significant gaps in the Six Sigma health care quality improvement literature and very weak evidence that Six Sigma is being used correctly to improve health care quality.

The use of six sigma in health care management: are we using it to its full potential?

PubMed

DelliFraine, Jami L; Wang, Zheng; McCaughey, Deirdre; Langabeer, James R; Erwin, Cathleen O

2013-01-01

Popular quality improvement tools such as Six Sigma (SS) claim to provide health care managers the opportunity to improve health care quality on the basis of sound methodology and data. However, it is unclear whether this quality improvement tool is being used correctly and improves health care quality. The authors conducted a comprehensive literature review to assess the correct use and implementation of SS and the empirical evidence demonstrating the relationship between SS and improved quality of care in health care organizations. The authors identified 310 articles on SS published in the last 15 years. However, only 55 were empirical peer-reviewed articles, 16 of which reported the correct use of SS. Only 7 of these articles included statistical analyses to test for significant changes in quality of care, and only 16 calculated defects per million opportunities or sigma level. This review demonstrates that there are significant gaps in the Six Sigma health care quality improvement literature and very weak evidence that Six Sigma is being used correctly to improve health care quality.

Adolescent peer group identification and characteristics: A review of the literature

PubMed Central

Sussman, Steve; Pokhrel, Pallav; Ashmore, Richard D.; Brown, B. Bradford

2011-01-01

This study provides an exhaustive review of 44 peer-reviewed quantitative or qualitative data-based peer-reviewed studies completed on adolescent peer group identification. Adolescent peer group identification is one’s self-perceived or other-perceived membership in discrete teenage peer groups. The studies reviewed suggest that adolescent peer groups consist of five general categories differentiable by lifestyle characteristics: Elites, Athletes, Academics, Deviants, and Others. We found that the Deviant adolescent group category reported relatively greater participation in drug use and other problem behaviors across studies, whereas Academics and Athletes exhibited the least participation in these problem behaviors. Additional research is needed in this arena to better understand the operation of adolescent group labels. PMID:17188815

[Try to improve journal quality by improving standards and editing process].

PubMed

Zheng, Jia-wei

2005-04-01

The quality of medical journals depends on several factors involving 3 groups of people with their independent but relevant roles: the authors, the reviewers and the editors. Peer review and editing is the key factor to improve the quality of medical publications and journals. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology (SJS) has been regarded as a leading journal for publishing high-quality work in the field of stomatology in China. In October 2003, it was accepted by the National Library of Medicine, USA, to be indexed and included in Index Medicus and MEDLINE. To further improve the journal's overall quality, the Editorial Agency led by Professor Zheng Jia-wei has made great efforts to formulate its essential requirements in paper style, bilingual abstract writing and statistical analysis for the manuscripts submitted for possible publication. Strict independent peer review system has been adopted to assess the quality of the manuscripts received since it was founded in 1992. The reviewer is required to address detailed aspects of the paper under review and to resend his or her opinion on the paper. The editorial management is a crucial part of the publishing process. The editors begin action with the receipt of the manuscript, direct the various steps of evaluation, correction and re-submission, until a decision is made to accept or reject the paper at the regular meeting of Decision Making Group on Manuscripts of SJS led by the Editor-in-Chief. Once a paper is accepted and carefully revised, the editors will make necessary text and layout editing. Due consideration is given to the statistical, bilingual and ethical aspects as well as to the overall uniformity of the terminology, nomenclatures and style throughout the volume as a whole in the promotion of standards. The journal has not been cited by Science Citation Index (SCI) till now, further steps should be taken to make this journal better known throughout the World, to improve the quality of the publications and reduce the delay between the initial receipt and the final publication of manuscripts.

Auditing fetal nasal bone images in the first trimester of pregnancy: results from a peer review program.

PubMed

Palermo, Fernanda Gasparin; Albuquerque, Débora de Paula Soares de Medeiros; Martins, Wellington P; Araujo Júnior, Edward; Bruns, Rafael Frederico

2016-09-01

To establish a structured review process to facilitate the identification of the fetal nasal bone (NB) in the first trimester ultrasound scan to improve the quality images. We conducted a retrospective observational study in fetal NB images obtained during ultrasound exams of singleton pregnancies that underwent first trimester screening (crown-rump length 45-84 mm). When the images were obtained the examiner was not aware of the study. Audit was conducted by an examiner according criteria established by the Fetal Medicine Foundation. Fetal NB images were assessed regarding adequate magnification, mid-sagittal view and transducer held parallel to the direction of the nose. The transvaginal and transabdominal as well as anterior and posterior fetal back groups were compared using χ(2) test. We considered 874 fetal NB images for auditing. Fetal NB was considered present in 865 images (99%). During the audit process, we identified 72 (8.2%) cases of disagreement between examiner and auditor assessments. Disagreement was higher when image quality was poor (62 cases = 7%). Transvaginal approach performed better in the following criteria: adequate magnification (p < 0.001), midline (p < 0.001) and completely adequate (p < 0.001). A peer reviewed audit program for fetal NB is feasible in a clinical scenario. Image quality appears to play an important role in compliance to image standards audited and in agreement between examiner and auditor.

28 CFR 34.104 - Use of peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

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

The Potential of Dual-Language Cross-Cultural Peer Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Ruecker, Todd

2011-01-01

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

7 CFR 550.17 - Peer review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications § 3411.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups. Subject to § 3411.5, the Administrator shall adopt procedures for the conduct of peer reviews and the...

Experiences of undergraduate nursing students in peer assisted learning in clinical practice: a qualitative systematic review.

PubMed

Carey, Matthew C; Kent, Bridie; Latour, Jos M

2018-05-01

The objective of this qualitative systematic review was to identify and synthesize the best available evidence on experiences of peer assisted learning (PAL) among student nurses in clinical practice so as to understand the value of PAL for this population. Peer-assisted learning considers the benefits of peers working in collaboration and supporting each other in professional roles. This approach to facilitate learning is effective within universities, but there is limited exploration within the clinical practice environment. Within the UK, 50% of student nurses' learning is undertaken within clinical practice, providing a large portion of student allocation within these areas, but is unexplored in relation to PAL. Therefore, existing evidence examining PAL in clinical practice needs further exploration for a better understanding of its value to student nurses' learning. The systematic review considered studies that included male and female nursing students aged 18-50 years that explored undergraduate nursing students' experiences of PAL within the clinical practice environment. Studies that utilized designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research were considered. Other text such as opinion papers and reports were to be considered if no qualitative studies could be located. The review excluded quantitative studies, as well as those addressing PAL outside the nursing profession and students within the nursing profession but not including undergraduate student nurses. This review considered studies that included aspects related to experiences of PAL in the clinical practice setting, as seen by undergraduate nursing students and the researcher. A three-step search strategy was undertaken to find both published and unpublished studies in English from 2003 to 2017 in various databases, and included searching of reference lists within articles selected for appraisal. Each of the included studies were assessed for methodological quality independently by two reviewers, using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Form for Interpretive and Critical Research. Qualitative data was extracted using the standardized JBI qualitative data extraction tool. Qualitative research findings were synthesized using JBI methodology. From the eight included studies, 37 findings were extracted. These findings were further aggregated into seven categories, and then into three synthesized findings. These three synthesized findings are: 1) Challenges of clinical practice are mitigated by peer support; 2) Peers are role models for enhancing clinical knowledge; and 3) Support and feedback develop competence and confidence, and reduce stress and anxiety. Peer-assisted learning exists in clinical practice in both formal and informal circumstances. Friendship and community are often expressed as occurring when peers work together. Support and feedback help students develop in their clinical role and enhance clinical knowledge. Outcomes include enhancing the competency and confidence of peers, and reducing stress and anxiety. Challenges of clinical practice are mitigated through PAL.

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…

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

Although the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow, too expensive, too unreliable, and too static. In this feasibility study, we sought to survey corresponding authors of recently published clinical research studies on the speed and efficiency of the publication process. Web-based survey of corresponding authors of a 20% random sample of clinical research studies in MEDLINE-indexed journals with Ovid MEDLINE entry dates between December 1 and 15, 2016. Survey addressed perceived manuscript importance before first submission, approximate first submission and final acceptance dates, and total number of journal submissions, external peer reviews, external peer reviewers, and revisions requested, as well as whether authors would have considered publicly sharing their manuscript on an online platform instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal. Of 1780 surveys distributed, 27 corresponding authors opted out or requested that we stop emailing them and 149 emails failed (e.g., emails that bounced n  = 64, returned with an away from office message n  = 70, or were changed/incorrect n  = 15), leaving 1604 respondents, of which 337 completed the survey (21.0%). Respondents and non-respondents were similar with respect to study type and publication journals' impact factor, although non-respondent authors had more publications ( p  = 0.03). Among respondents, the median impact factor of the publications' journal was 2.7 (interquartile range (IQR), 2.0-3.6) and corresponding authors' median h-index and number of publications was 9 (IQR, 3-20) and 27 (IQR, 10-77), respectively. The median time from first submission to journal acceptance and publication was 5 months (IQR, 3-8) and 7 months (IQR, 5-12), respectively. Most respondents (62.0%, n  = 209) rated the importance of their research as a 4 or 5 (5-point scale) prior to submission. Median number of journal submissions was 1 (IQR, 1-2), external peer reviews was 1 (IQR, 1-2), external peer reviewers was 3 (IQR, 2-4), and revisions requested was 1 (IQR, 1-1). Sharing manuscripts to a public online platform, instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal, would have been considered by 55.2% ( n  = 186) of respondents. Corresponding authors have high perceptions of their research and reported requiring few manuscript submissions prior to journal acceptance, most commonly by lower impact factor journals.

What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?

PubMed

Schroter, Sara; Black, Nick; Evans, Stephen; Godlee, Fiona; Osorio, Lyda; Smith, Richard

2008-10-01

To analyse data from a trial and report the frequencies with which major and minor errors are detected at a general medical journal, the types of errors missed and the impact of training on error detection. 607 peer reviewers at the BMJ were randomized to two intervention groups receiving different types of training (face-to-face training or a self-taught package) and a control group. Each reviewer was sent the same three test papers over the study period, each of which had nine major and five minor methodological errors inserted. BMJ peer reviewers. The quality of review, assessed using a validated instrument, and the number and type of errors detected before and after training. The number of major errors detected varied over the three papers. The interventions had small effects. At baseline (Paper 1) reviewers found an average of 2.58 of the nine major errors, with no notable difference between the groups. The mean number of errors reported was similar for the second and third papers, 2.71 and 3.0, respectively. Biased randomization was the error detected most frequently in all three papers, with over 60% of reviewers rejecting the papers identifying this error. Reviewers who did not reject the papers found fewer errors and the proportion finding biased randomization was less than 40% for each paper. Editors should not assume that reviewers will detect most major errors, particularly those concerned with the context of study. Short training packages have only a slight impact on improving error detection.

EDITORIAL: Are higher quality papers cited more often? Are higher quality papers cited more often?

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Patterson, Michael S.; Harris, Simon

2009-09-01

Most researchers are aware of the increasing emphasis placed on citations as an indicator of quality by their colleagues, as well as by administrators and librarians. But is it true that high quality papers are cited more often? In what we believe to be the only previous publication to examine this question, West and McIlwaine (2002) selected 79 papers that had been published in the journal Addiction in 1997. These papers were rated by an assistant editor of the journal on a five-level quality scale (ranging from 'among the top 10%' to 'should not have been published') as well as a second 'blind' rater. The authors found that the number of citations to each paper from 1997 to 2000 did not correlate with the mean score of the two reviewers, the score assigned by the editors, or the score assigned by the blind referees. The peer-review system used by Physics in Medicine and Biology (PMB) facilitates a larger, prospective study with much less effort. In general, two reviewers are asked to assign each paper a score of 1 to 10 in each of three categories: originality, soundness and significance. The total scores (out of 30) are averaged and on this basis manuscripts are given a quality rating from Q1 (highest quality) to Q5. In a paper recently published in Scientometrics (Patterson and Harris 2009), we compared the number of citations to papers published in PMB in 2003, 2004 and 2005 to the mean quality rating assigned by the reviewers. In total, data were analyzed for 1095 published papers. For each year we found that there was a low but statistically robust correlation between citations and quality rating: for 2003, -0.227 (p < 0.001); for 2004, -0.238 (p < 0.001), and for 2005, -0.154 (p < 0.01). The low correlation means that it is not possible to predict the citation frequency of an individual paper with accuracy but, as a group, the highest ranked papers were cited about twice as often as the average for all published papers. We also examined the data retrospectively by dividing the papers published in each year into five citation quintiles. A paper of the highest quality (Q1) was about ten times more likely to be found in the most-cited quintile than in the least-cited. While it is reassuring to find that the best papers in PMB are, indeed, cited more often on average, we cannot discount the hypothesis that both measures might be influenced by an extrinsic factor, such as the reputation of the authors. We suggest that a study similar to ours be performed for a journal that utilizes a system of double-blind peer review. Michael S Patterson Editorial Board Member Simon Harris Publisher References West R and McIlwaine A 2002 What do citation counts count for in the field of addiction? An empirical evaluation of citation counts and their link with peer ratings of quality Addiction 97 501-4 Patterson M S and Harris S 2009 The relationship between reviewers' quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003-2005 Scientometrics 80 343-9

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Davies, Phil

2006-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

The baby or the bath water? Lessons learned from the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention Research Prioritization Task Force literature review.

PubMed

Davis Molock, Sherry; Heekin, Janet M; Matlin, Samantha G; Barksdale, Crystal L; Gray, Ekwenzi; Booth, Chelsea L

2014-09-01

The Research Prioritization Task Force of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention conducted a comprehensive literature review of suicide prevention/intervention trials to assess the quality of the scientific evidence. A literature "review of reviews" was conducted by searching the most widely used databases for mental health and public health research. The quality of the reviews was evaluated using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews system; the quality of the scientific evidence for the suicide preventions/interventions was assessed using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The reviews were limited to peer-reviewed publications with human subjects published in English. Ninety-eight systematic reviews and 45 primary sources on suicide prevention/interventions published between January 2000 and September 2012 were evaluated. The results suggest that the quality of both the systematic reviews and the scientific evidence for suicide preventions/interventions were mixed. The majority of the systematic reviews and prevention/interventions were evaluated as fair to poor in quality. There are many promising suicide prevention/intervention trials, but research findings are often inconclusive because of methodologic problems. Methodologic problems across systematic reviews include not conducting hand searches, not surveying gray literature, and being unable to aggregate data across studies. Methodologic problems with the scientific quality of the prevention/intervention trials include paucity of information on sample demographic characteristics, poorly defined outcomes, and excluding actively suicidal participants. Suggestions for ways to improve the quality of the systematic reviews and suicide preventions/interventions are provided. Copyright © 2014 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.

Can clinical governance deliver quality improvement in Australian general practice and primary care? A systematic review of the evidence.

PubMed

Phillips, Christine B; Pearce, Christopher M; Hall, Sally; Travaglia, Joanne; de Lusignan, Simon; Love, Tom; Kljakovic, Marjan

2010-11-15

To review the literature on different models of clinical governance and to explore their relevance to Australian primary health care, and their potential contributions on quality and safety. 25 electronic databases, scanning reference lists of articles and consultation with experts in the field. We searched publications in English after 1999, but a search of the German language literature for a specific model type was also undertaken. The grey literature was explored through a hand search of the medical trade press and websites of relevant national and international clearing houses and professional or industry bodies. 11 software packages commonly used in Australian general practice were reviewed for any potential contribution to clinical governance. 19 high-quality studies that assessed outcomes were included. All abstracts were screened by one researcher, and 10% were screened by a second researcher to crosscheck screening quality. Studies were reviewed and coded by four reviewers, with all studies being rated using standard critical appraisal tools such as the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. Two researchers reviewed the Australian general practice software. Interviews were conducted with 16 informants representing service, regional primary health care, national and international perspectives. Most evidence supports governance models which use targeted, peer-led feedback on the clinician's own practice. Strategies most used in clinical governance models were audit, performance against indicators, and peer-led reflection on evidence or performance. The evidence base for clinical governance is fragmented, and focuses mainly on process rather than outcomes. Few publications address models that enhance safety, efficiency, sustainability and the economics of primary health care. Locally relevant clinical indicators, the use of computerised medical record systems, regional primary health care organisations that have the capacity to support the uptake of clinical governance at the practice level, and learning from the Aboriginal community-controlled sector will help integrate clinical governance into primary care.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2018-01-01

If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one’s field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0–7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2–3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in psychology. Efforts to improve the quality and “publishability” of doctoral dissertation research could benefit psychological science on multiple fronts. PMID:29444130

Prevalence and risk factors associated with musculoskeletal complaints among users of mobile handheld devices: A systematic review.

PubMed

Xie, Yanfei; Szeto, Grace; Dai, Jie

2017-03-01

This systematic review aimed at evaluating the prevalence and risk factors for musculoskeletal complaints associated with mobile handheld device use. Pubmed, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and Embase were searched. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed. Strength of evidence for risk factors was determined based on study designs, methodological quality and consistency of results. Five high-quality, eight acceptable-quality and two low-quality peer-reviewed articles were included. This review demonstrates that the prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints among mobile device users ranges from 1.0% to 67.8% and neck complaints have the highest prevalence rates ranging from 17.3% to 67.8%. This study also finds some evidence for neck flexion, frequency of phone calls, texting and gaming in relation to musculoskeletal complaints among mobile device users. Inconclusive evidence is shown for other risk factors such as duration of use and human-device interaction techniques due to inconsistent results or a limited number of studies. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2017-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2012-01-01

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

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

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

Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Vorobel, Oksana; Kim, Deoksoon

2014-01-01

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

Peer Reviewers Learn from Giving Comments

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cho, Young Hoan; Cho, Kwangsu

2011-01-01

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

Peer Review in Radiology: A Resident and Fellow Perspective.

PubMed

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

2016-02-01

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

Publication Rates of Studies Presented at the International Society of Craniofacial Surgery Congress.

PubMed

Dobson, Hannah; Wall, Steven

2016-11-01

The proportion of presentations achieving publication in a peer-review journal has been suggested to demonstrate the quality of research presented at a conference. No data is available examining the publication rate of research presented at Craniofacial Surgery meetings. The aim of the study was to examine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the International Society of Craniofacial Surgery Biennial Congresses from 2003 to 2011. A search was made of the PubMed database for publication of podium presentations of International Society of Craniofacial Surgery Congresses between 2003 and 2011. Thirty-five percent of podium presentations were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Thirty-one percent of presentations were published within 4 years, and the rate of publication decreased 2 years following presentation.

Implementing scientific evidence to improve the quality of Child Protection

PubMed Central

Cowley, Laura; Tempest, Vanessa; Maguire, Sabine; Mann, Mala; Naughton, Aideen; Wain, Laura; Kemp, Alison

2013-01-01

In contrast to other areas of medical practice, there was a lack of a clear, concise and accessible synthesis of scientific literature to aid the recognition and investigation of suspected child abuse, and no national training program or evidence based guidelines for clinicians. The project's aim was to identify the current scientific evidence for the recognition and investigation of suspected child abuse and neglect and to disseminate and introduce this into clinical practice. Since 2003 a comprehensive program of Systematic Reviews of all aspects of physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect of children, has been developed. Based on NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination standards, methodology was devised and reviewers trained. Dissemination was via peer reviewed publications, a series of leaflets highlighting key points in a Question and Answer format, and a website. To date, 21 systematic reviews have been completed, generating 28 peer reviewed publications, and six leaflets around each theme (eg fractures, bruising). More than 250,000 have been distributed to date. Our website generates more than 10,000 hits monthly. It hosts primary reviews that are updated annually, links to all included studies, publications, and detailed methodology. The reviews have directly informed five national clinical guidelines, and the first evidence based training in Child Maltreatment. Child abuse is every health practitioner's responsibility, and it is vital that the decisions made are evidence based, as it is expected in all other fields of medicine. Although challenging, this project demonstrates that it is possible to conduct high quality systematic reviews in this field. For the first time a clear concise synthesis of up to date scientific evidence is available to all practitioners in a range of accessible formats. This has underpinned high quality national guidance and training programs. It ensures all professionals have the appropriate knowledge base in this difficult and challenging field. PMID:26734183

A Systematic Review of the Benefits of Hiring People with Disabilities.

PubMed

Lindsay, Sally; Cagliostro, Elaine; Albarico, Mikhaela; Mortaji, Neda; Karon, Leora

2018-02-01

Purpose We reviewed literature on the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. Increasing attention is being paid to the role of people with disabilities in the workplace. Although most research focuses on employers' concerns, many companies are now beginning to share their successes. However, there is no synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature on the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. Methods Our team conducted a systematic review, completing comprehensive searches of seven databases from 1997 to May 2017. We selected articles for inclusion that were peer-reviewed publications, had a sample involving people with disabilities, conducted an empirical study with at least one outcome focusing on the benefits of hiring people with disabilities, and focused on competitive employment. Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and rated the study quality. Results Of the 6176 studies identified in our search, 39 articles met our inclusion criteria. Findings show that benefits of hiring people with disabilities included improvements in profitability (e.g., profits and cost-effectiveness, turnover and retention, reliability and punctuality, employee loyalty, company image), competitive advantage (e.g., diverse customers, customer loyalty and satisfaction, innovation, productivity, work ethic, safety), inclusive work culture, and ability awareness. Secondary benefits for people with disabilities included improved quality of life and income, enhanced self-confidence, expanded social network, and a sense of community. Conclusions There are several benefits to hiring people with disabilities. Further research is needed to explore how benefits may vary by type of disability, industry, and job type.

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.

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

PubMed

Reiner, Bruce I

2018-02-01

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

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.

Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy.

PubMed

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

2011-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kurihara, Noriko

2017-01-01

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