Peer Review: An organized procedure carried out by a select committee of professionals in evaluating the performance of other professionals in meeting the standards of their specialty. Review by peers is used by editors in the evaluation of articles and other papers submitted for publication. Peer review is used also in the evaluation of grant applications. It is applied also in evaluating the quality of health care provided to patients.Peer Review, Health Care: The concurrent or retrospective review by practicing physicians or other health professionals of the quality and efficiency of patient care practices or services ordered or performed by other physicians or other health professionals (From The Facts On File Dictionary of Health Care Management, 1988).Peer Review, Research: The evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field. Peer review is used by editors in deciding which submissions warrant publication, by granting agencies to determine which proposals should be funded, and by academic institutions in tenure decisions.Peer Group: Group composed of associates of same species, approximately the same age, and usually of similar rank or social status.Professional Review Organizations: Organizations representing designated geographic areas which have contracts under the PRO program to review the medical necessity, appropriateness, quality, and cost-effectiveness of care received by Medicare beneficiaries. Peer Review Improvement Act, PL 97-248, 1982.Writing: The act or practice of literary composition, the occupation of writer, or producing or engaging in literary work as a profession.Manuscripts, MedicalEditorial Policies: The guidelines and policy statements set forth by the editor(s) or editorial board of a publication.Manuscripts as Topic: Compositions written by hand, as one written before the invention or adoption of printing. A manuscript may also refer to a handwritten copy of an ancient author. A manuscript may be handwritten or typewritten as distinguished from a printed copy, especially the copy of a writer's work from which printed copies are made. (Webster, 3d ed)Publishing: "The business or profession of the commercial production and issuance of literature" (Webster's 3d). It includes the publisher, publication processes, editing and editors. Production may be by conventional printing methods or by electronic publishing.Periodicals as Topic: A publication issued at stated, more or less regular, intervals.Authorship: The profession of writing. Also the identity of the writer as the creator of a literary production.Pathology: A specialty concerned with the nature and cause of disease as expressed by changes in cellular or tissue structure and function caused by the disease process.Plagiarism: Passing off as one's own the work of another without credit.Journal Impact Factor: A quantitative measure of the frequency on average with which articles in a journal have been cited in a given period of time.Hospital Bed Capacity, 300 to 499Diagnostic Techniques, Surgical: Methods and procedures for the diagnosis of disease or dysfunction by examination of the pathological site or operative field during surgical intervention.Jurisprudence: The science or philosophy of law. Also, the application of the principles of law and justice to health and medicine.Toxicology: The science concerned with the detection, chemical composition, and biological action of toxic substances or poisons and the treatment and prevention of toxic manifestations.Management Quality Circles: Participation of employees with management as a labor-management team, in decisions pertaining to the operational activities of the organization or industry.Accreditation: Certification as complying with a standard set by non-governmental organizations, applied for by institutions, programs, and facilities on a voluntary basis.Quality Control: A system for verifying and maintaining a desired level of quality in a product or process by careful planning, use of proper equipment, continued inspection, and corrective action as required. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed)Insurance, Physician Services: Insurance providing benefits for the costs of care by a physician which can be comprehensive or limited to surgical expenses or for care provided only in the hospital. It is frequently called "regular medical expense" or "surgical expense".Biomedical Research: Research that involves the application of the natural sciences, especially biology and physiology, to medicine.Quality Assurance, Health Care: Activities and programs intended to assure or improve the quality of care in either a defined medical setting or a program. The concept includes the assessment or evaluation of the quality of care; identification of problems or shortcomings in the delivery of care; designing activities to overcome these deficiencies; and follow-up monitoring to ensure effectiveness of corrective steps.Research Support as Topic: Financial support of research activities.Total Quality Management: The application of industrial management practice to systematically maintain and improve organization-wide performance. Effectiveness and success are determined and assessed by quantitative quality measures.Publications: Copies of a work or document distributed to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending. (From ALA Glossary of Library and Information Science, 1983, p181)Faculty: The teaching staff and members of the administrative staff having academic rank in an educational institution.Legislation, Hospital: Laws and regulations concerning hospitals, which are proposed for enactment or enacted by a legislative body.Medical Audit: A detailed review and evaluation of selected clinical records by qualified professional personnel for evaluating quality of medical care.Professional Competence: The capability to perform the duties of one's profession generally, or to perform a particular professional task, with skill of an acceptable quality.Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations: A private, voluntary, not-for-profit organization which establishes standards for the operation of health facilities and services, conducts surveys, and awards accreditation.Employee Performance Appraisal: The assessment of the functioning of an employee in relation to work.Conflict of Interest: A situation in which an individual might benefit personally from official or professional actions. It includes a conflict between a person's private interests and official responsibilities in a position of trust. The term is not restricted to government officials. The concept refers both to actual conflict of interest and the appearance or perception of conflict.Science: The study of natural phenomena by observation, measurement, and experimentation.Financing, Organized: All organized methods of funding.Research: Critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation, having for its aim the discovery of new facts and their correct interpretation, the revision of accepted conclusions, theories, or laws in the light of newly discovered facts, or the practical application of such new or revised conclusions, theories, or laws. (Webster, 3d ed)National Institutes of Health (U.S.): An operating division of the US Department of Health and Human Services. It is concerned with the overall planning, promoting, and administering of programs pertaining to health and medical research. Until 1995, it was an agency of the United States PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.Utilization Review: An organized procedure carried out through committees to review admissions, duration of stay, professional services furnished, and to evaluate the medical necessity of those services and promote their most efficient use.Teaching: The educational process of instructing.United StatesCongresses as Topic: Conferences, conventions or formal meetings usually attended by delegates representing a special field of interest.Guidelines as Topic: A systematic statement of policy rules or principles. Guidelines may be developed by government agencies at any level, institutions, professional societies, governing boards, or by convening expert panels. The text may be cursive or in outline form but is generally a comprehensive guide to problems and approaches in any field of activity. For guidelines in the field of health care and clinical medicine, PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC is available.Feedback: A mechanism of communication within a system in that the input signal generates an output response which returns to influence the continued activity or productivity of that system.Sociometric Techniques: Methods for quantitatively assessing and measuring interpersonal and group relationships.Interpersonal Relations: The reciprocal interaction of two or more persons.Bibliometrics: The use of statistical methods in the analysis of a body of literature to reveal the historical development of subject fields and patterns of authorship, publication, and use. Formerly called statistical bibliography. (from The ALA Glossary of Library and Information Science, 1983)Evaluation Studies as Topic: Studies determining the effectiveness or value of processes, personnel, and equipment, or the material on conducting such studies. For drugs and devices, CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DRUG EVALUATION; and DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL are available.Universities: Educational institutions providing facilities for teaching and research and authorized to grant academic degrees.Financial Support: The provision of monetary resources including money or capital and credit; obtaining or furnishing money or capital for a purchase or enterprise and the funds so obtained. (From Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.)International Cooperation: The interaction of persons or groups of persons representing various nations in the pursuit of a common goal or interest.Canada: The largest country in North America, comprising 10 provinces and three territories. Its capital is Ottawa.United Nations: An international organization whose members include most of the sovereign nations of the world with headquarters in New York City. The primary objectives of the organization are to maintain peace and security and to achieve international cooperation in solving international economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian problems.

Tolerance in a rigorous science. (1/287)

Scientists often evaluate other people's theories by the same standards they apply to their own work; it is as though scientists may believe that these criteria are independent of their own personal priorities and standards. As a result of this probably implicit belief, they sometimes may make less useful judgments than they otherwise might if they were able and willing to evaluate a specific theory at least partly in terms of the standards appropriate to that theory. Journal editors can play an especially constructive role in managing this diversity of standards and opinion.  (+info)

The role of community review in evaluating the risks of human genetic variation research. (2/287)

The practicality and moral value of community review of human genetic research has become a focus of debate. Examples from two Native American communities are used to address four aspects of that debate: (1) the value of community review in larger, geographically dispersed populations; (2) the identification of culturally specific risks; (3) the potential conflict between individual and group assessments of research-related risks; and (4) the confusion of social categories with biological categories. Our experiences working with these two communities suggest that: (1) successful community review may require the involvement of private social units (e.g., families); (2) culturally specific implications of genetic research may be identifiable only by community members and are of valid concern in their moral universes; (3) community concerns can be incorporated into existing review mechanisms without necessarily giving communities the power to veto research proposals; and (4) the conflation of social and biological categories presents recruitment problems for genetic studies. These conclusions argue for the use of community review to identify and minimize research-related risks posed by genetic studies. Community review also can assist in facilitating participant recruitment and retention, as well as in developing partnerships between researchers and communities.  (+info)

Where do UK health services researchers publish their findings? (3/287)

Health services research has emerged as the third vital requirement for understanding and improving health care, alongside basic science and clinical research. This has coincided with more stringent management of research, in particular by funding bodies. The latter are seeking to use bibliographic databases to aid the monitoring of the output of their investments. The principal source of data in the UK is the Research Outputs Database (ROD) set up by the Wellcome Trust primarily to monitor basic and clinical research. Health services researchers' output is difficult to monitor in view of the large number and wide variety of journals in which they publish. In addition, nearly half the journals (representing 35% of the articles) are not currently covered by the ROD. Funding bodies will underestimate the quantity of health services researchers' output unless they take these findings into account.  (+info)

The fate of neuroradiologic abstracts presented at national meetings in 1993: rate of subsequent publication in peer-reviewed, indexed journals. (4/287)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Abstract presentations are a valuable means of rapidly conveying new information; however, abstracts that fail to eventually become published are of little use to the general medical community. Our goals were to determine the publication rate of neuroradiologic papers originally presented at national meetings in 1993 and to assess publication rate as a function of neuroradiologic subspecialty and study design. METHODS: Proceedings from the 1993 ASNR and RSNA meetings were reviewed. A MEDLINE search encompassing 1993-1997 was performed cross-referencing lead author and at least one text word based on the abstract title. All ASNR and RSNA neuroradiologic abstracts were included. Study type, subspecialty classification, and sample size were tabulated. Publication rate, based on study design and neuroradiologic subspecialty, was compared with overall publication rate. Median duration from meeting presentation to publication was calculated, and the journals of publication were noted. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of ASNR abstracts and 33% of RSNA neuroradiologic abstracts were published as articles in indexed medical journals. Publication rates among neuroradiologic subspecialty types were not significantly different. Prospective studies presented at the ASNR were published at a higher rate than were retrospective studies. There was no difference between the publication rate of experimental versus clinical studies. Neuroradiologic abstracts were published less frequently than were abstracts within other medical specialties. Median time between abstract presentation and publication was 15 months. CONCLUSION: Approximately one third of neuroradiologic abstracts presented at national meetings in 1993 were published in indexed journals. This rate is lower than that of abstracts from medical specialties other than radiology.  (+info)

One editor's views on conflict of interest. (5/287)

The purpose of this article is to discuss the importance of recognizing conflict of interest or bias situations in the peer review and publication process of research papers and to identify some important guidelines or policies that help to minimize these situations. Communication of thoughts, ideas, and information is the basis of how we function as a society. Communicating research results requires us to clearly and accurately communicate all aspects of the research process, including the appropriate interpretation of results. A working definition for conflict of interest or bias with regard to publishing research results is that conflict of interest is a situation in which personal benefit (either direct or indirect) takes priority over the clarity and(or) accuracy of reporting research. These situations are ethical issues and can represent either real or assumed situations. It is true that the review and publication process is not perfect; thus, some bias probably is always present and can be brought to the review and publication process by either the author or those responsible for the process. However, conflict of interest or bias that detracts from the objective evaluation of research or the integrity of a scientific journal is inappropriate. Conflict of interest or bias situations can occur at all levels of the review and publication process and should be dealt with on a factual basis. This article describes several situations as examples and several important guidelines that help minimize the occurrence of conflict of interest or bias.  (+info)

Medical costs of smoking in the United States: estimates, their validity, and their implications. (6/287)

OBJECTIVE: To compare estimates of the medical costs of smoking in the United States and to consider their relevance to assessing the costs of smoking in developing countries and the net economic burden of smoking. DATA SOURCES: A Medline search through early 1999 using keywords "smoking" and "cost", with review of article reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Peer-reviewed papers examining medical costs in a single year, covering the non-institutionalised American population. DATA EXTRACTION: Methods underlying study estimates were identified, described, and compared with attributable expenditure methodology in the literature dealing with costs of illness. Differences in methods were associated with implied differences in findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: With one exception, the studies find the annual medical costs of smoking to constitute approximately 6-8% of American personal health expenditures. The exception, a recent study, found much larger attributable expenditures. The lower estimates may reflect the limitation of analysis to costs associated with the principal smoking-related diseases. The higher estimate derives from analysis of smoking-attributable differences in all medical costs. However, the finding from the most recent study, also considering all medical costs, fell in the 6-8% range. CONCLUSIONS: The medical costs of smoking in the United States equal, and may well exceed, the commonly referenced figure of 6-8%. This literature has direct methodological relevance to developing countries interested in assessing the magnitude of their current cost-of-smoking burden and their future burdens, with differences in tobacco use histories and the availability of chronic disease treatment affecting country-specific estimates. The debate over the use of gross or net medical cost estimates is likely to intensify with the proliferation of lawsuits against the tobacco industry to recover expenditures on tobacco-produced disease.  (+info)

Content and quality of currently published phase II cancer trials. (7/287)

PURPOSE: A number of statistical methods have been proposed for the design and analysis of phase II studies based on dichotomous outcomes. To investigate to what extent such methods are in current use, we conducted a survey of published studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified studies by conducting a computerized literature search of MEDLINE. We considered trials on systemic antineoplastic treatments described as phase II or pilot. The search was limited to articles written in English and published in 1997. RESULTS: Three hundred eight trials were identified. The majority, ie, 295 (95.8%), had been conducted as single-arm studies, with objective tumor response as the primary efficacy end point. An identifiable statistical design was reported for only 58 (19.7%) of these trials. The quality in reporting the statistical design and compliance with the design in carrying out the study or results interpretation were frequently poor. The frequency of reporting the statistical design was not shown to increase over the years of study start and was not associated with sample size or study duration. Instead, a significant association was found with trial results (which were less frequently positive among studies with a statistical design) and with the impact factor of the publishing journal. CONCLUSION: This survey shows that the quality of the statistical component of published phase II cancer trials is generally poor and raises suspicion that low quality is likely to bias study findings. Journals might improve the methodologic standard of published articles through a more vigilant reviewing policy.  (+info)

Doctor-staffed ambulance helicopters: to what extent can the general practitioner replace the anaesthesiologist? (8/287)

During two years, a rural ambulance helicopter programme saved 41 patients' lives. In 29 of these patients, the decisive medical interventions were carried out by the flight anaesthesiologist before reaching the hospital. We asked an expert panel to assess whether these interventions could have been carried out by a general practitioner (GP). This was the case for 17 (59%) of the 29 patients, while more advances skills, equipment or drugs were needed for 11 (38%). Among these 11, three patients would probably have died without the interventions. We conclude that GPs can manage a majority of life saving missions for a rural ambulance helicopter programme, but the lack of a flight anaesthesiologist may imply substantial health losses for a few patients.  (+info)

The surrogate indicator of radiological excellence that has become accepted is consistency of assessments between radiologists, and the technique that has become the standard for evaluating concordance is peer review. This study describes the results of a workstation-integrated peer review program in a busy outpatient radiology practice. Workstation-based peer review was performed using the software program Intelerad Peer Review. Cases for review were randomly chosen from those being actively reported. If an appropriate prior study was available, and if the reviewing radiologist and the original interpreting radiologist had not exceeded review targets, the case was scored using the modified RADPEER system. There were 2,241 cases randomly assigned for peer review. Of selected cases, 1,705 (76%) were interpreted. Reviewing radiologists agreed with prior reports in 99.1% of assessments. Positive feedback (score 0) was given in three cases (0.2%) and concordance (scores of 0 to 2) was assigned in 99.4%,
Additionally, we believe that one of the main objectives of peer review system is to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript. Normally we try to publish the average marks (out of 10) a manuscript received at initial peer review stage and at final publication stage to record its history of improvement during peer review. This process further increases the transparency. It is more important to record the strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly than claiming that our peer review system is perfect. Therefore, these transparent processes (i.e. publication of review history files and scores of a particular manuscript) additionally give a clear idea of the strength and weakness of a published paper to the readers. This process enhances the chances of proper use of the result of research (and or reduces the chances of misuse of the weakness of the findings of the paper). Thus this transparent process may prove to be highly beneficial for the society in the long run ...
Peer review is considered the gold standard of scientific publishing. Trust in the traditional system of editor - blind-reviewer - author is still high, but its authority is in decline and alternative methods are on the rise. The current study investigates opinions of alternative peer review methods, the arguments for and against, and the reasons why academics are searching for new approaches. The opinions were analysed by applying qualitative content analysis to online discussions. The findings were interpreted using two different sociological theories: the Mertonian sociology of science and social constructivism. The results of the study show that the most discussed method was also the most traditional one: closed pre-publication peer review comprised of single blind, double-blind and open peer review (non blinded). Discussions of open peer review (both open publishing of reports and open discussions) were also common. All other alternative methods were discussed much less. But the ...
The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research publication.1 The editorial peer review process is described as journal editors relying on the views of independent experts in making decisions on, for example, the publication of submitted manuscripts or presentation of reports at meetings.2 The peer review system is considered the best method for helping scientific editors decide on the acceptability of a manuscript for publication.3 Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the system has been questioned. In 2010, a report commissioned by the UK House of Commons showed that the cost to the UK Higher Education Institutions in terms of staff time was £110 to £165 million per year for peer review and up to £30 million per year for the work done by editors and editorial boards.4 Worldwide, peer review is estimated to cost £1.9 billion annually and accounts for about one-quarter of the overall costs of scholarly publishing and distribution.5 The human resources were estimated to be about ...
Beginning with an historical reminiscence, this paper examines the peer review process as experienced by authors currently seeking publication of their research in a highly controversial area. A case study of research into the events of 9/11 (11 September 2001) illustrates some of the problems in peer review arising from undue influences based on financial and political considerations. The paper suggests that ethical failures, rather than flaws in the process itself, are mainly responsible for perceived problems. The way forward lies in improved ethics and a more open process. In addition, editorial review boards and peer review strategies would help to improve the ethics of peer review in general.
This page lists individual Peer Reviewers alphabetically by the Surnames and gives further details about them on clicking their names.. Members of the Editorial and Peer Review Board peer review submitted articles in their areas of expertise, suggest names of other reviewers, suggest topics to be covered and provide ongoing advice to the editors. Final decision about the acceptance and refusal of the article for the publication will be taken by editors.. The editorial and peer review board will be reviewed annually.. No person, including editors, will be involved in the peer review of an article in which they have a direct or indirect interest or involvement.. ...
Under the Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, Federal Agencies must post an agenda describing their plans for external peer review of scientific information and assessments that the Agency intends to disseminate. This page lists scientific products under development that OSHA plans to have peer reviewed in the near term. The entries below include a link to any draft documents that are available to the public. To obtain a copy of the OMB Bulletin, click here.. This peer review agenda will be updated periodically; announcements that the agenda has been updated will appear in the "OSHA News" section on OSHAs home page (http://www.osha.gov).. The public is invited to submit comments on this agenda. You may submit your comments via E-Mail to [email protected] Peer Review Agenda. ...
Update: Bill Hooker has pointed out that Im using a very strong sense of "reliable" in this section, holding peer review to the standard that it nearly always picks up errors, is a very accurate gauge of quality, and rarely suppresses innovation. If you adopt a more relaxed notion of reliability, as many but not all scientists and members of the general public do, then Id certainly back off describing this as a myth. As an approximate filter that eliminates or improves many papers, peer review may indeed function well. Every scientist has a story (or ten) about how they were poorly treated by peer review - the important paper that was unfairly rejected, or the silly editor who ignored their sage advice as a referee. Despite this, many strongly presume that the system works "pretty well", overall.. Theres not much systematic evidence for that presumption. In 2002 Jefferson et al (ref) surveyed published studies of biomedical peer review. After an extensive search, they found just 19 studies ...
Open Peer Review Policy: Click Here. Specific Comment. Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 6.66/10. Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 8.7/10. Peer Review History:. ...
The peer review process both in journals and funding agencies could use more transparency, reporting and accountability. The authors identify incentives that could encourage journals to make their peer review data available to evaluate effectiveness toward achieving concrete measures of quality. This is a collective action problem requiring leadership and investment by publishers. It is time to apply the "trust, but verify" model to journal peer review. The authors suggest revising the Transparency and Openness (TOP) Guidelines, a set of reporting standards ...
Despite this, peer review doesnt need to be hard or nerve-wracking - or leave you with the feeling youre doomed to fail. Its actually a very structured process; it can be learned and improved the more you do it, and youll become faster and more confident as time goes on. Soon enough, youll even start benefitting from the process yourself.. Peer review not only helps to maintain the quality and integrity of literature in your field, its key to your own development as a researcher. Its a great way to keep abreast of current research, impress editors at elite journals, and hone your critical analysis skills. It teaches you how to review a manuscript, spot common flaws in research papers, and improve your own chances of being a successful published author.. To get the most out of the peer review process, youll need some best practice tips and techniques to keep in mind from the start. Heres where we come in. We asked an expert panel of researchers what steps they take to ensure a thorough ...
It seems as thought the wrong lesson is being drawn here. As you quote Menger: ...the system ultimately worked. I think that we ought to be focusing on the word ultimately. Although I am a terrific fan of peer review, approximately as it is now practiced, and although I appear to be in the minority here, I doubt that anyone in any part of this spectrum would disagree that it should be made more efficient, specifically, faster. Its not clear how that could happen, as peer review systems have long been operated by email and other digital means, so its not that the magical web is going to improve that too much. Unfortunately, the supply of expert reviewer time is limited by the number of experts, and their time. (Here expert means anyone who could have a sufficient understanding of the topic at hand to say something useful about it). Perhaps were going about peer review the wrong way. Its too hard to read and write a review of a whole paper in detail -- therein which lies the time ...
It seems as thought the wrong lesson is being drawn here. As you quote Menger: ...the system ultimately worked. I think that we ought to be focusing on the word ultimately. Although I am a terrific fan of peer review, approximately as it is now practiced, and although I appear to be in the minority here, I doubt that anyone in any part of this spectrum would disagree that it should be made more efficient, specifically, faster. Its not clear how that could happen, as peer review systems have long been operated by email and other digital means, so its not that the magical web is going to improve that too much. Unfortunately, the supply of expert reviewer time is limited by the number of experts, and their time. (Here expert means anyone who could have a sufficient understanding of the topic at hand to say something useful about it). Perhaps were going about peer review the wrong way. Its too hard to read and write a review of a whole paper in detail -- therein which lies the time ...
Evaluation of manuscripts is carried out by the journals Editors and the invited external peer reviewers according to the following procedures.. The editorial process and peer-review workflow for each journal are taken care of by a team of Senior Editors, Editorial Board Members (EABMs) who have expertise in their specific fields and the publication managers. Bentham follows a single blind peer review process. The services of Senior Editors and Editorial Board Members are sought through invitations to organize and conduct the peer-review of a submitted manuscript, keeping in view the scope of the manuscript and the expertise of Editors. Manuscripts are forwarded for evaluation to Editors initially and then subsequently to independent external reviewers to check if the research work presented in the manuscript:. ...
The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review ...
However, peer review is also something more, if not something even completely different in the first instance. Besides being a quality control device, peer review is a distributed effort for recognizing and increasing the value of manuscripts and so is inherently constructive. It is simultaneously a context in which experts develop, adapt and enforce standards of judgement, a form of (direct and indirect) connection and cooperation, a disciplined, mediated discourse between (often unrelated) experts in a "safe" (though often disorganised and ambiguous) environment. And so it is also inherently social. If this is true, peer review cannot be seen as a prediction game on the objective quality of manuscripts. Unlike an activity, such as people guessing the weight of an ox, which so fascinated the British scientist Francis Galton in the early 1900s, there is no pre-established, unambiguous weight or value that can be attributed to a research paper.. In a recent large-scale collaborative ...
Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. http://www.jama-peer.org Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review in Health Sciences. 2nd ed. London, England: BMJ Books; 2003. Weller A. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc; 2001. |
1) To maintain liaison with component peer review and patient relations committees; (2) to hear and act on appeals resulting from actions of component society peer review committees and (3) to exchange information concerning effective ways of handling patient grievances and peer review in all original hearings, actions on appeal, and other matters brought to the Committee ...
In 1986, Congress, concerned about "[t]he increasing occurrence of medical malpractice and the need to improve the quality of medical care," sought to encourage good faith professional peer review activities and enacted the Health Care Quality Improvement Act ("HCQIA"), 42 U.S.C. 11101 et seq . Congress found, among other things, that "[t]here is an overriding national need to provide incentive and protection for physicians engaging in effective professional peer review" and granted limited immunity from suits for money damages to participants in professional peer review actions. Twenty years later, Poliner v. Texas Health Systems , 537 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 1002, rehg denied , 129 S. Ct. 1663 (2009), confirmed that immunity. In August 2004, Lawrence Poliner, M.D., a board-certified physician in internal medicine and cardiovascular diseases, had certain hospital privileges suspended because of concerns over his care of several patients, including performing an ...
Peer review ensures that the scientists conducting the study apply methods that are appropriate to the problem being investigated, it promotes the free exchange and discussion of ideas, and often leads to improvements in both the analysis and the presentation of the study data. In addition, review of the study methods and results by knowledgeable, yet objective, experts can increase the credibility of the work within both the scientific and public communities. Usually, to ensure objectivity, the peer review process is confidential with unknown reviewers evaluating the work of unidentified investigators. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is committed to public involvement. This means that since its inception, the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study has been conducted with complete openness to public scrutiny. The CDC is dedicated to continuing this openness throughout the review process for the draft Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Report ...
The Peer Review panels primary objective was to review the model development program, validation tests and results, expert panel discussions, and overall model enhancement effort for validity with regard to state of the practice so that the model can be applied with sufficient reliability in the regional transportation planning process. The panels recommendations for: 1) short-term enhancements related to the use of the model in developing the 2012 RTP and 2) longer-term model enhancements for the next RTP in 2016 are summarized in the Peer Review #4 Report. The Model is managed and operated by SCAG with development assistance from private consulting firms and academic institutions. Expert panels have overseen the development and enhancement of specific modeling components. The Peer Review panel was assembled to review SCAGs overall model enhancements and validation process. ...
Limitations of Peer Review - The limitations of peer review are multiple, like its inability to sometimes detect fraud. Learn more about the limitations of peer review.
Peer review is carried out by a pool of independent external reviewers ​who are selected on the basis of their expertise to conduct the reviews. All proposals submitted to a call are treated equally. They are evaluated impartially on their merits, irrespective of their origin or identity of the applicants. All proposals and related documents communicated to the AO Foundation are treated in confidence. Based on the project abstract, each reviewer must confirm that he/she concurs with the AO Foundations Code of Ethics (PDF, 33 KB). After this confirmation, the reviewer will receive the full project proposal for review.. ...
The US Supreme Court has recently been wrestling with the issues of the acceptability and reliability of scientific evidence. In its judgement in the case of Daubert versus Merrell Dow, the Court attempted to set guidelines for US judges to follow when listening to scientific experts. Whether or not findings had been published in a peer-reviewed journal provided one important criterion. But in a key caveat, the Court emphasized that peer review might sometimes be flawed and therefore this criterion was not unequivocal evidence of validity or otherwise. A recent analysis of peer review adds to this controversy by identifying an alarming lack of correlation between reviewers recommendations ...
A scientific publication system needs to provide two basic services: access and evaluation. The traditional publication system restricts the access to papers by requiring payment, and it restricts the evaluation of papers by relying on just 2-4 pre-publication peer reviews and by keeping the reviews secret. As a result, the current system suffers from a lack of quality and transparency of the peer-review evaluation process, and the only immediately available indication of a new papers quality is the prestige of the journal it appeared in. Open access is now widely accepted as desirable and is slowly beginning to become a reality. However, the second essential element, evaluation, has received less attention. Open evaluation, an ongoing post-publication process of transparent peer review and rating of papers, promises to address the problems of the current system. However, it is unclear how exactly such a system should be designed. The
I was part of a great WA Communication Culture Media panel today on the theme of feedback and was specifically asked to comment on receiving and giving feedback on journal articles (mainly via peer review). It was a great and wide-ranging conversation, and clearly applicable well beyond the immediate audience, so I thought Id post my tips for journal feedback here.. Receiving Feedback via Peer Reviews. [1] Be Humble. Your peer reviewers are almost always providing free labour when undertaking peer reviews. Sometimes theyve been mentored and have a great and encouraging system for giving feedback that makes it easy to receive. Often, however, theyre replicating a model of peer review thats more combative. Either way, most peer reviews (even the dreaded Reviewer 2) have something useful in them. Be humble and try and find those useful points. That doesnt mean taking all criticism to heart. Nor does it mean your peer reviews are necessarily right. Be they do exist, and someone took the time ...
The Open Virology Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews, letters, case reports and guest-edited single topic issues in all areas of virology. Bentham Open ensures speedy peer review process and accepted papers are published within 2 weeks of final acceptance.. The Open Virology Journal is committed to ensuring high quality of research published. We believe that a dedicated and committed team of editors and reviewers make it possible to ensure the quality of the research papers. The overall standing of a journal is in a way, reflective of the quality of its Editor(s) and Editorial Board and its members.. The Open Virology Journal is seeking energetic and qualified researchers to join its editorial board team as Editorial Board Members or reviewers.. The essential criteria to become Editorial Board Members of The Open Virology Journal are as follows ...
Peer Review is a workshop series designed to sharpen your grant writing skills.. Using grant drafts you have already prepared, Peer Review mirrors the grant adjudicating process by breaking apart what is expected in the grants from an evaluation perspective and solicits feedback from your peers on what works well and what doesnt. At the end of these sessions you will have a far clearer idea of where you grant needs work.. Over the two hours you will review ...
The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State Austria, for the pesticide active substance spirotetramat are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of spirotetramat as an insecticide and acaricide on citrus and lettuce. The reliable endpoints concluded as being appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, derived from the available studies and literature in the dossier peer reviewed, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.. ...
Over at Lucias blog on an essentially open thread, there was some back and forth on peer review, the merits and barriers to formal publication vs blogs, and so forth. My old friend Joel Shore responded to a comment on science journals expanding faster than the speed of light with a possible source, and mentioned the size of the Physical Review journals doubling every decade.. Since I work there, I thought Id respond with more up to date data, and also added some thoughts on peer review related to some commentary on a simple diagrammatic explanation of journalistic practice, recently posted by Jay Rosen. My comments follow.. For what its worth, Physical Review publication statistics are available online here (2007 numbers):. http://forms.aps.org/general/annstats07.pdf. Table 1 has the numbers, Figure 1 shows it visually. The period of most rapid sustained growth was probably 1980-1995 where the number of papers published really was doubling every 10 years or so; a lot of that growth was from ...
The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Austria and co‐rapporteur Member State Lithuania for the pesticide active substance blood meal and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of blood meal as a game repellent on deciduous and coniferous trees in forestry, orchard trees and ornamental plants and as a vole repellent on deciduous and coniferous trees in forestry (field uses). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required ...
Peer review was first used for biomedical publications by the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh in the 18th century, but it evolved haphazardly and was not used consistently until after World War II. The essence of peer review consists of asking experts
If you are an ESRC Peer Review College member, we will have added your details to the Je-S database in order to create an account. When you are notified of your first review request, the email you are sent will include a link that will take you to where you can activate your account. In order to do this, you will need to enter a username and password and some prompts and responses in case you forget your login details. If you are not an ESRC Peer Review College member an account will be created for you prior to a review being requested. You will be able to activate this account by following the link in the email sent notifying you of the review request.. When your account has been activated, you will be taken to the Assigned Document summary screen in the system where you should select the Peer Review option.. ...
A couple of months ago, a Baltimore reporter called to get my take on a scandal at St. Josephs Hospital in Towson, an upscale suburb. A rainmaker cardiologist there, Dr. Mark Midei, had been accused of placing more than 500 stents in patients who didnt need them, justifying the procedures by purposely misreading cath films. In several of the cases, Midei allegedly read a 90 percent coronary stenosis when the actual blockage was trivial - more like 10 percent.. Disgusting, I thought… if the reports are true, they should lock this guy in jail and throw away the key. After all, the victims now have permanent foreign bodies in their vascular beds, and both the stent and the accompanying blood thinners confer a substantial lifetime risk of morbidity and mortality. As I felt my own blood beginning to boil, the reporter asked a question that threw me back on my heels.. "Why didnt peer review catch this?" he asked.. Hospital peer review is getting better, partly driven by more aggressive ...
Peer reviews when done properly can mitigate potential for construction claims and result in lower total project costs. AMC Engineers has performed peer review services on numerous projects from large institutional projects and medical facilities to small design build projects. Our experienced team is able to quickly identify improper design, coordination issues and constructability issues ...
An insurance companys reliance on a peer reviews recommendation to deny claims does not protect the insurer from liability for attorney fees if the peer review is found to be invalid the state Superior Court has ruled.
Stephen and Paddy reunite and play Chamber One of "Peer Review" for Portal 2. Valve have released Peer Review free of charge to all owners of the excellent Portal 2 so get going and enjoy nine new, much more difficult chambers. ...
Abstract: 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 systems 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 todays 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 ...
Under Action 14, countries have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process. The minimum standard is complemented by a set of best practices.. The peer review process is conducted in two stages. Stage 1 assesses countries against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by the United States, which is ...
IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY (Iran J Pathol) the official journal of the Iranian society of Pathology publishes original research papers, reviews, case reports
Peer-review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Reviewers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity, and significance to help editors to determine whether the manuscript should be published in the journal.. Initial manuscript evaluation. The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the editorial policies and a minimum quality level are normally passed on to at least 2 experts for review.. Type of Peer Review The journal employs the double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.. How the Reviewers is selected. Whenever possible, Reviewers are matched to the ...
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics (MCP), [email protected] Nancy Rodnan, Senior Director of Publications, [email protected] Kaoru (Carol) Sakabe, Ph.D., Data Integrity Manager, [email protected] Julie Finnegan Stoner, Publishing Technology Manager, [email protected] Jeanne Gladfelter, Publications Manager, JLR, [email protected] Catherine Goodman, Ph.D., Scientific Editor, JBC, [email protected] Martin Spiering, Ph.D., Technical Editor, JBC, [email protected] Alexandra Mushegian, Ph.D., Scientific Communicator, JBC, [email protected] Emily Huff, Publications Manager, MCP, [email protected] Saddiq Zahari, Ph.D., Manager of Compliance, MCP, [email protected] Ciaran Finn, Peer Review Coordinator, [email protected] Pam Booth, Peer Review Coordinator, [email protected] Erik Chaulk, Peer Review Coordinator/Digital Publications Web Specialist, [email protected] Davia Grant, Peer Review Coordinator, [email protected] Tracey Kirkbride, Peer Review Coordinator, [email protected] Jennifer Clark, ...
Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy")", was a paper by Dr. George Ricaurte which was published in the leading journal Science, and later retracted. The reason was that instead of using MDMA, methamphetamine had been used in the test. The retraction of the paper led to questions over its publication. It has also been asserted that this questions the peer review process. Many have also argued that the failings in the paper (use of materials other than those specified) could not have been caught by peer review; and that the scientific process did work successfully in the end, in that the article was ultimately retracted. The paper was published in the 27 September 2002 issue of Science (volume 297, pages 2260-3). The article had been submitted to Science on 29 May 2002 and was accepted for publication on 14 August 2002. Neither the time required for peer review nor the time between acceptance for publication and actual date of ...
Confidentiality. Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless necessary and approved by the editor.6-7 Sample correspondence related to this topic is available on the CSE website.5 Material submitted for peer-review is a privileged communication that should be treated in confidence, taking care to guard the authors identity and work. Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts and should not use the knowledge of their content for any purpose unrelated to the peer review process.. Although it is expected that the editor and reviewers will have access to the material submitted, authors have a reasonable expectation that the review process will remain strictly confidential. If a reviewer is unsure about the policies for enlisting the help of others in the review process, he or she should ask the editor.. Constructive critique. Reviewer comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the material under review, identify ...
Im not known for my strong endorsement of the fetishism of peer review, but even so I think Dobbs is being somewhat unfair. My reading of history is that scientists have been plugging the peer-review mantra because theyre tired of having to respond to ignorant assholes who appear on Oprah spouting nonsense. I mean, yes, you can address wacko claims about vaccines causing autism or the lack of global warming on their merits (they have none), but it gets tiresome to repeat. In any case, relatively few members of the public can follow the actual arguments, so it becomes an issue of who you believe. And thats a hard game to win, since saying "so-and-so doesnt know what theyre talking about" sounds elitist even when its true, and "elitism" (read: "meritocracy") is for some reason unpopular ...
Rediscovery of a snail thought to be extinct has raised questions about the peer-review process that approved the publication of the extinction report.
Research is not complete until it has been reported. Research is no contribution to the scientific community until it is reported, whether through publication or some other means. Reports are a necessary first step in the dialog with other scientists about the approach and significance of the work. Unless research is reported, it is impossible for others to build on what has been learned.. Most organizations reviewing research have specific guidelines regarding confidentiality and conflicts of interest. In addition, many organizations and institutions have guidelines dealing explicitly with the responsibilities of peer reviewers, such as those of the American Chemical Society (1996), the Society for Neuroscience (1999), and the Council of Biology Editors (CBE Peer Review Retreat Consensus Group, 1995).. Publication is not merely a matter of credit. One may wish to publish so as not to perish, but this alone is not enough to justify a reports being published. Publications should present some ...
Discussions about peer review usually revolve around incentivizing peer review, acknowledging reviewers, and making their contribution count. But isnt being a peer reviewer a form of recognition in itself? This post explores this line of thought and questions whether recognition is the strongest motivational factor behind accepting invitations to review.
The Peer Review Form(PDF) is useful for both the reviewer and the writer. Using a form like this ensures that reviewers address the key issues and gives writers a record of the peer feedback that they can use to revise and improve their writing ...
I find it interesting that Raff and Brown begin by drawing such a dichotomy. The alternative to pre-publication peer review is the lawless, wild west-style world of open access, post-publication peer review. Post-publication peer review happens necessarily at the elimination of pre-publication review and the opposite of peer review is 4chan. I find this to be disingenuous ...
Peer review is a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods ... scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Usually, the peer review ... The tradition of peer reviews being done for free has however brought many pitfalls which are also indicative of why most peer ... "Peer Review of Scholarly Journal". www.PeerViewer.com. June 2017.. *^ a b c Christen, Kimberly (2012). "Does Information Really ...
Peer review evaluation. Scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists' manuscripts are submitted by ... External review. The process of peer review involves evaluation of the experiment by experts, who typically give their opinions ... Peer review does not certify correctness of the results, only that, in the opinion of the reviewer, the experiments themselves ... Each element of the scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes. These activities do not describe all ...
Peer review. Glad you found my peer review of Kersal Moor and hope it is helpful. I archived it as it had had no replies in two ... as was the suggestion at the peer review. Some participants at the first AFD, stated that reviews shouldn't be carried out upon ... Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ,,,°° 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC). Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter. The Greater ... It too has recently undergone a peer review, and some criteria has been added to get the page to featured portal status. You ...
Peer review[edit]. Scientific Reports has been described as a mega journal, conceptually similar to PLOS ONE, based on article ... "Editor quits journal over pay-for-expedited peer-review offer". Science Insider. Science/AAAS. Retrieved 23 July 2015.. ... Its peer review model uses a criteria that states for acceptance published articles "must be scientifically valid and ... "Concern raised over payment for fast-track peer review". Nature.com. NPG. Retrieved 1 June 2018.. ...
Peer review[edit]. All research papers published in PNAS are peer-reviewed.[2] The standard mode is for papers to be submitted ... Members may handle the peer review process for up to 4 of their own papers per year-this is an open review process because the ... These submissions and reviews, like all for PNAS, are evaluated for publication by the PNAS Editorial Board. Until July 1, 2010 ... The review process for these papers was anonymous in that the identities of the referees were not revealed to the authors. ...
Peer review[edit]. The first documented description of a peer review process is found in the Ethics of the Physician written by ... Ray Spier (2002), "The history of the peer-review process", Trends in Biotechnology 20 (8), p. 357-358 [357]. ... who describes the first medical peer review process. His work, as well as later Arabic medical manuals, state that a visiting ... the beginning of a peer review process; early ideas on evolution; the beginnings of the scientific method, an important ...
Peer-reviewed journal reports[edit]. *. Zander E (June 1975). "Janov's primal scream therapy". Nervenarzt (in German). 46 (6): ... Papers by Arthur Janov in peer-reviewed journals[edit]. *. Janov A (1977). "Towards a new consciousness". J Psychosom Res. 21 ( ... A 2015 article in the peer-reviewed APA journal Psychology of Consciousness suggested that primal therapy, as well as some ... there have been several reports and critiques relating to primal therapy in books and peer-reviewed journals. ...
Peer-reviewed literature[edit]. There are several academic journals specifically focused on publishing studies and research in ... "review course" can be a disadvantage when required to demonstrate competence in other areas of occupational hygiene. ...
This combination of events ended the ability of physicians to conduct peer review of themselves, and "peer review" of ... "any peer review or accreditation entity,"[1] wresting the notion of peer review by physicians away from the National ... Principles of immunity for peer review participation[edit]. The American Medical Association lobbied for confidentiality and ... It argued that the NPDB would be subjected to reporting of actions by non-peer reviewed committees. Their objection proved ...
Peer Review. Peer Review, Round 2. I think the information in the behavior section is detailed and concise, but it would be ... This review is transcluded from Talk:Bed bug/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.. ... Clinical Microbiological Reviews, 25(1):164-192.. *Stephen Doggett. A Bed Bug Management Policy for Accommodation Providers. ...
Peer review:. *A-class review: None. *Featured content candidates - Articles: None. Pictures: None. Lists: List of National ... on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the ... Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether ... great-wave-erni-vales.jpg (JPEG Image, 750x485 pixels), Harold Olejarz - Wood Waves, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, YVR ...
Peer review. *Eastern chipmunk (request for PR 15-10-10). *. Assessment. Assessment scales[edit]. For the importance scale, use ... Review and assessment[edit]. There is currently a proposed guideline on rating importance to this wikiproject over a Wikipedia: ... Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.. External watchlist[edit]. *Wikiproject Watchlist - ...
Peer review:. *A-class review: None. *Featured content candidates - Articles: None. Pictures: None. Lists: List of National ...
Peer review:. *A-class review: None. *Featured content candidates - Articles: None. Pictures: None. Lists: List of National ...
Peer review:. *A-class review: None. *Featured content candidates - Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: List of National ... Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether ... Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether ... Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether ...
Peer review:. *A-class review: None. *Featured content candidates - Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: List of National ...
Peer review:. *A-class review: None. *Featured content candidates - Articles: None. Pictures: None. Lists: List of National ...
Peer review:. *A-class review: None. *Featured content candidates - Articles: None. Pictures: None. Lists: List of National ...
Peer review:. *A-class review: None. *Featured content candidates - Articles: None. Pictures: None. Lists: List of National ...
Peer Review Moves Slow. What's A Political Scientist To Do?". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved December 20, 2017.. ... Harvard Law Review. 130: 1752. 2017. Retrieved May 16, 2017.. *^ "U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Revive North Carolina Voter-ID ... "Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved June 22, 2013.. *^ "Voting Requirements". NJ Department of State. Retrieved June 22, 2013. ... "Annual Review of Political Science. 20.. *^ "Trump's commission should investigate alien abductions, not voter fraud. There's ...
"Who's Afraid of Peer Review?". Science. 342 (6154): 60-65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60. PMID 24092725. "Who does Peer ... were living up to their promise of rigorously peer-reviewing what is published. This approach was criticized by some ... Review?". Michael Eisen. "I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper". Martin Eve. "Flawed sting operation singles out open ...
... quality control and peer review; and a documented group memory or knowledge base.[18] As groups work together, they develop a ...
WP:Peer review may help.. Battle of Nam River. (as of June 2014). ... B-Class articles may be reviewed by any user with no restrictions whatsoever. However, editors are urged to perform such an ...
WP:Peer review may help.. Battle of Nam River. (as of June 2014). ...
m Peer review ‎ (typo) *15:54, 28 January 2005 (diff , hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m MuMATH ‎ (typo) ...
Open access to scientific peer reviewed publications has evolved from a pilot project with limited scope in FP7 to an ...
Open access peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals.. Learn more Open Access. Dove Medical Press is a member of the OAI. ...
Reviewed:. Mar 29, 2013 by Biology Editorial Board. Overview:. This is an online course in the theory of evolution by natural ...
Reviewed:. Jul 25, 2003 by Teacher Education. Overview:. This site offers support resources for parents, teachers, and parents ...
Review of Canadas development co-operation, held in January 1998, highlighted Canadas special ability to help lead the ... OECD Home DevelopmentPeer reviews of DAC membersCanada (2002), DAC Peer Review Peer reviews of DAC members. ... At the time of the previous Review, it was not possible to think that Canada might untie its aid and provide duty and quota ... This review is also available in The DAC Journal 2002, Vol. 3, No. 4. See attached for full report. ...
Peer Reviewers Provided with Public Comments Before their Review: No. Peer Reviewers:. Dr. Melecita M. Archuleta. ... NIOSH Scientific Information Quality - Peer Review Agenda. Document. NIOSH Method 9110: Beryllium by field-portable ... Thank you for your willingness to do this review. I am attaching a total of seven documents to this email, a simple review form ... but your specific review is of particular importance to us in meeting our objectives for a careful review by subject matter ...
Peer Reviewers Provided with Public Comments Before their Review: No. Peer Reviewers:. Dr. Melecita M. Archuleta. ... Thank you for your willingness to do this review. I am attaching a total of seven documents to this email, a simple review form ... but your specific review is of particular importance to us in meeting our objectives for a careful review by subject matter ... Please send your review directly to me, by email at [email protected] or by regular mail at the address shown below. We would ...
It provides an overview of peer review, the components of peer review, and the role of internal peer review in practice. (CEUs ... There are basically 2 types of peer review: Internal and external. Internal peer review is a review a physical therapist ... Peer Review of Physical Therapy Services (HOD P06-04-16-15) states: "Peer review of physical therapy services is provided only ... Become familiar with peer review, include terminology, internal vs external peer review, and the important first step of self- ...
Peer Review Report Fiscal Year 2016 Default Investment Alternatives Under Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans ... Peer Review. Peer Review Report. *Fiscal Year 2016. Default Investment Alternatives Under Participant-Directed Individual ... Peer Review Report - Completed pursuant to the OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review and cited in the ... EBSAs Response to Peer Review Reports - Response to peer reviews of highly influential scientific assessment that underlies ...
... reviews, news, features, commentaries, web focuses and more, covering all branches of science and how science impacts upon all ... Peer review needs to adapt to the pace and volume of information published online. How does the role of peer review evolve when ... But this system cannot be a substitute for peer review by experts. A peer-reviewed post-print is fundamentally a static ... and once the article has passed peer review.. The peer-review stage will continue to be essential for ensuring that the body of ...
... reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer reviewed piece ... Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer‐​review literature is!" ... The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer‐​reviewed science that it found ... The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer‐​reviewed science that it found ...
Peer Review at Science Publications As a peer reviewer for Science magazine, you are part of a valued community. Scientific ... Science now gives the opportunity for cross-review. Once all reviews are in, you will be invited to read the other reviews and ... Cross-review is not required. If we do not receive comments we will proceed based on the reviews in hand. In cases where the ... Some Additional Resources for the Peer Review Process. Download Sciences Instructions for Reviewers (PDF Format) ...
Peer-to-peer teaching reviews are intended to offer an opportunity for constructive conversations about teaching between ... Peer-to-Peer Teaching Review. Peer-to-peer teaching reviews are intended to offer an opportunity for constructive conversations ... Ideally, peer observation allows an instructor to identify the kind of skills, practices and procedures that can be improved ... For the purpose of this review, the instructor will provide information about their course in the Instructors Form and the ...
The Peer-Review Process The Tree of Life peer-review works similar to the procedure adopted by many scientific journals. Pages ... Tree of Life Peer Review. Peer-review, the critical evaluation of manuscripts by professional colleagues, is the traditional ... of Life implements a formal peer-review system. Currently, there are only a few peer-reviewed pages on the ToL, but their ... Only those pages that are labelled peer-reviewed have successfully completed the review process. Once a page has successfully ...
Development Co-operation DirectoratePeer reviews of DAC membersFrance - OECD Development Co-operation Peer Review, 2013 Peer ... peer review recommendations from 2008. ‌. Read more on the progress made on the implementation of the recommendations from 2008 ... OECDs review of French aid commends the countrys overall strategic vision for development and its engagement at the global ... The review recommends, however, that France do more to support civil society organisations and gender equality, and to build ...
HFMAs Peer Review process provides healthcare financial managers with an objective, third-party evaluation of products, ... Peer Review Questions? If you would like more information about the benefits of HFMAs Peer Review program, contact the Peer ... Peer Review FAQs What does the Peer Review process evaluate? What is involved with each of the 11 steps in the process? We ... Become a Peer Review Panelist HFMA is always looking for providers to serve as Peer Review panelists. Learn more and apply ...
... a peer-reviewed journal. The data he reported on Sept. 10, here, at the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical ... The Natural History of Peer Reviewer Performance: Changes Over Time. Paper presented at International Congress on Peer Review ... Does a Mentoring Program for New Peer Reviewers Improve Their Review Quality? A Randomized Controlled Trial. Paper presented at ... The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality. PLoS Medicine 4( ...
... "peer-review" than some of the papers I submitted to official publications. I wish all peer review was as helpful and ... that it should only published as peer-reviewed work. I dont buy that suggestion. ...
... is also peer-reviewed. Source:. Discovery Institute. 2005. Peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting the theory of ... One weeks worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review. Virtually none ... conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review ... The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite ...
... recently reviewed its Patient-Pay Optimization solution using the Peer Review process. After undergoing the rigorous review, ... Peer Review status of the product or service and its performance claims are based on effectiveness, quality and usability, ... The Peer Reviewed designation helps both members and non-members identify superior products and services. It can also create ... HFMAs Peer Review process provides our membership with the assurance that those who have earned the designation have undergone ...
... the Institute of Creation Research is starting a peer-reviewed journal, and is putting out ... ... In case you havent seen this on other reality-based blogs, the Institute of Creation Research is starting a peer-reviewed ... 2. Review the Paper for possible inclusion into the IJCR review process. The following criteria are to be used in judging the ...
Peer review works for science, but can it work for the courts? Properly done, peer review nearly always involves some level of ... Putting Scientific Peer Review in the Courtroom. How an age-old technique can help courts solve their junk-science problem ... That solution is peer review.. Historically, courts have adopted two basic approaches to the challenge of assessing validity at ... Peer review has the potential to provide judges a sorely needed window into mainstream science. Through that window, courts are ...
This peer review discussion has been closed.. Ive listed this article for peer review because it is the second satellite ... If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is ... Article (edit , visual edit , history) · Article talk (edit , history) · Watch · Watch peer review. Automated suggestions can ... This is going to take me a couple days, so keep the peer review page on your watchlist if you dont mind, and Ill let you know ...
A. Peer Review Roles and Meeting Overview Scientific Review Officer: Each SRG is led by a Scientific Review Officer (SRO). The ... First Level of Review Initial peer review meetings are administered by either the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) or one of ... First Level of Review - Scientific Review Groups * Peer Review Roles and Meeting Overview ... Ensure they maintain the confidentiality of peer review information (See Integrity and Confidentiality in NIH Peer Review) ...
homeNCEH/ATSDR Scientific Information Quality - Peer Review Agenda. *Assessment of the Evidence for the Drinking Water ... Timing of Review (including deferrals): September 2014. Type of Review (panel, individual or alternative procedure): Individual ... Page last reviewed: August 18, 2015 Content source: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ... Peer Review Agenda: Toxicological Profile for Toluene ... Peer Reviewers Provided with Public Comments before the Review: ...
DISPOSITION OF PEER REVIEW COMMENTS FOR TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR GLYPHOSATE (First Round of Peer Review) pdf icon[PDF - 452 KB ... DISPOSITION OF PEER REVIEW COMMENTS FOR TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR GLYPHOSATE (Second Round of Peer Review) pdf icon[PDF - 212 ... Romano has numerous peer reviewed publications, and research grants. He is a member of the Bioethics Committee of the ICB /USP ... NCEH/ATSDR Scientific Information Quality - Peer Review Agenda *Assessment of the Evidence for the Drinking Water Contaminants ...
  • APTA's position is that physical therapists are the preferred peer reviewers of physical therapist services. (apta.org)
  • Charge to Peer Reviewers - This charge provides instructions to the selected peer reviewers as required by OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, 70 FR 2664 (Jan 14, 2005). (dol.gov)
  • The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Board. (sciencemag.org)
  • By soliciting the critical input of independent peer-reviewers, we hope to move closer to our goal of ensuring that each Tree of Life page provides a comprehensive, balanced synthesis of the current views about a given group of organisms, including the phylogeny of the group. (tolweb.org)
  • The major criterion for the selection of potential reviewers is their scholarly expertise as demonstrated by their publication record on the organisms represented on the page to be reviewed. (tolweb.org)
  • An explicit definition of the review criteria is given on a linked page, Notes for Reviewers , which summarizes our guidelines for the design and content of contributions to the Tree of Life. (tolweb.org)
  • It would give courts a window into the mainstream views of the respective scientific field, and the reports of peer reviewers would provide neutral evaluations of the bases for the expert opinion. (scientificamerican.com)
  • The same process can easily be adapted to evaluate expert testimony, with independent, anonymous scientists acting as peer reviewers, just as they do for scientific journals. (scientificamerican.com)
  • Scientist peer reviewers do not themselves get embroiled in litigation, because they do not operate as experts for either party. (scientificamerican.com)
  • The Washington Post reports that the Journal of Vibration and Control's review system was hijacked by a ring of reviewers. (slashdot.org)
  • After a 14-month investigation, JVC determined the ring involved "aliases" and fake e-mail addresses of reviewers - up to 130 of them - in an apparently successful effort to get friendly reviews of submissions and as many articles published as possible by Chen and his friends. (slashdot.org)
  • The standard practice is to form a unspoken agreement between several reviewers that they will all favorably review each others papers. (slashdot.org)
  • The agency is seeking nominations of peer reviewers, providing draft charge questions and including a report related to draft scientific modeling approaches. (epa.gov)
  • The report will discuss modeling approaches, propose input parameters, and review various exposure scenarios for the peer reviewers to consider. (epa.gov)
  • Model values presented in the draft report are included to better illustrate the draft approaches for the peer reviewers. (epa.gov)
  • EPA will not be asking the peer reviewers to select a specific value or to provide input on the specific role for a health-based value in proposed revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). (epa.gov)
  • May 25, 2017 - EPA is announcing the peer reviewers and providing meeting logistics. (epa.gov)
  • EPA is announcing the nominated peer reviewers and requesting public comment on the nominations. (epa.gov)
  • January 19, 2017 - Request for Nominations for Peer Reviewers and for Public Comment on Peer Review Materials To Inform the Derivation of a Water Concentration Value for Lead in Drinking Water. (epa.gov)
  • Peer reviewers serve as the voice of our readership, and provide constructive criticism related to the scientific merit, as well as the overall interest, that a manuscript may convey once it is published. (acfas.org)
  • Even though JFAS uses a group of Section Editors, consisting of individuals with a wide range of expertise and knowledge, much of our decisions are still based on the recommendations of the peer reviewers that are invited to comment on the merits of any given article. (acfas.org)
  • The role that peer reviewers play in regard to the quality of a scientific journal cannot be over estimated. (acfas.org)
  • We are very proud and appreciative of the time and energy that our peer reviewers put forth on behalf of JFAS . (acfas.org)
  • Over the past 15 years peer reviewers for The BMJ have shown, by signing their reviews and declaring to authors and editors any relevant competing interests, that they are unafraid of transparent scientific discourse. (bmj.com)
  • Clicking on this will open the article's prepublication history, comprising all signed reviews (including those by statisticians and patient peer reviewers), previous versions of the article, the study protocol for any clinical trial, the report from The BMJ 's manuscript committee meeting, and the authors' responses to the editors' and reviewers' comments. (bmj.com)
  • As now, reviewers will not be able to make private comments to editors, except in the rare case when a reviewer wants to express concerns about the scientific integrity of the work ( www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/guidance-peer-reviewers ). (bmj.com)
  • Such open peer review should increase the accountability of reviewers and editors, at least to some extent. (bmj.com)
  • Importantly, it will also give due credit and prominence to the vital work of peer reviewers. (bmj.com)
  • We hope that reviewers will find this increased visibility helpful when demonstrating the extent and impact of their academic work and that they and others will cite and share their reviews as a learning resource. (bmj.com)
  • One of the trials also found that telling reviewers that prepublication histories might be posted online did not affect the quality of peer review. (bmj.com)
  • They also looked at changes requested by peer reviewers and at authors' subsequent responses. (bmj.com)
  • Editors of reputable journals reject them out of hand before sending them to peer reviewers. (nutraingredients.com)
  • Two independent reviewers assessed study quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines and interventions summarized using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist. (nih.gov)
  • It is very important for peer reviewers to feel part of the process until the final editorial decision. (wiley.com)
  • Editors must always be aware not to overwork excellent peer reviewers. (wiley.com)
  • They can offer support to experienced colleagues with limited peer reviewing experience and discuss with colleagues and students (the future reviewers) the altruistic rewards of participating in peer review with the aim to inspire them to contribute. (wiley.com)
  • These biases are generally attributed to cognitive biases held by individual peer reviewers. (lse.ac.uk)
  • For example, gender bias in peer review is explained by the (explicit or implicit) gender bias of individual peer reviewers, as evidenced by the generally lower scores given to submissions authored by women. (lse.ac.uk)
  • Here I introduce the notion of "purely statistical biases": biases in peer review that arise even when individual peer reviewers are unbiased. (lse.ac.uk)
  • 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. (frontiersin.org)
  • These reports summarize the comments of expert peer reviewers at the Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation, where each year projects funded by DOE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program are reviewed for their merit. (energy.gov)
  • The implication of statement (1) above is that LC09 basically skated through the peer-review process unchanged, and the selected reviewers had no problems with the paper. (realclimate.org)
  • Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports. (umich.edu)
  • Evaluation of manuscripts is carried out by the journal's Editors and the invited external peer reviewers according to the following procedures. (benthamscience.com)
  • Before sending the manuscripts to a reviewer, Bentham Science seeks consent from potential reviewers about their availability and willingness to carry out a review. (benthamscience.com)
  • The reviewers are expected to provide their reports in a timely fashion since a prompt review leads to the timely publication of a manuscript which is beneficial not only for the authors but for the scientific community as well. (benthamscience.com)
  • Reviewers must agree to abide by these protocols before being presented with any review material. (esrc.ac.uk)
  • Open peer review is a process in which names of reviewers of papers submitted to academic journals are disclosed to the authors of the papers in question. (wikipedia.org)
  • In some cases, as with the BMJ and BioMed Central, the process also involves posting the entire pre-publication history of the article online, including not only signed reviews of the article, but also its previous versions and author responses to the reviewers. (wikipedia.org)
  • Possible advantages to an open peer-review system include reviewers being "more tactful and constructive" than they would be if they could remain anonymous. (wikipedia.org)
  • It has also been argued that open review leads to more honest reviewing and prevents reviewers from following their individual agendas, as well as leading to the detection of reviewers' conflicts of interests. (wikipedia.org)
  • A study of BioMed Central medical journals, all of which use open peer review, found that reviewers usually did not notice problems or request changes in reporting of the results of randomized trials. (wikipedia.org)
  • Reviewers should include such comments in the confidential section of the review form, which is intended to be read by the editors only. (benthamscience.com)
  • The effectiveness and sustainability of the peer review processes depends on scientific and consumer reviewers with wide-ranging expertise in cancer research, who have donated their time to ensuring the efficacy of this process. (nbcf.org.au)
  • NBCF have a total of 242 approved peer reviewers, of which approx 81 reviewed in 2019, and 70 reviewed in 2018. (nbcf.org.au)
  • Make the best use of Researched information from 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals operated by 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical , Clinical , Pharmaceutical , Engineering , Technology and Management Fields. (omicsonline.org)
  • Given that FWS has reissued for a second public review the exact same proposal found by the peer reviewers to be scientifically deficient, it is not clear if FWS plans to make any substantive changes to the proposed delisting rule before issuing the final rule. (rewilding.org)
  • We are assuming here that FWS will either (1) issue the final delisting rule without substantively addressing the scientific deficiencies found by the peer reviewers, or (2) further delay the release of a final rule to allow FWS biologists time to address the scientific deficiencies found by the peer reviewers. (rewilding.org)
  • We note, however, that the peer reviewers and the FWS are in agreement that Canis lupus baileyi is a unique and taxonomically distinct subspecies of Canis lupus deserving of separate protection and recovery actions under the ESA. (rewilding.org)
  • The only disagreement between the peer reviewers and the FWS is over the probable historic range of the Mexican wolf. (rewilding.org)
  • Decisions about manuscripts are made by editors, not peer reviewers. (amamanualofstyle.com)
  • Editors are obliged to be courteous to peer reviewers, provide them with guidance and explicit instructions, assign only those papers that are appropriate to specific reviewers (in terms of reviewer expertise and interest), maintain confidentiality if using blind or anonymous review, provide reviewers with sufficient time to conduct their review, and avoid overworking them. (amamanualofstyle.com)
  • The public peer review meeting will be held on June 27 and 28, 2017 in Washington DC. (epa.gov)
  • March 6, 2017 - EPA is extending the deadline for written comments on the draft lead modeling report and draft peer review panel charge questions for an additional 30 days, from March 6, 2017, to April 5, 2017. (epa.gov)
  • The deadline for nominating peer review candidates remains at February 21, 2017. (epa.gov)
  • By considering 9,220 submissions and 18,525 reviews from 2010 to 2017, we measured changes both before and during the pilot and found that publishing reports did not significantly compromise referees' willingness to review, recommendations, or turn-around times. (nature.com)
  • Starting with 62,790 individual observations, including 9220 submissions and 18,525 completed reviews from 2010 to 2017, we estimated referee behavior before and during the pilot in a quasi natural experiment. (nature.com)
  • APTA is opposed to any activities related to peer review that may adversely impact a physical therapist's plan of care or intervention without the involvement of a physical therapist peer reviewer. (apta.org)
  • Instructions provided by EBSA to the peer reviewer pursuant to the OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. (dol.gov)
  • As a peer reviewer for Science magazine, you are part of a valued community. (sciencemag.org)
  • If, as a reviewer, you believe that you are not qualified to evaluate a component of the research, you should inform the editor in your review. (sciencemag.org)
  • Reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. (sciencemag.org)
  • For the purpose of this review, the instructor will provide information about their course in the Instructor's Form and the reviewer will record their observations on the Reviewer's Form. (umass.edu)
  • Reviews are usually conducted on-line, with the reviewer typing comments about individual sections of a contribution into the windows of a structured evaluation form provided on a special peer-review web page. (tolweb.org)
  • Also serves as a peer reviewer for the meeting. (nih.gov)
  • It is the peer reviewer who, after initial editorial consideration, comments on the meaningfulness, and the potential interest, that a manuscript may have for our readers. (acfas.org)
  • The peer reviewer, therefore, serves as an important critic of the "content matter" that is contained in a manuscript. (acfas.org)
  • If you are interested in serving as a peer reviewer for JFAS , I encourage you to go to our website ( jfas.org ), and click on the "Journal Information: Become a Reviewer" link listed in the menu of options located on the left-hand side of the page. (acfas.org)
  • In this way, you can sign up to become a peer reviewer for JFAS , and provide our editors with useful information that will enable us to readily identify your areas of interest and contact information. (acfas.org)
  • At JFAS the entire process of manuscript submission and editing is carried out electronically, so it is important to include your email address when you sign up to be a peer reviewer. (acfas.org)
  • For an editor, the main challenge is to find a peer reviewer who is unlikely to be biased against the submission due to being known for having a conflicting perspective to the author's. (wiley.com)
  • the reviewer can view the full proposal, together with any associated documents, before deciding whether he/she wishes to undertake the review. (esrc.ac.uk)
  • 4. When I first tried to access the peer review documents I've been sent, I got to a screen called 'Reviewer Protocols' and couldn't get any further. (esrc.ac.uk)
  • The 'Reviewer Protocols' outline the Research Councils' expectations regarding issues such as confidentiality of the material contained in the review documents and conflicts of interest. (esrc.ac.uk)
  • You will need to agree to the Reviewer Protocols prior to accessing the review materials. (esrc.ac.uk)
  • Properly done, peer review nearly always involves some level of anonymous evaluation by scientists actively engaged in similar research. (scientificamerican.com)
  • Each FOA specifies all of the review criteria and considerations that will be used in the evaluation of applications submitted for that FOA. (nih.gov)
  • EPA is initiating a peer review of draft scientific modeling approaches to inform EPA's evaluation of potential health-based benchmarks for lead in drinking water. (epa.gov)
  • After having conducted the four Milestones, this week you will upload your final project for review evaluation by your peers. (coursera.org)
  • Reviews should be objective evaluations of the research. (sciencemag.org)
  • The SRO is an NIH extramural staff scientist and the designated federal official responsible for ensuring that each application receives an objective and fair initial peer review, and that all applicable laws, regulations, and policies are followed. (nih.gov)
  • Healthy, efficient, and objective peer review untainted by personal or professional bias is essential. (wiley.com)
  • Younger and non-academic scholars were more willing to accept to review and provided more positive and objective recommendations. (nature.com)
  • Panels are composed of dentists with appropriate credentials who conduct hearings, review evidence, and make objective decisions based on their findings. (wsda.org)
  • Read the report below or review a copy in the docket EPA-OW-2016-0686 . (epa.gov)
  • Dr. Portier previously served as Chair on the Peer Review Advisory Panel for the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC) (2016) and as Chair on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Draft Risk Assessment Work Plan Chemical for 1-Bromopropane (2016). (epa.gov)
  • Here, we use an experiment in peer review amongst project members to assess variation in the assessment of uncertainties between EQUIP researchers. (springer.com)
  • Become familiar with peer review, include terminology, internal vs external peer review, and the important first step of self-assessment. (apta.org)
  • We greatly appreciate the time spent in preparing a review, and will consult you on a revision of a manuscript only if we believe the paper has been significantly improved but still requires input. (sciencemag.org)
  • Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. (sciencemag.org)
  • It is important to understand, too, that it is not the peer reviewer's job to edit a manuscript in regard to issues related to grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling, and other items related to formatting and style, since these duties are the responsibility of authors and the editors. (acfas.org)
  • PLOS recommends the use of latexdiff to track changes in the manuscript PDF during review, as this will help to maintain a clean tex file. (plos.org)
  • The services of Senior Editors and Editorial Board Members are sought through invitations to organize and conduct the peer-review of a submitted manuscript, keeping in view the scope of the manuscript and the expertise of Editors. (benthamscience.com)
  • Editors may recommend the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript by conducting the peer review themselves, based on their own knowledge and experience, or they may take assistance and advice from other experts in the field. (benthamscience.com)
  • The author does not know who has conducted the review on his or her manuscript. (benthamscience.com)
  • A review report provides the Editor-in-Chief/Senior Editor with an expert opinion on the quality of the manuscript under consideration. (benthamscience.com)
  • They should consult the EiC/Senior Editor and obtain permission before consulting another colleague for help in the peer-review of the submitted manuscript. (benthamscience.com)
  • Before performing peer review on others, it is important that you perform a self-assessment to reflect on your strengths and areas for improvement. (apta.org)
  • EBSA's Response to Peer Review Reports - Response to peer reviews of highly influential scientific assessment that underlies EBSAs Regulatory Impact Analysis of its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (dol.gov)
  • The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State Ireland and the co-rapporteur Member States Czech Republic, France and Poland for the pesticide active substance sulfoxaflor and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) are reported. (europa.eu)
  • The reliable endpoints concluded as being appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, derived from the available studies and literature in the dossier peer reviewed, are presented. (europa.eu)
  • To provide wide-ranging scientific review of the sponsor's assessment, each submission undergoes review and discussion by a peer consultation panel. (tera.org)
  • The purpose of the panel meeting is to provide a science-based peer consultation on the data needs for the chemical, utilizing the assessment submitted by the sponsor, as well as the expertise and knowledge of the panel. (tera.org)
  • Members of the peer consultation panels are selected by TERA based on their expertise in scientific disciplines relevant to the chemicals, test methodologies, and risk assessment issues that will be discussed. (tera.org)
  • Members of the public are invited to attend the peer consultation meetings and may provide brief oral and written technical comments on the assessment document for the panel's consideration. (tera.org)
  • The committee, which provides independent expert assessment of chemical and chemical-related matters facing EPA, met in May to review EPA's draft risk assessment for 1-BP. (aiha.org)
  • CSAC's peer review report concludes that EPA's draft risk assessment "appropriately uses a high-end estimate for worker exposure. (aiha.org)
  • EPA's draft risk assessment was developed as a part of EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Work Plan , which identifies chemicals for review and assessment of potential risks to human health and the environment. (aiha.org)
  • How does the role of peer review evolve when the body of scholarly knowledge expands from slowly circulating, static documents to the universe of rushing, dynamic interactions made possible by the Internet? (nature.com)
  • Dr. Bakshi was a consultant for medical insurance companies for medical decisions, concurrent and retrospective case review, level II and II appeals, and utilization reviews, peer reviews in accordance with the healthcare quality act, individual reviews for quality severity level and corrective action. (experts.com)
  • The PEER 1 deal adds significant data center capacity to Cogeco, as the hosting company operates 19 data centers in North America and Europe. (thewhir.com)
  • Peer Review Report - Completed pursuant to the OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review and cited in the Regulatory Impact Analysis included in the Proposed Rule - Annual Reporting and Disclosure. (dol.gov)
  • In addition, as indicated by Carl Lagoze and Sandy Payette of the Pathways project at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, there may be multiple quality metrics beyond the 'OK/not-OK' of peer review, depending on the audience for the information. (nature.com)
  • Peer Review status of the product or service and its performance claims are based on effectiveness, quality and usability, price, value, and customer and technical support. (prweb.com)
  • Goldbeck--Wood, S. "Evidence on Peer Review: Scientific Quality Control or Smokescreen? (umich.edu)
  • Editorial Peer--Review for Improving the Quality of Reports of Biomedical Studies. (umich.edu)
  • Dr. Bakshi is a Diplomat of the American Board of Quality Assurance and Utilization Review Physicians (ABQAURP) with a Sub-Specialty Certification in Managed Care Healthcare Quality and Management (CHCQM) in 1995. (experts.com)
  • 1. a basic component of a quality assurance program in which the results of health care given to a specific patient population are evaluated according to health-wellness outcome criteria established by peers of the professionals delivering the care. (thefreedictionary.com)
  • Some studies have also found that open peer review is associated with an increase in quality of reviews, although other studies have not found such an association. (wikipedia.org)
  • By running the Gómez Peer software, you are taking part in a huge quality control exercise for Gómez's customers, forming as they choose to call it, the Last Mile. (ciao.co.uk)
  • Peer review of physical therapist services offers a framework to evaluate the processes, necessity, and, appropriateness of those services. (apta.org)
  • When the designation "Peer Reviewed by HFMA" is earned, you know that those products and services have been rigorously evaluated. (hfma.org)
  • After undergoing the rigorous review, Connance's Patient-Pay Optimization solution has been awarded the 'Peer Reviewed by HFMA®' designation. (prweb.com)
  • Short List products, services, and ROI calculators have earned the designation "Peer Reviewed by HFMA. (hfma.org)
  • If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review or you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation. (sciencemag.org)
  • On at least one occasion, the author Peter Chen reviewed his own paper under one of the aliases he created,' according to the SAGE announcement. (slashdot.org)
  • This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. (frontiersin.org)
  • One only has to read a few science blogs to discover that personal ideology is routinely ensconced behind paper-thin "peer review" façades. (icr.org)
  • According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick , it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein's was ever subject to peer review. (michaelnielsen.org)
  • The Einstein-Rosen paper was sent out for review, and came back with a (correct, as it turned out) negative report. (michaelnielsen.org)
  • In fact, the authors were selected by AES to receive a 'Best Peer-Reviewed Paper' award for their work. (tcelectronic.com)
  • Cogeco says the board of directors for PEER 1 has unanimously supported the offer, following the advice of a special committee created to evaluate the offer. (thewhir.com)
  • Scholars criticize and evaluate the work of their peers before it appears formally in print. (southampton.ac.uk)
  • 1. The last Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Review of Canada's development co-operation, held in January 1998, highlighted Canada's special ability to help lead the international community towards action which pushes out the frontiers of international co-operation. (oecd.org)
  • The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State Austria for the pesticide active substance sodium hydrogen carbonate are reported. (europa.eu)
  • The full peer review report is available on EPA's website ( PDF ). (aiha.org)
  • Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV) assessments support the U.S. EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment by identifying and characterizing the health hazards of chemicals of concern to the Superfund and RCRA Programs, and providing an important source of toxicity information and toxicity values for such chemicals. (epa.gov)
  • As a result of this joint review, the following comments and responses address both methods. (cdc.gov)
  • Once all reviews are in, you will be invited to read the other reviews and make additional comments within 2 business days. (sciencemag.org)
  • If we do not receive comments we will proceed based on the reviews in hand. (sciencemag.org)
  • If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). (wikipedia.org)
  • Make recommendations concerning the scientific and technical merit of applications under review, in the form of final written comments and numerical scores. (nih.gov)
  • The sponsor also is given the opportunity to review the draft report to confirm the accuracy of the sponsor presentations and comments. (tera.org)
  • The review reports are edited by Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor if the comments contain confidential information or these are written in a language not suitable for scholarly communication. (benthamscience.com)
  • Distinguish yourself as a leader among your peers and advance your career by earning certification in our healthcare finance programs. (hfma.org)
  • It can also create brand awareness and recognition in the healthcare finance marketplace for Peer Reviewed products and services. (prweb.com)
  • Dr. Portier has participated in over 60 EPA FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel meetings (1999 to 2013) and five EPA Science Advisory Board Review Panels (2012 to 2015). (epa.gov)
  • Improve your revenue cycle performance through standard metrics, peer comparison, and successful practices. (hfma.org)