Acts of Kindness in the Peer Review Process

Moving toward a more objective peer review process

The American Journal of Psychiatry Residents' Journal: Training the Next Generation of Academic Psychiatrists.

Civility in Nursing Peer Review: Giving and Receiving Feedback

Peer Review: The Best of the Blemished?

A hallmark of professional practice, nursing peer review is the process by which practicing RNs systematically assess, monitor, and give feedback to peers about the quality of nursing care measured against professional standards of practice.1 Nursing peer review supports self-regulation of clinical

Dispirited Away: The Peer Review Process

Anesthesia Safety: Model or Myth?: A Review of the Published Literature and Analysis of Current Original Data Robert Lagasse; Anesthesiology

Legal scholarship has an ambiguous identity, somewhere between the humanities and the social sciences, having features in common with both. It shares many of the characteristics of social sciences since the law is a social phenomenon, but when normativity and legal certainty are concerned, legal scholarship is probably closer to humanities (Peruginelli & Faro, 2018). At the same time law is distinct from both. There is an interesting debate on the role of academic legal research in which consideration is given to 'law as a practical discipline', 'law as humanities' and 'law as social sciences' (Siems & Mac Sithigh, 2012). Because of the peculiarities of legal scholarship, it is not easy to assess legal journals according to the standard quantitative metrics applied in social sciences, and qualitative assessment of the published content is more appropriate. Therefore, we compared the peer review process employed by legal journals in three countries, Croatia, Italy and Spain, to find out their characteristics. In this study, 34 Croatian, 36 Spanish and 40 Italian law journals (selected randomly from the 153 top ranking Italian law journals) were analysed. For each journal, we collected basic set of metadata, as well as a document providing the description of the peer-review process. We collected 107 documents in four languages (English, Croatian, Italian and Spanish) which were analysed in order to find out characteristics of the peer review process. For text analysis, we developed an extensive categorization dictionary. Nine main categories in the Categorization dictionary are peer review (process and reviewers), reviewer's characteristics (academic level, autonomy, competence), reviewer's provenance (external, internal), peer review blindness/openness (single-blind, double-blind, open), number of reviewers (one, two), evaluation criteria for submissions (originality, methods, relevance, clarity, accuracy, etc.), peer review outcome (report, acceptance, rejection), ethical issues (editorial standards and codes, conflict of interests, confidentiality, research integrity), manuscript type (original scientific article, professional article, etc.). The most frequent categories are "peer review", "submissions' evaluation criteria" and "manuscript type", present in more than 90% of the collected documents. "Reviewer's competences" are the most represented subcategory in "“reviewer's characteristics“, as high level of reviewers expertise in the legal sciences is important for law journals. 73% of analyzed journals are declaring anonymous peer review, 25% double-blind peer review, and only one journal employ single-blind peer review. 42% of documents contained information on "two reviewers", 8% "one reviewer" and 7% "three or more reviewers". Ethical issues are certainly under-represented in documents describing peer review process and editorial policies issued by Italian, Spanish and Croatian law journals. Only 32% of the documents mention conflict of interests, and all other subcategories are present even less than 30%. Croatian legal journals are addressing research misconduct and different publication types more than the other two countries. Also, they consider manuscript originality as very important, but some important submission evaluation criteria, reviewer characteristics and peer review outcomes are not present. On the other hand, Spanish legal journals are addressing more reviewer's competences, but some important ethical issues are missing. Italian legal journals take care about the reviewer's competences, academic level and objectivity, as well as anonymity of the peer review process, but expected peer review outcomes and ethical issues should be mentioned in a greater extent.

The present study investigated the types of peer reviews and revisions by Korean EFL college students on their writing, and described students’ perception towards peer review. It comprised of a sample of twelve college students joined in this peer review and revision process through surveys and in-depth interviews. The results demonstrate that the participants’ peer review paid more attention to addition and positive praise, and their revisions focused on corrections, additions, and no revision. Based on the holistic and analytic scoring results, it indicates that the peer review activity did not reach the expected increase in writing quality. However, participants increased in C-test scores and vocabulary, and employed many writing strategies from their peers. After the peer review process, the participants recognized that the peer review interaction helped them improve their learning: how to share ideas, organize their writing, compare different thoughts of peers, read each other’s writings, and find out their own strengths and weaknesses. The results showed that the participants became more positive towards writing in English because they became less anxious in writing as they repeatedly engaged in the peer review process.

Double- vs single-blind peer review effect on acceptance rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Peer review on the Internet: A better class of conversation

The peer review process and JSES procedures

Peer Review of Scholarly Work.

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

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