Critical Review Process Research Articles

Comment on ’The Critical Review Process According to ISO 14040-43: An Analysis of the Standards and Experiences Gained in their Application’ by Walter Klöpffer, Int J LCA 10 (2) 98-102 (2005)

Comment on ’The Critical Review Process According to ISO 14040-43: An Analysis of the Standards and Experiences Gained in their Application’ by Walter Klöpffer, Int J LCA 10 (2) 98-102 (2005)

The Critical Review Process According to ISO 14040-43: An Analysis of the Standards and Experiences Gained in their Application (5 pp)

The critical review is an important, though not always well understood and correctly applied element of Life Cycle Assessment studies. It is the intention of this paper to analyse the relevant standards and to present personal experiences in conducting critical reviews. A peer review for LCA-studies was first proposed in the SETAC guidelines ‘A Code of Practice’ (1993). The ISO standard 14040 (1997) describes three types of ‘Critical review’ which are optional in general, but mandatory ‘for LCA studies used to make a comparative assertion that is disclosed to the public’. For this purpose, the most comprehensive form according to section 7.3.3, the panel method, has to be (‘shall’ in ISO terminology) be used. From personal experience, this method is found to be the most frequently performed in practice (60%), the average panel size being three experts. Large panels with more than 4 experts are rare. Personal experience leads to supporting the recommendation by SETAC of the accompanying or ‘interactive’ critical review, which should be preferred, over the review ‘a posteriori’, which offers considerable risks in regards to the duration and costs of an LCA study. ISO 14040, on the other hand, does not recommend one or the other way of performing the critical review.

Editorial: phys. stat. sol. (a) 201/5

Physica status solidi was founded in 1961 by a number of eminent solid state physicists as an attempt to overcome the iron curtain, which then separated East and West, at least in the field of science. Since that time our world has changed quite a bit, and so have the boundary conditions of science publishing. However, one thing has not changed: then as now, the general policy and development of a respectable scientific journal should be determined by a board of independent scientists, who volunteer to assume responsibility for the scientific content of the journal, to assure a fair and critical peer review process for all submitted manuscripts, and, in cases of conflict, to finally decide which papers will be published and which will not. As a matter of fact, an international Board of Editors which consists of scientists coming from different countries and continents, with a good reputation in their respective community, and without any conflict of interest with the Publisher of the journal is, in my opinion, these days more important than ever. As our daily scientific work becomes increasingly specialized, but at the same time also increasingly interdisciplinary, we are more and more forced to trust the quality and reliability of published scientific results in the literature, without really having a chance to come to an independent opinion on our own. This is one of the reasons why the many recent cases of plagiarism, scientific misconduct, or outright fraud have caused such a high level of public awareness. It is quite clear that without a serious peer review there would be an even larger number of such cases in the literature, and that without the responsible action taken by concerned Journal Editors, many of the revealed cases probably would have remained “under the carpet”. It is, therefore, a particular pleasure for me to introduce to you on the following pages the current Editorial Board ofphysica status solidi (a) in the form of a brief curriculum vitae, a photograph, and an e-mail address (in case you want to contact our Editors directly!). Of course, since 1961 the Editorial Board of our journal has undergone many changes and will continue to do so, but we always have attempted to maintain a good balance between the different areas of solid state physics, between theory and experiment, and between different countries. And although nothing is perfect, I hope that you will find at least one or two board members, who are known to you through their contributions to the literature in solid state physics. For me, this is the perfect occasion to thank all Members of the Editorial Board, past and present, for their advice, continuing support, and dedication! Vielen herzlichen Dank!

Back Stage atSocial Problems: An Analysis of the Editorial Decision Process, 1993–1996

The publication of scholarly papers in professional journals certifies new contributions to knowledge, as well as the skills of the authors who have subjected their work to a process of critical review. The peer review process, designed to attract quality research with the use of objective practices, cannot avoid the infusion of particularistic judgments. This study examines how more than 600 manuscripts submitted to Social Problems were processed by its editor and associate editor. It traces the influences of manuscript, author, and reviewer characteristics as papers are judged, initially by the editor, subsequently by expert reviewers, and, once again, by the editor. The reviewers' recommendations, although often reflecting disagreement, outweigh all the other measured factors that may affect the editor's decisions. The editors, however, remain obligated to formulate credible accounts of the decision process, especially when a final disposition departs from the recommendation made by expert reviewers.

Participation of works councils opportunities and Risks Involved in Participation of Works Councils in the Critical Review Process Against the Background of the Current Political Debate

What’s necessary for this purpose is an appropriate qualification of the workers’ representatives. The foundations for this are offered by a project promoted by the Foundation on Work and Environment and sponsored by the Federal Environmental Agency, and whose aim it is, among other things, to obtain workers’ representatives as critical review experts who are involved at various levels in the environmental balance process. This could be put into effect through a solution with funds to which the companies should contribute as well.

The observer's role and the process of critical review

The intention in this paper is to present a framework of critique which can be used to evaluate OR and determine (1) whether it is possible for OR to address its missing systemic, interdisciplinary components and (2) whether OR might address the practical (human) considerations often found in complex problem situations. The discussion begins with hierarchy theory and the work of C. West Churchman and moves towards incorporating those insights into a process of critical review (Wilby, 1996) as practiced within Total Systems Intervention (Flood and Jackson, 1991a, b; Food, 1995; Flood and Romm, 1996).

Introduction to special issue of Applied Optics on soft-x-ray projection lithography

This special issue contains a collection of papers describing results that were presented at the Second Topical Meeting on Soft-X-Ray Projection Lithography sponsored by the Optical Society of America and held 6-8 April 1992 in Monterey, California, along with several additional papers submitted after that meeting. These papers are being published in this collection to make them readily available to a larger audience than would normally occur with a proceedings and also to take advantage of the critical review process.

Looking Back or Looking Forward?

The following is the first in a series of articles that will focus on the principles that readers should keep in mind when critically considering the validity and applicability of results reported in the medical literature. We hope that this section will not only enhance the understanding and interpretation of information, but also will contribute to increased understanding of clinical research strategies and improved skill in the critical review process. Some of the articles will be self-contained discussions of basic principles. Occasionally, methodological commentary will be provided for an article published in the same issue of Ophthalmic Surgery, as is the case with the following remarks on issues raised by Dr Kitazawa et al's study of the effect of apraclonidine on intraocular pressure after laser iridotomy. In this connection, lest our intent be misconstrued, let me hasten to add that we publish only what we believe are valuable articles. To comment on their strengths and weaknesses is only to bring into sharper focus what we already know about all studies: that they have limitations and that the better we understand those limitations, the better it will be for our research and for our patients. -GLS

Preface

The advent of fast scalar computers in the 1970s led to explosive activity in computational physics of fluid mechanics and heat transfer. The current decade of parallel (such as vector) computers and supercomputers promises to be even more exciting. These computers will permit, through their enormous speed and size, the solution of numerous problems that have previously been considered intractable. These rapid developments have led to an ever-growing body of literature devoted to numerical fluid mechanics and heat transfer. However, because of the many and varied applications of fluid mechanics and heat transfer in science and technology, the literature is spread throughout numerous journals and conference proceedings covering diverse themes and subject matter. Clearly, there exists a compelling need to devote a series exclusively to expository, comprehensive, state-of-the-art reviews by specialists in various fields of applications. With this as the objective, coverage in the series Annual Review of Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer will encompass a wide spectrum of engineering fluid mechanics and heat transfer, including high-speed gas dynamics, turbulence, multiphase flows, rheology, meteorology, tribology, oceanography, hydrology, combustion, chemical and metallurgical processes, energy conversion and power, pollution, biomedicine, noise and acoustics, nuclear and fusion engineering, low-gravity space manufacturing processes, and arctic and cryogenic heat transfer. This series is intended to serve not only researchers, scholars, and graduate students in academic institutions but also practicing engineers. Review articles are written with a view to reaching nonspecialists. The articles begin with well-understood basic principles underlying the physics and computational aspects of applications and then proceed to the present state of knowledge. The series will publish papers that deal with the development of computational methods (finite difference, finite element, perturbation, boundary element integral, and other innovative techniques), with applications to physical problems, with numerical solutions that aid the development of physical models, or with physical modeling that facilitates the numerical solutions. Papers are published by invitation or submission by specialists in their areas of expertise and are evaluated through a critical peer review process to assure uniform standards and high quality. The present volume contains eight papers written by invitation by leading experts in the field. Three deal with physical modeling and five with numerical methods. The launching of a new series always requires considerable preparation and planning. Without the cooperation and very close association of Ms. Florence Padgett, Senior Acquisitions Editor of Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, the series would not have materialized. The guiding spirit behind the series is Mr. William Begell, President of Hemisphere, whose support and encouragement made this undertaking possible. The status and prestige provided to the series by the acceptance of Professor Brian Spalding to serve as Chairman of the Editorial Advisory Board represents an immeasurable contribution to the successful launching of the series. I am deeply grateful for all the suggestions, cooperation, and encouragement I have received from Professor Spalding. I would be severely remiss if I did not also thank Mrs. Marsha Mehaffey for her excellent secretarial skills and cooperation. I greatly appreciate the assistance and cooperation she afforded to my wife Carolyn, who, during my protracted illness, literally took over the majority of my duties as editor. I am eternally grateful to her. The assistance and cooperation provided by my division−Reactor Analysis and Safety−under the directorship of Dr. Robert Avery and subsequently Mr. John Marchaterre and Dr. Dean Pedersen, Program Manager, are also greatly appreciated. Last, but not least, I express my sincere thanks to the members of the Editorial Advisory Board for their cooperation and support.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers

Human error concerning the geography of the earth has been recurrent throughout historic time. Some kinds of error arise because of the problems of dealing with phenomena in the three-dimensional zone forming earth-space. The broad curvature of the earth, the sheer diversity of earth-space, and the patterns of change through time all form pitfalls for the geographer who is, thereby, liable to error in his descriptive analyses. The problems of placing percepts (things perceived) against concepts (mental abstractions) make for difficulties in analyzing the three-dimensional spatial zone in which geographers work. Among the kinds of error committed there are avoidable varieties, such as the inexact use of descriptive and analytical language, the uncritical use of statistical data, the acceptance of unreliable data, and the confusion of the several kinds of spatial distributions. Less avoidable error derives from the formulation of hypotheses accounting for phenomena which, when critically examined against accurate data, turn out to be inadequate, incomplete, or wrong. Such early hypotheses may actually become stimulants to progress in research; the Huttonian theory of the observable causation for landforms in time produced all of modern landform theory while at the same time producing many errors in analytical explanation. The construct of a model, per conceptualization, risks dangers of obscuring effective explanation owing to the fact that models normally can originally be only caricatures of reality. The Davisian cycle of erosion so obscured progress for a long period by its overacceptance. Social Darwinism, similarly, obstructed effective explanation for a period. The persistence of error becomes an obstruction to progress in geography. The overlong employment of Maury's simple model of the earth's wind systems was such a persistence. Currently the dichotomy of the dualism phrased as physical geography and human geography constitutes an error of persistence. The elimination of avoidable error and the replacement of inadequate to erring hypotheses require a continuing process of critical review, lest avoidable error continue into persistent error. However, on the present errors of inadequate hypotheses may be built the progress of geography in the future. THIS essay offers some thoughts on the origin and persistence of error in geography. Received for publication August 19, 1966. 1 Address given by the Honorary President of the Association of American Geographers at its 62nd Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August 31, 1966. Not that geographers have contributed more than their share of error to the unfolding of man's comprehension of the universe. -In all fields of learning, as Joseph Jastrow pointed out, the rare flashes of intuitive judgment illuminate man's slow progress through quagmires of ignorance, thickets of superstition,