Importance Of Peer Review Research Articles

Inclusive peer review: Reflections on an adapted citizens' jury with people with learning disabilities

AbstractBackgroundInclusive research is widely accepted as an essential part of the process to democratise knowledge creation and dissemination. However, while peer review is an important part of academic publishing, the potential to include people with learning disabilities in this element of the research process has not previously been explored using a deliberative approach.MethodsAccessibility adaptations were made to the citizens' jury approach enabling people with learning disabilities to participate. Sixteen adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities were recruited to participate in the adapted citizens' jury. Jury members took part in capacity‐building workshops to develop their knowledge of research and research processes. Six expert witnesses presented evidence to the citizens' jury and were questioned on aspects of inclusive research, representation, peer review and academic publishing processes. Facilitators supported citizens' jury members to reflect on the evidence presented and to develop recommendations for inclusive peer review.FindingsThe citizens' jury was an effective inclusive research approach in this case. Jurors made recommendations related to the question of inclusive peer review: inclusive reviews should be done by groups rather than individuals; the research under review must be in accessible formats and on relevant topics; reviewers need sufficient time to conduct reviews; and diverse groups of people with learning disabilities should be involved.ConclusionsPeople with learning disabilities appreciate the importance of peer review but do not necessarily want to participate in it. This jury suggested creative approaches to disseminating, reviewing and engaging with research, including building more opportunities for dialogue between researchers and self‐advocates. The adapted citizens' jury was a novel and effective method of supporting deliberation on this topic but other approaches to including the views and experiences of those with more severe learning disabilities should be explored.

Provider perspectives on radiation oncology quality practices in peer review.

411 Background: Radiation oncology peer review involves presentation of new cases including pertinent patient history and case-specific qualitative treatment planning decisions. Yet implementation of peer recommendations is inconsistent. Thus, we sought to understand multidisciplinary perspectives on peer review to identify factors affecting stakeholder engagement. Methods: Participants in radiation oncology peer review completed semi-structured interviews and Likert surveys to explore the perceived value in peer review and its influence on their clinical practice and plan changes. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and two independent coders utilized a grounded theory approach to extract dominant themes. ANOVA and students t-test were used to analyze Likert scores. Results: Participants included 6 academic and 3 community radiation oncologists, 2 radiation oncology residents, 2 medical physicist, 2 radiation therapists, 4 dosimetrists and 1 industry representative. Analysis of interviews regarding perceived priorities of peer review revealed the following themes: understanding the clinical background to inform decision-making, detection of rare errors not found in other quality assurance processes, coherence in practice within an organization, and education on new techniques. Key facilitators included pre-planning communication between multidisciplinary teams, particularly for replanning and reirradiation scenarios. Barriers to adaptation of recommendations included resource limitations and lack of supporting data. Likert surveys (0=no importance, 10=highest importance) assigned a high value to the overall process (mean score: 8.3), reducing variation in practice (8.0), conformity of plans with institutional guidelines (7.8), and participant education (7.6), with a lower value placed on the detection of medical errors (7.4) and reduction of treatment incidents (6.9). When comparing Likert scores by provider, non-physicians rated overall importance of peer review (mean: 9.8 vs 6.5, p=0.03) and education (9.0 vs 6.7, p=0.02) significantly higher than physicians. There was no significant difference in Likert scores by academic vs community practice. Conclusions: All participants agreed peer review is an important process in radiation oncology quality assurance that may catch rare errors. However, there was significant variation in the perceived benefits of peer review, and a higher value was placed on alignment of clinical practice and non-physician participant education. Future processes to improve communication between multi-disciplinary teams was identified as beneficial to peer review discussions.

Pre-service special education teachers’ learning through recorded mini-lessons and peer review

Despite the research regarding the importance of peer review and feedback in pre-service special education teachers, there exists a gap in teaching complex mathematical concepts such as fractional operations. This study sought to address this gap by investigating how pre-service teachers can effectively appraise and revise peer-generated teaching transcripts focusing on fraction operations and compare their feedback with those of experienced educators. The research sought to understand how this integrated approach can contribute to improving the instruction of pre-service special education teachers in the field of mathematics education. A modified version of Crespo’s (2018) generating, appraising, and revising of representations was utilized to analyze the video content. Comparisons of the reviews showed that pre-service teachers may not have the content knowledge or experience to provide in-depth feedback to support learning as experienced educators. The article concludes with findings and recommendations for teacher educators who utilize anonymous peer review in teacher preparation for special educators.

The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review.

The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review.

Science and Art of Reviewing Papers to Maintain Standards in Academia.

This review article highlights the necessity and importance of peer review of articles submitted to journals. Publication in a peer reviewed, good impact indexed journal is an indirect endorsement of the article contents. The editor and the readership depend on the integrity and total involvement of reviewers. What is expected of the reviewer and the authors is discussed. Reviewers need to be sensitive to authors' reactions. Authors should also respond, not react or be hypersensitive.

Perceptions of Disease-Site Specific Chart Rounds at an Academic Institution

Despite the prevalence and importance of peer review, there remains a paucity of evidence on different formats of peer review. The purpose of this study was to understand current perceptions of disease-site specific chart rounds at a single institution considering transitioning from practice-site specific chart rounds to disease-site specific chart rounds.An electronic survey was distributed to faculty (24 attendings and 18 physicists), dosimetrists, nurses, therapists, and trainees at an academic institution that has weekly departmental chart rounds. The survey consisted of 13 questions on demographics, perceptions of current chart rounds, and perceptions of disease-site specific chart rounds. ANOVA and Chi-square testing were used to analyze the data. Criteria for statistical significance was P < 0.05. This study was approved by the IRB.A total of 35 (55%) responses were received, 18 of 24 (75%) attendings responded. Of all respondents, 51% were attendings, 23% were physicists, 14% were residents, 9% were dosimetrists, and 3% was a therapist. Attending responses were distributed across all disease sites which included CNS, Head and Neck, Thoracic, Breast, GI, GU, GYN, Pediatric, Palliative, Skin, Sarcoma, and Hematologic (P = 0.218). Most respondents (19; 54%) favored transitioning to disease-specific chart rounds (26% strongly agreed and 29% agreed, whereas 11% disagreed and 9% strongly disagreed). Most respondents (23; 66%) believed disease-specific chart rounds would improve patient safety (26% strongly agreed and 40% agreed, while 11% disagreed and 3% strongly disagreed). Most respondents (27; 77%) believed disease-site specific chart rounds would improve the quality of patient plans (29% strongly agreed and 49% agreed, whereas 11% disagreed and 3% strongly disagreed). Most respondents (23; 66%) believed disease-site specific chart rounds would improve education for trainees (29% strongly agreed and 37% agreed, while 11% disagreed and none strongly disagreed). Most attendings favored transitioning to disease-specific chart rounds (50% agreed and 17% disagreed). All physicists favored transitioning to disease-specific chart rounds. Respondents who favored transitioning to disease-specific chart rounds were significantly more likely to believe that disease-specific chart rounds would improve patient safety (P < 0.0001), improve the quality of patient plans (P < 0.0001), and improve time efficiency (P = 0.0156). Of the respondents who did not favor transitioning to disease-specific chart rounds, 85.7% disagreed it would improve time efficiency.Most respondents favored transitioning to disease-specific chart rounds. Furthermore, most respondents believed disease-specific chart rounds would improve patient safety, the quality of patient plans, and trainee education. Further research will be conducted and presented measuring the impact after implementation.

Now More Than Ever: Reflections on the State and Importance of Peer Review

Now More Than Ever: Reflections on the State and Importance of Peer Review

The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review.

The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review.

Trust: The Need for Public Understanding of How Science Works.

General science literacy contributes to good public decision-making about technology and medicine. This essay explores the kinds of science literacy currently developed by public education in the United States of America. It argues that current curricula on "science as inquiry" (formerly the "nature of science") need to be brought up to date with the inclusion of discussion of social epistemological concepts such as trust and scientific authority, scientific disagreement versus science denialism, the role of ideology and bias in scientific research, and the importance of peer review and responsiveness to criticism.

The South Wales Peer Review Group: A Case Study in Collaboration Part 2

A two-part article is presented where a novel case study of how peer group collaboration, facilitated through digital technology, can be used to aid and facilitate the development of strategies for overcoming work-based challenges. Part 1 illustrated the importance of peer review in dentistry, introduced the inception of the South Wales Peer Review Group and explored the process of assembling the team of collaborators. Part 2 explains how the various considerations were assessed, how the collaborative ideas evolved and what outcomes were agreed. The topics for future discussion, necessary to overcome the challenges ahead, are also outlined. CPD/Clinical Relevance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, new strategies and protocols need to be developed to adhere to emerging and changing guidelines. The process of peer group collaboration is important for shaping the new service beyond the pandemic.

Part 1: The need for peer review in digital forensics

The importance of peer review in the field of digital forensics cannot be underestimated as it often forms the primary, and sometimes only form of quality assurance process an organisation will apply to their practitioners' casework. Whilst there is clear value in the peer review process, it remains an area which is arguably undervalued and under-researched, where little academic and industrial commentary can be found describing best practice approaches. This work forms the first of a two part series discussing why the digital forensics discipline and its organisations should conduct peer review in their laboratories, what it should review as part of this process, and how this should be undertaken. Here in part one, a critical review of the need to peer review is offered along with a discussion of the limitations of existing peer review mechanisms. Finally, the ‘Peer Review Hierarchy’ is offered, outlining the seven levels of peer review available for reviewing practitioner findings.

The South Wales Peer Review Group: A Case Study in Collaboration Part 1

In this two-part article a novel case study is presented of how peer group collaboration, facilitated through digital technology, can be used to aid and facilitate the development of strategies for overcoming work-based challenges. Part 1 illustrates the importance of peer review in dentistry, introduces the inception of the South Wales Peer Review Group and explores the process of assembling the team of collaborators. Part 2 explains how the various considerations were assessed, how the collaborative ideas evolved and what outcomes were agreed. CPD/Clinical Relevance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, new strategies and protocols need to be developed to adhere to emerging and changing guidelines. The process of peer group collaboration is important for shaping the new service beyond the pandemic.

Information and Misinformation on COVID-19: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time.MethodsWe conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time.ResultsAmong 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%).ConclusionWhile identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.

The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review

The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review

The importance of peer review

The importance of peer review

Analysis of a real time group consensus peer review process in radiation oncology: an evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility

BackgroundPeer review systems within radiation oncology are important to ensure quality radiation care. Several individualized methods for radiation oncology peer review have been described. However, despite the importance of peer review in radiation oncology barriers may exist to its effective implementation in practice. The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate of plan changes based on our group peer review process as well as the quantify amount of time and resources needed for this process.MethodsData on cases presented in our institutional group consensus peer review conference were prospectively collected. Cases were then retrospectively analyzed to determine the rate of major change (plan rejection) and any change in plans after presentation as well as the median time of presentation. Univariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with major change and any change.ResultsThere were 73 cases reviewed over a period of 11 weeks. The rate of major change was 8.2% and the rate of any change was 23.3%. The majority of plans (53.4%) were presented in 6–10 min. Overall, the mean time of presentation was 8 min. On univariable logistic regression, volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were less likely to undergo a plan change but otherwise there were no factors significantly associated with major plan change or any type of change.ConclusionGroup consensus peer review allows for a large amount of informative clinical and technical data to be presented per case prior to the initiation of radiation treatment in a thorough yet efficient manner to ensure plan quality and patient safety.

Politics, regulatory, and acoustic failures

There have been three senate inquiries in recent years, all of which have called for regulatory reform. Noise related nuisances and associated amenity detriments are very often attributed to the operation of nearby wind turbines. In many circumstances, disturbances are reported despite the reports of acoustic experts concluding that the wind farm is operating in compliance with the noise limits conditioned in relevant planning approvals. The current practise whereby wind farm operators directly engage acousticians requires review. This is particularly so in the state of Victoria where under-resourced municipal councils, usually without the technical capacity to understand complex acoustic issues, are now responsible for wind farm permit regulation and enforcement—and a state where the EPA plays no formal role in the assessment of noise or mitigation of complaints of noise pollution emitted from a wind farm. The societal benefits of independent acoustic reporting and the importance of peer review is discus...

Peer Review Week 2017: Transparency

September 11-17, 2017 marks the third annual Peer Review Week. Started in 2015 by a group of organizations in the scholarly publishing field, the event recognizes the importance of peer review and the individuals who work tirelessly as reviewers and editors. This year’s theme is “Transparency in Review.”

Peer Review: A Strategy to Improve Students’ Academic Essay Writings

The purpose of this article is to describe the importance of peer review on students’ argumentative essay due to problems faced by students and teachers in producing students’ good argumentative essay. Students have problems in making use of the feedback given by teachers. Like students, teachers have problems in giving feedback due the large class and time constraint. The research hypothesis was tested by applying t-test. From the calculation of t-test, tobserved yielded 2.94. The total case degree of freedom was 55 ((27-1) + (30-1)). Ttable at the .05p level and 60 degree of freedom (the closest df) results in a figure of 2.00. This calculation reveals that t-observed could exceed the ttable. It means that the research hypothesis was statistically accepted, and null hypothesis was rejected. This means that the students treated by peer review had higher scores than those treated by teacher review on argumentative essay. Therefore, peer review gives better effect on students’ argumentative essay than the teacher review.&#x0D; &#x0D; Keywords: peer review, argumentative essay writing.

Architectural History’s Futures

> You throw a stone into a deep pond. Splash. The sound is big, and it reverberates throughout the surrounding area. What comes out of the pond after that? All we can do is stare at the pond, holding our breath. > > — Haruki Murakami , 1Q84 What is the future of architectural history? The very question embodies an inherent contradiction, since historians are particularly skilled at studying the past; our aptitudes for predicting the future are far less honed. Nevertheless, important anniversaries invite introspection, reflection on our past, and speculation about our future. What pressures are coming to bear on our field that are most likely to cause significant change? Who will be our audiences in the decades to come? How will they find our work, and what will be the forms of our scholarship? In what follows, I examine three aspects of the architectural historian’s practice, casting stones into the pond of our field to see, as Murakami writes, what might come out of it after that. Until very recently, architectural historians generally conducted research in mostly the same manner as their colleagues across the humanities, which is to say, they did so largely working alone in libraries, museums, archives, and special collections. The single factor differentiating our work from that of scholars studying largely text-based or pictorially based subjects was our need for on-site investigation. Examining architectural, urban, and landscape spaces themselves has always been—and will no doubt continue to be—a crucial distinguishing aspect of our research culture, and there is little doubt that we will continue to perform solitary investigations with a range of primary and secondary sources. However much our methods of inquiry may remain constant, the archive, the library, and even the museum have changed. What does “the archive” now mean? In our current era of increasingly massive amounts of digitized …