Peer Review Activities Research Articles

The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence

This study investigates the combined effects of input enhancement and recasts on a group of Vietnamese EFL learners' performance of constructive criticism during peer review activities. Particularly, the study attempts to find out whether the instruction works for different aspects of pragmatic learning, including the learners' sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge, as well as their frequency of externally and internally modifying their criticism. Over a course lasting approximately seven instructional hours, the learners received visually enhanced pragmatic input and recasts of their errors of form and meaning. The learners' pre-to-posttest improvement was investigated using three production tasks, namely a discourse completion task, a role play, and an oral peer-feedback task. The findings show there is potential for input enhancement and recast in teaching different aspects of second language pragmatics and are discussed with implications for classroom practices and future research.

Using a commercial software package to support treatment planning peer review activities in small radiotherapy departments.

To implement peer review of radiotherapy treatment planning processes between two geographically separated hospitals with different treatment planning systems. The feasibility of using Microsoft(®) Lync 2013™, available in one of the hospitals, was investigated to determine its utility in sharing radiotherapy treatment planning information between hospitals with small numbers of clinical oncologists available to participate in peer review of treatment plans. Microsoft Lync 2013 has been successfully used to implement remote, real-time review of all aspects of treatment planning, including contours, beam arrangements, isodose distributions and dose-volume histograms. A reliable system for remote, real-time peer review of radiotherapy treatment plans has been implemented between two geographically distant hospitals using Microsoft Lync 2013. Interest in use of the system is developing regionally. This work appears to be the first to describe the use of Microsoft Lync 2013 in this area and demonstrates that smaller radiotherapy centres separated by distance can share clinical and scientific resources to participate in improved peer review processes, in line with recent UK national guidance.

Applying Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model to develop an online English writing course for nursing students

Learning English as foreign language and computer technology are two crucial skills for nursing students not only for the use in the medical institutions but also for the communication needs following the trend of globalization. Among language skills, writing has long been ignored in the curriculums although it is a core element of language learning. To apply the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) model to design an online English writing course for nursing students, and to explore the effects of the course to the students' learning progress as well as their satisfactions and perceptions. A single-group experimental study, utilizing the CEEC (College Entrance Examination Center) writing grading criteria and a self-designed course satisfaction questionnaire, is used. Fifty one nursing students who were in their first/four semesters of the two year vocational pre-registration nursing course in a Taiwan university were selected using convenience sampling. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and repeated measure MANOVA. Qualitative data were analyzed by content analysis. Students' writing competence had been improved significantly in every dimension after the instruction. Only half of the learners preferred online writing compared to the traditional way of writing by hand. Additionally, participants reported that they would prefer to receive feedback from the teacher than peers, yet they did not like the indirect feedback. The teacher perceived the course as meaningful but demanding for both learning and teaching sides. To implement the peer review activities and give feedback on time were two major challenges during the cycles. The TPACK model suggests a comprehensive and effective teaching approach that can help enhance nursing students' English writing performance. Teachers are advised to consider its implementation when designing their syllabus.

The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions

<p>This study investigates the use of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing course to examine how different interaction modes affect comment categories, students’ revisions, and their perceptions of peer feedback. The participants were an intact class of 13 students at a Taiwanese university. The computer-mediated peer review involved <em>OnlineMeeting</em>, software specifically designed for peer review activities and featuring a split screen protocol, document sharing, and chat room functions. The results of chi-square tests show that overall students offered more revision-oriented comments than non-revision-oriented ones among different writing tasks in either mode. Also, peer review mode affected some types of peer comments to a certain extent. There were significantly more global alteration comments and fewer local alteration comments in face-to-face than computer-mediated mode. While the participants liked comments via <em>Word</em>’s annotation features over handwritten comments, they felt face-to-face discussions to be more effective than online chat via <em>OnlineMeeting</em> due to the affordance of face-to-face talk (e.g., immediacy and paralinguistic features), that cannot be easily replaced by electronic chat. Pedagogical implications regarding the balanced use of computer-mediated and non-computer-mediated writing activities are discussed, along with suggestions for future research.</p>

Adding value to the learning process by online peer review activities: towards the elaboration of a methodology to promote critical thinking in future engineers

Considering the results of research on the benefits and difficulties of peer review, this paper describes how teaching faculty, interested in endorsing the acquisition of communication and critical thinking (CT) skills among engineering students, has been implementing a learning methodology throughout online peer review activities. While introducing a new methodology, it is important to weight the advantages found and the conditions that might have restrained the activity outcomes, thereby modulating its overall efficiency. Our results show that several factors are decisive for the success of the methodology: the use of specific and detailed orientation guidelines for CT skills, the students’ training on how to deliver a meaningful feedback, the opportunity to counter-argument, the selection of good assignments’ examples, and the constant teacher's monitoring of the activity. Results also tackle other aspects of the methodology such as the thinking skills evaluation tools (grades and tests) that most suit our reality. An improved methodology is proposed taking in account the encountered limitations, thus offering the possibility to other interested institutions to use/test and/or improve it.

How do medical doctors in the European Union demonstrate that they continue to meet criteria for registration and licencing?

This paper reviews procedures for ensuring that physicians in the European Union (EU) continue to meet criteria for registration and the implications of these procedures for cross-border movement of health professionals following implementation of the 2005/36/EC Directive on professional qualifications. A questionnaire was completed by key informants in 10 EU member states, supplemented by a review of peer-reviewed and grey literature and a review conducted by key experts in each country. The questionnaire covered three aspects: actors involved in processes for ensuring continued adherence to standards for registration and/or licencing (such as revalidation), including their roles and functions; the processes involved, including continuing professional development (CPD) and/or continuing medical education (CME); and contextual factors, particularly those impacting professional mobility. All countries included in the study view CPD/CME as one mechanism to demonstrate that doctors continue to meet key standards. Although regulatory bodies in a few countries have established explicit systems of ensuring continued competence, at least for some doctors (in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK), self-regulation is considered sufficient to ensure that physicians are up to date and fit to practice in others (Austria, Finland, Estonia and Spain). Formal systems vary greatly in their rationale, structure, and coverage. Whereas in Germany, Hungary and Slovenia, systems are exclusively focused on CPD/CME, the Netherlands also includes peer review and minimum activity thresholds. Belgium and the UK have developed more complex mechanisms, comprising a review of complaints or compliments on performance and (in the UK) colleague and patient questionnaires. Systems for ensuring that doctors continue to meet criteria for registration and licencing across the EU are complex and inconsistent. Participation in CPD/CME is only one aspect of maintaining professional competence but it is the only one common to all countries. Thus, there is a need to bring clarity to this confused landscape.

Expediting peer review: why say yes.

Free AccessAnalysis and PerspectivesExpediting Peer Review: Why Say Yes Stuart F. Quan, M.D., F.A.A.S.M. Stuart F. Quan, M.D., F.A.A.S.M. Editor, Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine; Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Arizona Respiratory Center, Tucson, AZ Search for more papers by this author Published Online:November 15, 2014https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.4190SectionsPDF ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations AboutINTRODUCTIONTwo months ago, I wrote about the problems faced by editors in obtaining timely peer review of manuscripts. I urged readers to “just say no” if a commitment to meet the deadline was not feasible.1 Now, I take the other side of the argument and urge readers to make an effort to say “yes” provided that they can provide an on time, thoughtful review.There are a several reasons why one should accept an assignment to review a paper.2 I believe the most compelling is that the subject matter of the paper is of particular interest to the potential reviewer. Assuming that it is in the reviewer's expertise, reading the paper may provide insight into a new or existing finding or therapeutic approach. Although the specific content of the manuscript is privileged, in most cases reading it should kindle or perhaps re-kindle the reviewer's thoughts on the subject matter. Another motive to serve as a peer reviewer is to use it as a writing improvement tool. Most physicians and scientists have had little formal training in the art of writing. Reading the work of others is an excellent tool to enhance one's own writing skills, both by critiquing poor and learning from good manuscripts. An additional reason for agreeing to be a peer reviewer is to use the manuscript as a teaching tool. Most journals will allow a junior faculty member or fellow to review a paper in conjunction with a more senior investigator. Such exercises are quite useful in allowing the junior individual to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of a paper, and in assisting them in writing their own manuscripts. Peer review also is useful to authors. Most manuscripts are revised before publication, and providing an insightful peer reviewer is generally helpful to one's fellow investigators even if the paper is ultimately published in another journal. Finally, it is reasonable to consider that some amount of peer review is an obligation of any member of the scientific community. This is especially true if one has agreed to serve on the editorial board of the requesting journal! After all, peer review is the “quality control” of the scientific process.2 However, agreeing to review a paper out of purely a sense of professional duty should not be the primary motivation to undertake this important task. Finally, peer review activity is considered a form of national or international recognition for the purpose of academic promotion.For the foreseeable future, peer review will continue to be an essential element of the scientific publishing process. Having members of the scientific community who are willing say “yes” will facilitate the transfer of scientific knowledge from the bench to the bedside. However, one should not hesitate to say “no” if meeting the deadline is not possible.CITATIONQuan SF. Expediting peer review: why say yes. J Clin Sleep Med 2014;10(11):1167.REFERENCES1 Quan SFExpediting peer review: just say no. J Clin Sleep Med; 2014;10:941, 25142765. LinkGoogle Scholar2 Carrell DT, Rajpert-DeMeyts EMeaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefigts to the authors and reviewers alike. Andrology; 2013;1:531-2, 23785017. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 10 • Issue 11 • November 15, 2014ISSN (print): 1550-9389ISSN (online): 1550-9397Frequency: Monthly Metrics History Published onlineNovember 15, 2014 Information© 2014 American Academy of Sleep MedicinePDF download

Enhancing Students' Written Mathematical Arguments

Writing in mathematics is complex. To swim in the deep end of mathematical understanding, a peer-review activity helps students support a claim and communicate it clearly while keeping the audience in mind.

A study on effects of peer review activities on writing attitude

A study on effects of peer review activities on writing attitude

Peer review in radiotherapy (RT): A national quality improvement initiative.

221 Background: Peer review (PR) in Radiation Oncology has been shown to be effective in improving quality of treatment by detecting and correcting deficiencies in proposed treatment plans prior to treatment. PR is also effective in: guiding departmental treatment planning policies and processes; reducing variation in practice; providing a venue for multi-disciplinary communication, and increasing staff and trainee awareness of evolving treatment processes. The importance of PR is reflected in the inclusion of 3 PR-specific quality indicators in the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy QA Guidelines for Radiation Oncology programs. Given this endorsement, we aim to enhance PR implementation across all Canadian cancer centres using a knowledge-translation and implementation framework. Methods: This project will facilitate increased uptake of PR in Canadian RT programs by implementing the top-down model used with success in Ontario. This model has several key components, including: a) engaging the leadership of provincial cancer agencies to promote PR at every Provincial cancer centre; b) providing modest financial support for the acquisition of the required hardware and/or staff time for coordinating PR activities; c) systematic collection of each centre’s baseline PR activities, perceived barriers and potential facilitators of PR at each centre; d) creation of a continuous quality improvement cycle by monitoring PR quality indicators over time; e) systematic knowledge and information sharing regarding effective PR processes. Results: Funding for this initiative was obtained from the Canadian Partnership against Cancer (CPAC) in April 2014. A steering committee consisting of stakeholders from across Canada has been struck and provincial launches, based on the tenets used in Ontario, have commenced in 7 of 13 provinces with others expressing interest. A national survey to obtain baseline data relating to PR activities, perceived barriers, and facilitators is underway and will be reported. Conclusions: Preliminary evidence suggests a “snowball effect” of increasing PR uptake across Canada. The implementation model could be applied in other jurisdictions interested in increasing PR in radiation oncology.

Improving the quality of care for patients receiving radiation therapy: Increasing the proportion of radiation treatment plans undergoing peer review in Ontario.

136 Background: Peer review of radiation treatment (RT) plans is recognized as an essential component of quality assurance programs in radiation medicine (Marks et al., 2013). The benefits of peer review include: (1) identifying errors that may compromise treatment outcomes, (2) enhancing safety by promoting standardization, and (3) promoting greater attention to detail in RT staff. Current state analysis conducted in 2011 identified considerable variation in the proportion of cases undergoing peer review across Ontario’s 14 cancer centres (Brundage et al., 2013). In 2012, Cancer Care Ontario launched an initiative to ensure all patients receiving radical/adjuvant radiotherapy have the benefit of peer review of their RT plans. Methods: A multi-professional project team was established to conduct site visits to promote peer review at the cancer centres. They also provided guidance on the organization of peer review rounds so that the activity could be incorporated into local workflows. The education, training, methods, and a centralized reporting infrastructure were developed in collaboration with centres over a one year ramp-up phase and patient-level data was available to the centres for audit purposes. The reporting infrastructure enabled reporting of (1) the proportion of cases peer reviewed and (2) the timing of peer review – prior to treatment, <25% dose delivered, >25% dose delivered. Results: Data for each centre is now a key quality metric and is publicly reported (see Cancer System Quality Index at http://www.csqi.on.ca/). The target for year-one of the project (2013-14) – the proportion of cases to be peer reviewed – was set at 50% with the intent that 100% of cases will be peer reviewed within the next two years. In the ramp-up year, the proportion of cases peer reviewed increased across all centres, though high variation still exists between centres. Conclusions: This initiative demonstrates that it is possible to substantially increase peer review activities on a jurisdictional basis. Key success factors include: a dedicated project team, buy-in and confidence in data quality from centres, investment in education and training, and commitment to public reporting.

The scientists who get credit for peer review

Publons rewards researchers for putting their peer-review activity online. Nature spoke to the startup's co-founder and two super-users.

Role of Teacher Feedback in Peer Review Activities in English Composition Classes

This study examines what role English writing instructors need to play in peer revision activities. Students participating in the study were asked to go through multiple draft writing process in which they wrote three drafts on each writing assignment and review their peers’ essays in both a written comment sheet and an oral discussion. Overall, the results show that the peer comments played little role in improving the students’ essays from the first to second drafts. However, great improvement is observed from the second to final drafts. Specifically, little effect of the feedback on the improvement of non-linguistic features of the essays is identified. Regarding the linguistic features, improvement was made from the second to final drafts. However, it is achieved by both the peer and teacher comments. Therefore, it is concluded in the study that the teacher comments played a role in helping the students produce the linguistically improved final drafts. The study recommends the instructor’s explicit, detailed feedback to the errors caused from students’ insufficient writing and English competence.

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

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

Improving marking reliability of scientific writing with the Developing Understanding of Assessment for Learning programme

The Developing Understanding of Assessment for Learning (DUAL) programme was developed with the dual aims of improving both the quality and consistency of feedback students receive and the students’ ability to use that feedback to improve. DUAL comprises a range of processes (including marking rubrics, sample reports, moderation discussions and peer-review activities) which support explicit knowledge exchange between staff, and between staff and students and the development of tacit knowledge of standards in all participants. This paper describes the study which quantified the extent to which the DUAL programme improved reliability and efficiency of marking of first year biology reports by a large team of laboratory demonstrators. Marker reliability increased after participation in DUAL, with demonstrators marking laboratory reports significantly closer to the marks awarded by an expert marker of the discipline. Efficiency was also improved since time taken to mark the reports did not increase significantly, despite the fact that demonstrators were adapting to a new system of marking. Demonstrators valued the programme and nominated the marking rubric, feedback code and moderation discussion as the most useful elements. The community of practice built through joint participation in the DUAL programme created a supportive working environment for demonstrators and strengthened the collaboration between the discipline and academic language and learning lecturers.

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

ObjectivesTo describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer review within a provincial cancer system, identifying barriers and facilitators to its use with the ultimate aim of process improvement.DesignA...

Peer Review in a Social Policy Course: Lessons Learned

Peer review is a tool that provides students with a sense of how their work is perceived by others. Built on refection and feedback, peer review assesses the quality of academic processes and products based on well-understood criteria. Peer review was implemented in a baccalaureate social work policy course to enhance writing and critical thinking skills. Students were surveyed on their experiences and indicated that peer review activities provided beneficial learning exercises. The information gathered suggests methods for future implementation of peer review in social work education.

Using a Collaborative Critiquing Technique To Develop Chemistry Students’ Technical Writing Skills

The technique, termed “collaborative critiquing”, was developed to teach fundamental technical writing skills to analytical chemistry students for the preparation of laboratory reports. This exercise, which can be completed prior to peer-review activities, is novel, highly interactive, and allows students to take responsibility for their learning. In a collaborative critiquing exercise, students read writing samples from laboratory reports constructed by their peers and, through an interactive discussion, evaluate the quality of the writing by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each passage. The second part of this lesson involves having students rewrite substandard laboratory report excerpts to practice writing in a technical voice. This lesson was believed to increase the class’ ability to identify technical writing flaws and apply this knowledge base toward improving their own laboratory report writing.

Peer Response to L2 Student Writing: Patterns and Expectations

This paper reports the corrective feedback patterns in L2 writing and the student writers’ preferences for peer feedback. The study examines the actual focus of peer review and the types of corrective feedback provided in L2 composing process. Sixteen L2 matriculation students at a Malaysian university took part in five peer review sessions, responded to a debriefing questionnaire, and participated in an interview session after completing the peer review activities. Results show that peer responses to writing focused more on clarity of feedback unlike writer expectations which focused more on grammar correction. The study confirms the relevance of peer review as an alternative feedback delivery system in L2 writing and suggests that peer corrective feedback provides teachers with important perspectives about the L2 students’ language and writing knowledge.

Peer-review of radiation treatment planning in a provincial radiation oncology program: A survey of current practice.

211 Background: The use of peer-review activities in oncology is not well described as a quality improvement process. We sought to describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer-review across a large Provincial Cancer program and to identifiy barriers to its use. Methods: Ontario cancer centres were surveyed. Survey item responses were typically scored using a 10-point Likert scale. The survey was administered electronically with follow-up reminders as required. The use of free-text for comments elaborating on responses was encouraged. Results: Fourteen (100%) centres responded. All rated the importance of peer-review as at least 8/10 (10=extremely important). Detection of medical error and improvement of planning processes were the highest-rated benefits of peer-review (each median 9/10). Four centres (29%) conducted peer-review in more than 80% of cases treated with curative intent; six (43%) peer-reviewed at least 50% of curative cases. Five centres (36%) reported “always” or “almost always” conducting peer-review prior to the initiation of treatment. Variation was seen in which aspects of a case were typically reviewed (e.g., GTV “almost always” reviewed in 67%; contouring of organs at risk in 50%). Five centres (46% of those with regular peer-review) reported that 5% to 9% of peer-reviewed cases were flagged as requiring a change, whereas 3 centres (27%) reported that < 2% of peer-reviewed cases required a change to be made. Five centres (36%) recorded the outcomes of peer-review on the medical record. Thirteen centres (93%) planned to expand peer-review activities; the two factors rated as most limiting to expanding peer-review were a critical mass of radiation oncologists (median score 6/10), and prioritization of peer review by the program overall (median 5/10). Conclusions: Peer review in radiation oncology practices it is now widely used as a quality assurance activity in Ontario, identifies changes to improve quality in the individual case, and improves departmental process. The development of guidelines and standards for peer-review activities, coupled with effective knowledge translation activities are recommended.