Peer Review Method Research Articles

Peer review in cardiothoracic radiology.

A variety of peer review methods can be used as part of quality assurance and quality improvement in cardiothoracic radiology. Traditionally, peer review in radiology is a retrospective process relying primarily on review of previously interpreted studies at the time of follow-up or additional imaging. However, peer review can be enhanced with other methods such as double reads, focused practice review, practice audit, and correlation with operative and pathologic findings. Furthermore, feedback from referring physicians can be extremely useful in improving the quality of a radiology practice. This article discusses peer review in radiology with a focus on cardiothoracic imaging. Types of peer review, advantages and shortcomings, and future challenges are addressed.

Peer review among students of Spanish as a heritage language: The effectiveness of a metalinguistic literacy task

This empirical study examined the effectiveness of peer review with heritage speakers of Spanish and sought to determine what considerations should be taken into account when applying the peer review method with heritage student populations. Sixteen college-level students participated in a guided peer review and completed a post-activity questionnaire. Analysis of the peer review feedback, quantitative and qualitative analyses of the questionnaire responses, and an analysis of the textual characteristics of three essay drafts suggest that peer review can indeed be a valuable writing exercise for heritage language students. Specifically, the overall response was positive, there was evidence of student reflection on writing, and there were indications of independent vocabulary learning. Participants were able to provide mostly accurate feedback (87% overall), even on writing issues related to language use, though they did appear to be somewhat limited in their ability to identify informal language contact phenomena in their peers’ essays.

Radiation therapist peer review: raising the bar on quality and safety in radiation oncology

AbstractPurposeAn emerging developmental tool to help radiation therapists achieve better outcomes is ‘peer review’. This review of the current literature summarises the challenges and benefits of peer review in both individual and departmental practice.DiscussionThere is compelling evidence supporting peer review implementation at both individual and department level in many professions. Implementing peer review requires that radiation therapists and other radiation oncology professionals embrace a culture that supports safety. Peer review can identify trends and barriers associated with quality radiotherapy and share best practice or recommend changes accordingly. Support for peer review must come from pre-registration educational systems as well as clinical managers. Continuing professional development in the workplace is nurtured by peer review of radiotherapy practice and an aptitude for this should be viewed as important to the profession as technical and clinical skills.ConclusionIt is clear that peer review has the potential to facilitate reflective practice, improve staff motivation and help foster a culture of quality and safety in radiation oncology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further radiation therapists need to accept the challenge of adopting peer review methods in day-to-day practice.

Give until it hurts.

Give until it hurts.

The empirical march: Making science better at self-correction.

Psychology has been criticized recently for a range of research quality issues. The current article organizes these problems around the actions of the individual researcher and the existing norms of the field. Proposed solutions align the incentives of all those involved in the research process. I recommend moving away from a focus on statistical significance to one of statistical power, renewing an emphasis on prediction and the pre-registration of hypotheses, changing the timing and method of peer-review, and increasing the rate at which replications are conducted and published. These strategies seek to unify incentives toward increased methodological and statistical rigor to more effectively and efficiently reduce bias and error.

Note: issues of importance, timing and method relating to peer review of journal manuscripts

Purpose – The paper aims to highlight issues of importance, timing and method relating to peer review of academic journal manuscripts: in a broad context generally; and with respect to the Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction (JFMPC), more specifically. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Synthesis of extant literature combined with the author's experientially-gained views as a researcher, author, reviewer and editor. Findings – Opinions on the importance, timing and methods of peer review can vary widely, among individuals and publishing outlets. Notwithstanding this, based on the “approach” above, a cogent description of these peer review issues is defined and presented. Research limitations/implications – It is proffered that a robust peer review process yields benefits for researchers, authors, editors, journals, publishers and the end-users of published research. The note has potential implications for all of these stakeholders. Originality/value – The discussion complements existing literature in this field, while its specific guidance for JFMPC stakeholders is new.

More than the Fonts have Changed

BioTechniquesVol. 55, No. 5 From the EditorOpen AccessMore than the fonts have changedNathan S. BlowNathan S. BlowBioTechniquesSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:3 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.2144/000114095AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Leafing through this issue of BioTechniques, some of you might feel a ting of nostalgia, while others might just wonder what the heck is going on. Ahh, the different perspectives of age. Our younger readers will likely be the ones wondering about the “old” look this month, since they will not have been in the lab in the early 1990s, when BioTechniques articles appeared in this style and format. But for those of us who can recall those days, this special issue of BioTechniques should be a throwback to a bygone era, in more ways than one.Back in the early 1990s, I was finishing my undergraduate education and BioTechniques was the first journal to which I subscribed. Being free (and remaining free to this day), it presented me the opportunity to have my very own copy of a scientific journal. As corny as this might sound, I was proud each time an issue arrived in the lab, because I was part of a much larger group of scientists and researchers reading this journal every month. In those days, articles were not published as quickly as today, but I think there was a stronger sense of journal identity that is missing now. I was able to start my own scientific mini-library, keeping those issues that would help me as my career progressed. It was solid, tangible, physical proof that I was a part of something. Today, I can get any article I need in an instant, but I receive very few journals in print. My job is to keep up with new methods and techniques, but that is increasingly difficult with more journals coming online each day. I tend not to read journals cover to cover anymore. Instead I skim tables of contents and abstracts, usually online, to find relevant information.Back then, each month BioTechniques would come with a number of PCR, sequencing, cloning, or microscopy techniques/methods articles. There would also be “card decks”, index-sized cards that featured new products or technologies and often contained offers for free samples or other items. I cannot tell you how many times I sent for a free spin column, extraction buffer, or enzyme to trial. As for the cards I did not send in—someone else in the lab would take a couple and use them. My copy of BioTechniques always saw more than one pair of hands.The journal content was different too. There were not that many news features; instead, the journal focused on publishing a larger number of peer-reviewed methods and technique articles than today. I'm not saying there isn't a place for news—in fact we know many readers enjoy our monthly columns. But at that time, with fewer publishing outlets, the focus was on distributing research to a large community of scientists. There were no flashy fonts or styles, simply clean and direct articles.While I might be sounding old (which I guess I am now), this editorial is not about yearning for the past. Being able to publish articles quickly and in new formats is a very good thing. Rather, my nostalgia is about how journals promote science by giving authors a voice and a forum to present their research, building a community of readers who actively engage and communicate discoveries beyond the confines of their labs. For me, this is a time to reflect on what we can do in the future to preserve these traditions in an era of fast publishing and decreased oversight, often led by publishers focused on nothing more than the bottom line. Many of today's newer journals exist merely as collections of articles on a website—they lack identity and have simply been put in place to collect author or subscriber fees, which is a sad reflection on the state of scientific publishing.So, take a look at this special “retro” issue of BioTechniques, and while reflecting on the “old school” look, think about that bygone era where journals existed only in print, submissions were sent by post, and editors called authors with questions. A time where predatory journals did not exist for the most part and publishing was less business and more science. And then ask yourself if speed and convenience are worth losing the feeling of being a part of a community or of creating your own mini-library. Being more connected to information without much context ultimately could make us less connected as scientists.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 55, No. 5 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics History Published online 3 April 2018 Published in print November 2013 Information© 2013 Author(s)PDF download

Electronic peer review? (A report of the Electronic Libraries Programme ESPERE project).

The Electronic Submission and Peer Review project is one of approximately 60 projects funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) of the Higher Education Funding Councils, as part of its Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib). ESPERE is particularly concerned with the possibility of using electronic methods for peer review, initially for biomedical articles. The project is jointly run by the University of Ulster and the Society for Endocrinology and has seven learned
 society publishers as its partners.

The Effect of Peer Review on Writing Skill of EFL Students

Today more attention has been paid to peer-feedback/evaluation of students’ compositions at different levels. As such, the present study aims at investigating the interaction patterns among EFL learners, the effects of peer review techniques on improving the learners’ writing skill, and also the motivation aroused by writing in a synchronous writing environment of an EFL context. Fifty EFL students at the intermediate level were enrolled and randomly divided into two experimental and control groups. During a three-month period, both groups were instructed writing. The control group received the traditional teacher-correction/feedback procedure whereas the experimental group was provided with a one-hour of instruction on peer review at the beginning of the term and peer review process was run in this class. The data were collected using a background questionnaire, a pre-test and a post-test for language proficiency and writing skill, a peer response sheet, writing criteria and guideline sheet, and a topic list sheet. The results of the study indicated that the writings of the students in the experimental group improved more than those in the control group. Also, those engaged in peer review method were motivated to write more essays and enjoyed writing. It was concluded that peer review provides learners with an authentic audience, increases the students’ motivation for writing and enables them to receive different views on their writing.

Interventional Radiology Peer, a Newly Developed Peer-Review Scoring System Designed for Interventional Radiology Practice

PurposeExisting diagnostic radiology peer-review systems do not address the specificities of interventional radiology (IR) practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of a specifically developed interventional peer review method, IR Peer. Materials and MethodsRetrospective review of a prospectively encoded pilot database aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of IR Peer in a multiphysician practice was performed. This scoring system used morning peer review of selected IR cases from the previous day in the form of a five-item questionnaire and an ordinal answer scale that grades reviewers’ agreement with imaging findings, procedural/technical management, early outcomes, and follow-up plan. Patient lists from IR Peer and morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences were compared to evaluate the amount of overlap and capability of IR Peer to help detect adverse events (AEs). ResultsA total of 417 consecutive reviews of IR attending physician cases by peers were performed in 163 consecutive patients over 18 months, and 94% of cases were reviewed by two or three IR attending physicians. Each question was answered 99%–100% of the time. Answers showed disagreement in 10% of cases (2% by a single reviewer, 8% by several), most related to procedural technique. Overall AE incidence was 1.8%. IR Peer contributed 10.7% of cases to the M&M list. ConclusionsIR Peer is feasible, relevant, and easy to implement in a multiphysician IR practice. When used along with other quality-assurance processes, it might help in the detection of AEs for M&M; the latter will require further confirmatory research.

How to make progress in projecting climate change impacts

Abstract Cheung, W. W. L., Pauly, D., and Sarmiento, J. L. 2013. How to make progress in projecting climate change impacts. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: 1069–1074. Scientific modelling has become a crucial tool for assessing climate change impacts on marine resources. Brander et al. criticize the treatment of reliability and uncertainty of such models, with specific reference to Cheung et al. (2013, Nature Climate Change, 3: 254–258) and their projections of a decrease in maximum body size of marine fish under climate change. Here, we use the specific criticisms of Brander et al. (2013, ICES Journal of Marine Science) on Cheung et al. (2013) as examples to discuss ways to make progress in scientific modelling in marine science. We address the technical criticisms by Brander et al., then their more general comments on uncertainty. The growth of fish is controlled and limited by oxygen, as documented in a vast body of peer-reviewed literature that elaborates on a robust theory based on abundant data. The results from Cheung et al. were obtained using published, reproducible and peer-reviewed methods, and the results agree with the empirical data; the key assumptions and uncertainties of the analysis were stated. These findings can serve as a step towards improving our understanding of climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. We suggest that, as in other fields of science, it is important to develop incrementally (or radically) new approaches and analyses that extend, and ultimately improve, our understanding and projections of climate change effects on marine ecosystems.

How Composition Methods Are Developed and Validated

Method validation is a critical prerequisite to performing analytical methods in the laboratory. A given analytical method is validated for a specific matrix or matrices. If the matrix to be tested is not included in the original scope of method validation, a validation must be performed to determine if the method is applicable to that particular matrix. A number of organizations, such as AOAC and ISO, publish peer-reviewed methods for cross-industry matrices, whereas others, such as AOCS and AACC, are focused on specific industry segments (fats/oils and cereal grains). When no validated method is available for the analyte of interest, method development and validation must first be performed to ensure that correct identification and quantification of the analyte are being observed and measured. Development of a new method requires an understanding of the chemistry and properties of the analyte to be tested, as well as the various types of instrumentation currently available. Method development and improvement is a continuous process, as technology advances and new instrumentation and techniques become available. This paper addresses some of the decisions related to method development but will primarily focus on validation as it applies to compositional testing of foods, crops, and commodities, the factors that determine method selection, and how extensive the validation need be.

P086 Describing Guideline Development Process: Responding to New Challenges and Ensuring Transparency

BackgroundEvidence-based guidelines should be developed with rigorous methodological standards such as described by AGREE, G-I-N and IOM. One of the main aims is that the development process is repeatable and...

Evaluation of fixed assets medical institutions

The application of the method of peer review to assess the quality of core health care settings are discussed in this paper and some of the results of our research in this area are given. The main objective of the study is to develop methods of evaluation of quality of assets of health care settings. The article discussed the sequence of evaluation, survey features and other important details. The given method allows to obtain important information using conventional assessment tools. The results obtained from the use of this technique will serve as a basis for management decisions concerning the development and use of capital health care setting. The suggested method of evaluation can effectively solve the problem of restructuring the core health care setting. This technique can be applied to any health care institutions, regardless of their specialization. The results can be applied by managers, economists and other professionals who work in health care settings

SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INSURANCE MARKET

The article presents the main results of the insurance sphere development in the Republic of Bashkortostan. It traces the dynamics and structure of changes in classes of the insurance. The analysis of the insurance market development was performed via a set of diagnostics methods applied to regional insurance market and factors significantly influencing the basic segments of the insurance market. Using the assessment indicators of the regional insurance market and its dependence on the investment potential of the region, the author has established a cause-and-effect relationship between the insurance market and socio-economic development of the region. There has been formulated problems retaining the regional insurance market development. There has also been offered development priorities. The author has used the following methods in the analysis: the comparative and statisical analysis, the peer review method, the time series construction. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12731/2218-7405-2013-6-28

Reprint of “Citation analysis as a measure of article quality, journal influence and individual researcher performance”

The research-related performance of universities, as well as that of individual researchers, is increasingly evaluated through the use of objective measures, or metrics, which seek to support or in some cases even replace more traditional methods of peer review. In particular there is a growing awareness in research communities, government organisations and funding bodies around the concept of using evaluation metrics to analyse research citations. The tools available for ‘citation analysis’ are many and varied, enabling a quantification of scientific quality, academic impact and prestige. However there is increasing concern regarding the potential misuse of such tools, which have limitations in certain research disciplines.This article uses ‘real world’ examples from radiography research and scholarship to illustrate the range of currently available citation analysis tools. It explores the academic debate surrounding their strengths and limitations, and identifies the potential impact of citation analysis on the radiography research community.The article concludes that citation analysis is a valuable tool for researchers to use for personal reflection and research planning, yet there are inherent dangers if it is used inappropriately. Whilst citation analysis can give objective information regarding an individual, research group, journal or higher education institution, it should not be used as a total substitute for traditional qualitative review and peer assessment.

Approaching the Issue of the Aging Physician Population

ABSTRACTIn November 2011, the Coalition for Physician Enhancement (CPE) and the University of California, San Diego, Physician Assessment and Clinical Education (PACE) Program held a conference on the issue of physician aging and its potential impact on clinical performance and quality of care. Speakers and attendees from the United States and Canada reviewed a variety of topics and trends related to aging. Data reviewed during the conference reveal that average physician age is increasing, and while a variety of positive aspects of aging can provide a professional benefit, some studies associate a decrease in physician performance with increasing age. Among the factors that can affect physician performance include solo practice, lack of American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) Board Certification, practicing outside the scope of training, high clinical volume and health issues. Conference attendees examined Canadian experiences with age-based competency screening and participated in a survey of opinion regarding age-based screening. The majority favored age-based screening beginning at the age of 70, using a system that would include assessments of physical and mental health and a cognitive screen. Competency screening could include peer review and practice evaluation methods. The authors propose further study of age-based screening and encourage physicians to think carefully about the timing of appropriate modifications to and retirement from practice.

Don't You Just Hate Peer Review?

Manuscript Submission. Don't you just hate it when your submission to the journal office has to be sent-out for peer review? Don't you hate awaiting comments of the peer reviewers on your manuscript not knowing when the replies of the reviewers are going to come in? After several weeks or months of anticipation, when the replies from the reviewers are finally in, don't you just hate it when their comments and their recommended changes happen to contradict one another and you don’t know which reviewer’s comments to implement and end up having to write a rebuttal? Manuscript Revision. Don't you just hate the laborious and arduous task of revising and re-submitting a revised manuscript along with the point-by-point replies-to-reviewers back to the journal office for the editor to request reassessment from the reviewers who must check and see if the revisions made in the manuscript are adequate and if they are satisfied with the changes made? Don’t you hate having to wait-it-out again, not knowing if your revised manuscript is to be accepted, rejected or returned for further revisions? Manuscript Re-revision. After several re-revisions when your manuscript is deemed not acceptable for publication and is ultimately rejected, doesn’t that make you just hate peer review? Well, actually it shouldn't; because despite all this, the peer review process is the “gold standard” of accredited medical journals worldwide. Without peer review a medical journal is just another magazine or a newspaper that presents various viewpoints without verifiable documentation or approval of specialists in the same scientific field of study. Peer review. Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other individuals in the same profession with the intent to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field (1). Peer review means that actions or statements of an individual are looked-at again (reviewed) by someone of similar competence in that subject or activity - a peer (2). More formally, peer review constitutes a process of self-regulation by a professional or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Therefore, a medical manuscript must be assessed by a medical professional of the same specialty; because, only a peer can judge if a submission is original, reliable and authentic and whether or not it merits publication. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve quality and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication (Figure 1) ( 2 ). Peer review constitutes the basis for credibility and authenticity of medical journals and the reliability of the research methodology presented therein; thus, although the peer review process is pain-staking, time-taking, tedious and frustrating, the fact of the matter is that without it, not much of what is stated can be substantiated. Figure 1. Metaphor of a Medical Paper Undergoing Peer Review

ESTIMATION OF QUALITY OF MEDICAL AID IN PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES MODERNIZATION

In article various concepts, methodology and models of maintenance of quality of the medical aid rendered in establishments of system of public health services are discussed. Foreign and domestic scientists to the concept of quality management of medical care are approaches. Role of the modernization process in the quality control of medical care is considers. Using the method of peer review studied the quality of the provision of pharmaceutical help as a component of health care to the population (for example, pharmaceutical help of cardiac patients at the regional level). The data obtained revealed the lack of complete information on medicines, which indicates the need to develop a model of information and consulting services to the patient. Necessity of creation of conceptual model of management of quality of medical aid and pharmaceutical help at regional level is underlined. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12731/2218-7405-2013-1-37

What Are Your Goals for Peer Review? A Framework for Understanding Differing Methods

Radiologist peer review is defined as a process in which similarly qualified radiologists evaluate the product of achother’swork [1].RADPEERTMis the leading method for peer review in theUnitedStates,withACR-registered participation of more than 900 sites in 2011 [2]. Use of RADPEER contribtes to partial fulfillment of multiple hird-party regulations, including those f The Joint Commission for Ongoing rofessional Practice Evaluation, the CR for site accreditation, and the BR for Maintenance of Certificaion Practice Quality Improvement. ADPEER and RADPEER equivaents embody peer-review methods hat have the following core features: riginally interpreted images are reresented to a separate reviewer from he radiologist peer group; the images re randomly selected for review rom a representative sample of the roup’s work; the reviewing radioloist scores the original radiologist’s eport; a score reflecting significant iscrepancy leads to corrective acion; and summary data can be genrated at the radiologist, modality, nd group levels [3]. Increasingly, ADPEER is electronically impleented. For example, vendor softare may display an alert screen interated into routine digital workflow, rompting radiologists in up to 5% f cases to switch from their primary eading role into a temporary reiewer role by scoring agreement ith the prior report. Scores range on scale from 1 (“concur”) to 4 (“misnterpretation”), with further sublassification possible on the basis of linical significance. Although RADPEER provides a entral reference, many methods for eer review described in the literature iverge from RADPEER, in whole or