Project Peer Review Research Articles

TEACHING METHODS OF CREATING SCIENTIFIC STYLE TEXTS FOR MASTER AND PHD STUDENTS

Academic writing is an obligatory discipline of study in master's and doctoral studies. The assimilation of this subject should develop the student's skills to create analytical and scientific texts.
 Therefore, studying academic writing is part of the study of rules of the scientific community. These rules are learned step by step, by writing texts and discussing them with different readers, giving and receiving feedback.
 Collaborative peer-review, as a learning approach, is also useful as it strengthens feedback and collaboration skills. In many academic communities, texts are written by collaboration, and scientific publications go through a peer-review process in which experts in the field read and comment on manuscripts.
 Academic writing requires a review of previously done research. When searching for existing articles based on existing research, students should understand the methods of finding scientific works and be able to critically evaluate sources of information. The subject of the study and discipline largely determine which sources students should use in their work.
 The aim of teaching academic writing at the master's or doctoral level is to achieve a high quality of research papers submitted for the defense of the degree.
 The main task of the programs is also the development of research skills in students, teaching them to search for the information they need, such as:
 a) Viewing new literature on the subject (limiting the search to novelties) or visiting the library and locating the theme of interest in the catalogue;
 b) Performing a search for information related to the subject in the databases of libraries;
 c) Selection of interesting sources of information from references in the research literature that were found in databases;
 d) Acquaintance with the style of citation adopted in a particular program.
 Different topics may have their own citation practices, for which students receive guidance from program or librarians. It is recommended that you familiarize yourself with the practice of citing sources early in the writing process.
 Thus, the library is an indispensable resource for the formation of skills and training of students to create scientific texts.
 The Ilia State University used two teaching methods for master and PHD Students: Project method and Peer review method.
 The proposed article details the results of a study that compares the two teaching methods, their effectiveness and preference, as well as a comparison of the quality of written papers submitted for defense of the degree, after the training phase of both methods.

Research culture in Australian and New Zealand radiation oncology: Fact or fantasy?

Fostering a research culture is a key goal of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, yet there has never been an organization-wide enquiry into the extent to which this is being realized. The purpose of this work was to address that deficit for the Radiation Oncology (RO) Faculty to serve as a baseline for future comparison. The hypothesis was that such a culture is closer to fact than fantasy. With College approval, three de-identified Excel spreadsheets detailing 25 research-related sub-categories of the Faculty's Continuing Professional Development (CPD) database were interrogated for the 2019-21 triennium, accepting that research activity in 2020-21 would be COVID-19 suppressed. The numbers obligated to self-report CPD were 482, 496 and 511, respectively. Primary endpoints were the percentages of ROs claiming at least one research-related activity overall, and in each of the sub-categories individually, by year. Secondary endpoints were the "breadth" (number of sub-categories claimed/individual) and "depth" (percentages solely claiming in one of four lower-level sub-categories), by year. ROs claimed in 23/25 sub-categories. The percentages of ROs claiming at least one research-related activity were 71%, 44%, and 62% in 2019-21, respectively. The median number of sub-categories claimed by these ROs was 2 (range 1-10) in each year. The commonest activity was journal article co-author (25%, 16% and 27%, respectively). For 2019, the most representative year, other common activities were inhouse/local meeting presentation (17%), invited lecture at state level or above (15%), manuscript peer review and research project principal investigator (14% each). The percentages of ROs solely claiming in one lower-level activity ranged between 4.4% and 5.9% per year. A culture of research is arguably more fact than fantasy in ANZ. It is likely that Faculty curriculum requirements, research funding and other promotional initiatives have contributed substantively to this.

Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices.

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices.

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

Using Wikipedia to teach scholarly peer review

This paper outlines a creative Wikipedia-based project developed by the University of Kansas (KU) Libraries and the KU Biology Department. Inspired by the tenets of open pedagogy, the purpose of this project is to use Wikipedia as a way for students to learn about the scholarly peer review process while also producing material that can be shared and used by the world outside the classroom. The paper is divided into three sections, with the first summarizing pertinent related literature related to the paper’s topic. From here, the paper describes the proposed assignment, detailing a process wherein students write new articles for the encyclopedia which are then anonymously peer reviewed by other students in the class; when articles are deemed acceptable, they are published via Wikipedia. The parallels between this project and academic peer review are emphasized throughout. The paper closes by discussing the importance of this project, arguing that it fills a known scholarly need, actively produces knowledge, furthers the aims of the open access movement, and furthers scientific outreach initiatives.

Interactive teaching methods as a means of successful student learning activity

Interactive teaching methods are the alternative of educational activity in modern changes of socio-economic life of the country during a global pandemic. There is a gradual departure from traditional teaching methods, associated with the rapid development of various technologies that can be used in the educational process. The aim of the article is to study the efficiency of using interactive teaching methods of schoolchildren at the lessons of geography in 6-7 classes. Main material. Interactive methods are aimed at developing skills of independent processing of new information, abilities and skills that help in adapting to complex, fleeting and unexpected situations. Today, there are many diverse accessible sources of knowledge, which provide new opportunities for learning. Thus, these teaching methods allow us to work out conditions for successful learning, assimilation of information, positive emotions, motivation for educational activities, formation of group, team- work skills, directions of schoolchildren’s activities. It is established that mastering of geography knowledge by students is more effective during the solution to problem searching situations. Thus, such approaches to learning can be the basis of interactive technologies that make learning accessible, successful and interesting. The student community acquires the most valuable skills: the ability to overcome difficulties, analyze them and look for ways to further implementation. The analysis of the pedagogical experiment allowed us to establish the advantages and disadvantages of using different interactive teaching methods. The advantages include active learning activities of students, encouraging them to understand and use information, developing creative opportunities, further practical activities, the disadvantages - the technical feasibility of implementing these methods into the educational process, low computer and information literacy of the participants. Conclusions. Interactive teaching methods are aimed at the formation of a high level of knowledge, self-study and selforganization of educational activities. The most convenient and used are multimedia teaching methods, the use of project technologies, debate, peer review and discussion.

Peer Review of Research Data Submissions to ScholarsArchive@OSU: How can we improve the curation of research datasets to enhance reusability?

<strong>Objective</strong>: Best practices such as the FAIR Principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) were developed to ensure that published datasets are reusable. While we employ best practices in the curation of datasets, we want to learn how domain experts view the reusability of datasets in our institutional repository, ScholarsArchive@OSU. Curation workflows are designed by data curators based on their own recommendations, but research data is extremely specialized, and such workflows are rarely evaluated by researchers. In this project we used peer-review by domain experts to evaluate the reusability of the datasets in our institutional repository, with the goal of informing our curation methods and ensure that the limited resources of our library are maximizing the reusability of research data. <strong>Methods</strong>: We asked all researchers who have datasets submitted in Oregon State University’s repository to refer us to domain experts who could review the reusability of their data sets. Two data curators who are non-experts also reviewed the same datasets. We gave both groups review guidelines based on the guidelines of several journals. Eleven domain experts and two data curators reviewed eight datasets. The review included the quality of the repository record, the quality of the documentation, and the quality of the data. We then compared the comments given by the two groups. <strong>Results</strong>: Domain experts and non-expert data curators largely converged on similar scores for reviewed datasets, but the focus of critique by domain experts was somewhat divergent. A few broad issues common across reviews were: insufficient documentation, the use of links to journal articles in the place of documentation, and concerns about duplication of effort in creating documentation and metadata. Reviews also reflected the background and skills of the reviewer. Domain experts expressed a lack of expertise in data curation practices and data curators expressed their lack of expertise in the research domain. <strong>Conclusions</strong>: The results of this investigation could help guide future research data curation activities and align domain expert and data curator expectations for reusability of datasets. We recommend further exploration of these common issues and additional domain expert peer-review project to further refine and align expectations for research data reusability. <em>The substance of this article is based upon a panel presentation at RDAP Summit 2019.</em>

The Scottish Orthodontic Peer Review project: the outcome of treatment and standard of record keeping by orthodontic specialist practitioners in Scotland.

Assess occlusal outcomes of treatment and clinical record keeping in specialist practice in Scotland. A retrospective cohort study. Specialist practices in Scotland. Specialist orthodontists in Scotland. Every specialist practitioner in Scotland (51) was invited to take part in the peer review project with 38 (76%) enrolled. Scotland was split into four geographical areas, and each practitioner matched with a colleague from the same area. Practitioners took one day to visit their colleague and score 30 consecutively treated NHS cases using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. They also assessed the quality of the records taken. Practitioners then swapped roles and assessed their partner's occlusal outcomes and records. The mean pretreatment PAR score was 28.6 (SD 3.5). Mean posttreatment PAR score was 3.5 (SD 1.2). Mean reduction in PAR score was 25.1 (SD 3.8). Mean percentage PAR score reduction was 87.7% (SD 3.7%). Overall record keeping scores were written records 100%, study models 99.5%, Orthopantomogram radiograph 99.2%, photographs 86.3%, medical history 75% and consent 40.8%. Occlusal outcomes achieved by specialist practitioners in Scotland were of a high standard. They maintained a good standard of clinical record collection in most areas examined.

An Accurate and Impartial Expert Assignment Method for Scientific Project Review

Abstract Purpose This paper proposes an expert assignment method for scientific project review that considers both accuracy and impartiality. As impartial and accurate peer review is extremely important to ensure the quality and feasibility of scientific projects, enhanced methods for managing the process are needed. Design/methodology/approach To ensure both accuracy and impartiality, we design four criteria, the reviewers’ fitness degree, research intensity, academic association, and potential conflict of interest, to express the characteristics of an appropriate peer review expert. We first formalize the expert assignment problem as an optimization problem based on the designed criteria, and then propose a randomized algorithm to solve the expert assignment problem of identifying reviewer adequacy. Findings Simulation results show that the proposed method is quite accurate and impartial during expert assignment. Research limitations Although the criteria used in this paper can properly show the characteristics of a good and appropriate peer review expert, more criteria/conditions can be included in the proposed scheme to further enhance accuracy and impartiality of the expert assignment. Practical implications The proposed method can help project funding agencies (e.g. the National Natural Science Foundation of China) find better experts for project peer review. Originality/value To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first publication that proposes an algorithm that applies an impartial approach to the project review expert assignment process. The simulation results show the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Compute-to-Learn: Authentic Learning via Development of Interactive Computer Demonstrations within a Peer-Led Studio Environment

In this paper, we report on the implementation of a novel compute-to-learn pedagogy, which is based upon the theories of situated cognition and meaningful learning. The compute-to-learn pedagogy is designed to simulate an authentic research experience as part of the undergraduate curriculum, including project development, teamwork, peer review, and publication. The compute-to-learn pedagogy was piloted during the Fall 2015 semester within a one-semester, peer-led honors studio environment that uses active learning strategies to encourage cooperation and collaboration among students as they learn how to program. The rationale behind the pedagogy, lessons learned, and adjustments made based on three iterations of its execution, and its initial assessment through end-of-semester interviews are discussed.

Developing an Open, Networked Peer Review System

Using the Personas for Open, Networked Peer Review project as a case study, this paper discusses how best practices from creative technology-development contexts, such as agile development, can be applied in digital humanities projects.

Meeting Scholars Where They Are: The Advanced Research Consortium (ARC) and a Social Humanities Infrastructure

The Advanced Research Consortium (ARC) is the central organizing force for several virtual research environments (VREs). ARC is the hub for these period-specific nodes, which offer digital project peer review, aggregation and search technologies, and forms of community engagement. The mission of both ARC and the nodes is to construct and support a “social system” for the humanities in which the digital and the traditional can come together to develop a working social humanities infrastructure. This article discusses how the ARC infrastructure evolved from the framework of scholarly engagement developed by NINES (Networked Infrastructure for Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship) and explains how the consortium assists the scholarly community: through digital project peer review, aggregation and search, and outreach services.

A Proposal for Open Peer Review

[1] Throughout its history, Music Theory Online has leveraged new digital technologies to increase access to high-level scholarship and facilitate discussions of published materials inside the journal itself. (See, for example, the commentaries in Volumes 0.2, 1.1, 13.3, and 16.4.) New technologies and publishing practices have developed in the past few years that can carry these practices even further, in great service to the academic community. One such publishing practice is open peer review, exemplified by publications like the Journal of Digital Humanities, Digital Humanities Now, Digital Humanities This, American History Now, and the book Web Writing: Why and How for Liberal Arts Teaching and Learning (Dougherty et al. 2014). While multiple practices exist that can be considered manifestations of open peer review, open peer review in its fullest sense takes the scholarly discussion that traditionally follows publication-such as the discussion threads contained in the early issues of MTO-and moves it pre-publication, rendering them part of the review process. Open peer review ensures high visibility for the best work, extensive vetting by the scholarly community pre-publication, and a timely publication process, all the while maintaining high standards for peer-reviewed publication.[2] Music theorists would benefit from having an open peer-review journal, and MTO is best situated to be that journal. MTO is also well situated to experiment with open peer review without committing its entire future to such a model. In this article, I will explain open peer review in more detail by following an example article through the process of review and publication, commenting on the potential benefits of this process along the way. I conclude with a proposal for how MTO might experiment with the open peer-review model in order to gauge its potential for our field more precisely.Following the Process[3] One of the first articles to appear in the Journal of Digital Humanities is Trevor Owens's "Defining Data for Humanists: Text, Artifact, Information or Evidence?" This article began as a chapter for the book, Writing History in the Digital Age, itself an open peer-review project (Nawrotski and Dougherty, 2013). Writing History in the Digital Age was undertaken by co-editors Jack Dougherty (Trinity College, Connecticut) and Kristen Nawrotzki (Padagogische Hochschule Heidelberg), in collaboration with the University of Michigan Press. This project is available from UMP as a print book, a downloadable ebook, and an open-access web book as part of their series of digitalculturebooks that explore novel publication models like open peer review and simultaneous print and open-access publication. For that project, Owens co-authored a chapter with Frederick W. Gibbs called "The Hermeneutics of Data and Historical Writing." The first version of this chapter was posted to the project website in the fall of 2011. On this website, readers can comment on the chapter as a whole, or on specific paragraphs in the chapter. The chapter received 35 total comments-12 on the chapter as a whole, and 23 on specific passages. Some of these comments we would recognize as typical peer-review summaries (accept/reject/revise with comments on how best to revise); others were directed at improving specific elements in the chapter.[4] Owens and Gibbs replied to some comments directly, and ultimately composed a revision of this chapter, which appeared on the project website in the spring of 2012. At this stage in the publication process, the chapter moved from review mode to copyediting mode. The chapter on the website includes a link to a document in Google Drive where any reader can comment (though comments ended up limited to the two authors and two editors), but only the document owners can change the text in response to those comments. The final version of this document was submitted to the publisher for inclusion in the print and electronic book editions (Gibbs and Owens 2013). …

Blended learning in situated contexts: 3‐year evaluation of an online peer review project

Situated and sociocultural perspectives on learning indicate that the design of complex tasks supported by educational technologies holds potential for dental education in moving novices towards closer approximation of the clinical outcomes of their expert mentors. A cross-faculty-, student-centred, web-based project in operative dentistry was established within the Universitas 21 (U21) network of higher education institutions to support university goals for internationalisation in clinical learning by enabling distributed interactions across sites and institutions. This paper aims to present evaluation of one dental faculty's project experience of curriculum redesign for deeper student learning. A mixed-method case study approach was utilised. Three cohorts of second-year students from a 5-year bachelor of dental surgery (BDS) programme were invited to participate in annual surveys and focus group interviews on project completion. Survey data were analysed for differences between years using multivariate logistical regression analysis. Thematic analysis of questionnaire open responses and interview transcripts was conducted. Multivariate logistic regression analysis noted significant differences across items over time indicating learning improvements, attainment of university aims and the positive influence of redesign. Students perceived the enquiry-based project as stimulating and motivating, and building confidence in operative techniques. Institutional goals for greater understanding of others and lifelong learning showed improvement over time. Despite positive scores, students indicated global citizenship and intercultural understanding were conceptually challenging. Establishment of online student learning communities through a blended approach to learning stimulated motivation and intellectual engagement, thereby supporting a situated approach to cognition. Sociocultural perspectives indicate that novice-expert interactions supported student development of professional identities.

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&#x0D; society publishers as its partners.

Construction Project Peer Reviews as an Early Indicator of Project Success

AbstractIn an effort to proactively identify and mitigate potential project management problems in construction projects, the United States General Service Administration (GSA) developed and implemented a project peer review process in conjunction with the University of Colorado at Boulder and Peter Associates. This paper discusses the peer review process and analyzes whether the questions used in the review can predict project success, as measured by cost, schedule, and the project peer rating, for 22 past projects. The data were analyzed retrospectively by using the point biserial correlation coefficient. The results indicate that project peer reviews conducted during the construction process can be used to assess and predict final project performance. Questions regarding working relationships, communication, timing, project controls, and relational approaches to project participants had significant correlations with project success. In addition, the relationship between the designer and contractor appe...

Peer Mentoring: An Innovative Model for Professional Advancement in Hospice and Palliative Medicine (320)

1.Describe an innovative and successful mentorship model, the peer mentorship group.2.Discuss benefits and challenges of peer mentoring in hospice and palliative medicine.3.Create an action plan for the formation of a peer mentorship group in your specific setting. Hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) is a relatively new subspecialty and senior mentors are scarce resources with limited time. Furthermore, many senior leaders and potential mentors are clustered in large academic medical centers, leaving many junior faculty in both academic and nonacademic settings without optimal mentorship or opportunities for collaboration. Junior faculty development is crucial for the future of HPM. This session will highlight an innovative and effective model of structured mentoring, the peer mentoring group (PMG). A group of eight junior faculty united by a common interest in academic geriatric palliative care has created and tested this model to meet diverse mentorship needs. The core structure includes regularly scheduled meetings, collaborative projects, and supportive group process. The following PMG goals have been achieved: collaboration on national presentations, sharing of scholarly products, evaluation, and feedback on specific projects and skills, collaborative grant writing, and peer support related to shared challenges and work-life balance. We will outline a step-wise approach to creating and maintaining a PMG and discuss potential opportunities and challenges of the model. Strategies for adapting this model to other settings and groups, including interdisciplinary groups and intra- and interinstitutional options, will be discussed. The use of specific mentoring techniques will be described, including the Kegan step-back consultation for project feedback and peer observation and review. Attendees will be guided to reflect on their current mentorship needs and barriers and leave with an action plan for creating a PMG. We hope that learners will be energized by this innovative model of mentorship and identify a means to achieve a decreased sense of isolation, focused peer support, and increased productivity. Structure and Processes of Care

Expert Anti-Evaluation Model Based on Matter-Element Analysis in Fund Project Peer-Review System

The article analyses several key issues which restrict the effectiveness of fund project peer review work. It analyses the evaluating theory and matter-element theory to access the expert anti-evaluation model, and also studies the expert anti-evaluation index system to support the anti-evaluation method. The practical basis is the true score data of the experts which is collected from the actual anti-evaluation in Liaoning province science and technology fund project peer review system. With the practical experience of the actual project, we prove that the expert index system anti-evaluation model and expert anti-evaluation method can improve the fund project peer review work and play a positive role for the peer review work and also make the review work more scientific and more rational.

Banking of Biological Fluids for Studies of Disease-associated Protein Biomarkers

With the increasing demand of providing personalized medicine the need for biobanking of biological material from individual patients has increased. Such samples are essential for molecular research aimed at characterizing diseases at several levels ranging from epidemiology and diagnostic and prognostic classification to prediction of response to therapy. Clinically validated biomarkers may provide information to be used for diagnosis, screening, evaluation of risk/predisposition, assessment of prognosis, monitoring (recurrence of disease), and prediction of response to treatment and as a surrogate response marker. Many types of biological fluids or tissues can be collected and stored in biorepositories. Samples of blood can be further processed into plasma and serum, and tissue pieces can be either frozen or fixed in formalin and then embedded into paraffin. The present review focuses on biological fluids, especially serum and plasma, intended for study of protein biomarkers. In biomarker studies the process from the decision to take a sample from an individual to the moment the sample is safely placed in the biobank consists of several phases including collection of samples, transport of the samples, and handling and storage of samples. Critical points in each step important for high quality biomarker studies are described in this review. Failure to develop and adhere to robust standardized protocols may have significant consequences as the quality of the material stored in the biobank as well as conclusions and clinical recommendations based on analysis of such material may be severely affected.