Rounds Of Peer Review Research Articles

Preface: Special issue on NLP approaches to offensive content online

We are delighted to present the Special Issue on NLP Approaches to Offensive Content Online published in the Journal of Natural Language Engineering issue 29.6. We are happy to have received a total of 26 submissions to the special issue evidencing the interest of the NLP community in this topic. Our guest editorial board comprised of international experts in the field has worked hard to review all submissions over multiple rounds of peer review. Ultimately, we accepted nine articles to appear in this special issue.

Factors Associated with Stereotactic Radiation Plan Revision in Prospective Peer Review.

Stereotactic radiotherapy (SR) is highly effective but has risks for serious toxicity. We sought to identify risk factors for SR plans requiring revision in a comprehensive, prospective peer review program conducted across a network of affiliated radiation centers. We hypothesized that increased physician experience and SR case volume would be associated with lower rates of SR plan revision. Weekly peer review rounds were conducted to review SR cases for image fusion, contours, plan, and dose constraints, all prior to start of radiation. Cases recommended for revision were recorded and tracked prospectively. Factors potentially associated with case revision including body site, SR type, physician experience, and physician case load were assessed for significance using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. From March 2019 to January 2023, 1,015 SR cases were prospectively reviewed, including 312 brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), 190 multi-fraction brain SRS (fSRS), and 513 stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Revision was recommended in 177 cases (17%). The yearly revision rate was 21% in 2019, 16% in 2020, 17% in 2021, and 18% in 2022. There were 13 individual treating physicians with a median of 5 years' experience (range: 2-18 years), measured at the time of each SR case review. Physicians were categorized as junior (< = 2 years of experience), mid-career (3-9 years), or senior (> = 10 years). The physician's SR case volume in the preceding 3 months (median 25 cases) was dichotomized as low volume (< = 25) or high volume (>25). Logistic regression results are shown in Table 1. Statistical significance was determined by p <0.05. SR plans utilizing SRS (as opposed to SBRT) and treated by physicians with high case volume had lower revision rates. Junior attendings had higher revision rates. These data imply a high value to peer review for junior attendings and for those with low SR case volume. Adequate case volume may be a critical factor for safe delivery of SR, analogous to surgical literature. Annual revision rates in the program remained stable over time, demonstrating the ongoing importance of an effective peer review program for SR.

The academic status of reviewers predicts their language use

Peer review plays an essential role in scientific research, but the influence of reviewers' academic status is often overlooked during this process. By accessing peer review reports, in this study we empirically investigate this effect. Specifically, we analyzed 2,580 peer review histories from eLife submissions between 2016 and 2021 to examine the relationship between reviewers’ academic status and their language usage in the first round of peer review. We focused on two types of language features: emotional features (e.g., positivity and subjectivity) and linguistic features (e.g., number of long words and complex words). Our findings revealed no significant reviewer bias of academic status, such that the reviewers’ comments with emotional features were not significantly associated with reviewers’ awareness of being more prestigious than the last corresponding author of the manuscripts. More accomplished reviewers, however, were more likely to use longer and more complex words. Additionally, the results of linguistic features remained robust in the group where the last author served as the last corresponding author. Overall, our findings suggest that the quality of peer review remains the primary consideration for reviewers when evaluating submissions. These results have significant implications for open peer review practices and the fair assessment of the peer review process.

Assessing religion and spirituality in a cross-cultural sample: development of religion and spirituality items for the Global Flourishing Study

ABSTRACT The Global Flourishing Survey (GFS) was initiated to provide an open-access, longitudinal study of health and well-being using a participant panel from 22 countries around the world. At the core of the GFS are questions on religion and spirituality—notoriously difficult to assess in a cross-cultural context. Additionally, the longitudinal aspect will allow for tests of within-person change over time. In developing the religion and spirituality items, we received suggestions and feedback from over 130 scholars, and the items underwent several rounds of peer-review by experts in the field. The preliminary survey items were also made publicly available to gather more feedback. Experts at Gallup then translated candidate items to ensure consistency across languages/cultures. Here, we present the results of cognitive interviews of 230 participants in 22 religiously diverse countries regarding the efficiency, efficacy, and difficulty of our candidate items. In the spirit of open science, we wish to share our findings from the interviews and provide recommendations regarding Likert scale usage, item specificity, assessment of God representations, and inclusivity when assessing religion and spirituality across cultures. In this, we aim to assist other researchers and support confidence in the reliability and validity of GFS data when it becomes publicly available.

PO-1083 Real world data of peer review rounds on a daily basis: A nine-year experience

PO-1083 Real world data of peer review rounds on a daily basis: A nine-year experience

A Decade of Prospective Peer Review: Impact on Safety Culture and Lessons Learned in a Multicenter Radiation Medicine Department

Quality assurance (QA) is critical to the success of radiation therapy (RT) for patients with cancer and affects clinical outcomes. We report longitudinal findings of a prospective peer review evaluation system implemented at a major academic health system as part of RT QA during a 10-year period. All cases treated within our department undergo prospective multidisciplinary peer review and are assigned a grade (A, B, or C). "A" cases require no changes, "B" cases require minor modification, and "C" cases require major modification before treatment planning. The z-ratio test for the significance of the difference between the 5-year baseline (2012-2016) and follow-up (2017-2021) period was used to compare grades between the 2 periods. A 2-tailed P value <.05 was considered significant. Of the 20,069 cases, 15,659 (78%) were curative and were analyzed. The fraction of A cases decreased from 74.8% (baseline) to 64.5% (follow-up), whereas B cases increased from 19.4% to 35.4% and C cases decreased from 5.8% to 0.1%. Of the 9 treatment locations, the main hospital site had a higher percentage of A grades relative to community locations in the baseline (78.6% vs 67.8%; P < .002) and follow-up (66.9% vs 62.3%; P < .002) periods. There was a decrease in the percentage of A cases from the baseline to the follow-up period regardless of plan type (complex vs intermediate vs simple). There was a decrease in the percentage of A cases among specialists from baseline to follow-up (78.2% to 67.7%; P < .002) and among generalists from baseline to follow-up (69.7% to 61.7%; P < .002). Our 10-year experience in contour peer review identifiedincreasedopportunities in improving treatment plan quality over time. The drop in A scores and rise in B scores suggests increased scrutiny and findings-based improvements over time, whereas the drop in C scores indicates amelioration of "major failures" addressed in the startup years. Peer review rounds upstream of treatment planning provide valuable RT QA and should be considered by other departments to enhance the quality and consistency of RT.

Improving Radiation Quality Through the Implementation of Prospective Peer Review

<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3> Quality assurance (QA) is critical to the successful delivery of radiation therapy (RT) for cancer patients and also impacts outcomes. The present study reports the longitudinal results of a prospective peer review evaluation system (PES) implemented at a major academic health system as an integral part of RT QA. <h3>Materials/Methods</h3> All patient cases treated with RT by one of 32 physicians at 14 treatment locations within our radiation oncology department undergo prospective peer review in daily rounds. Each case is assigned a grade (A, B, C) based on the following criteria: clinical suitability for RT, prescription, contours, and treatment plan, where applicable. "A" cases require no changes, "B's" require minor modification, and "C's" require major modification with re-review prior to treatment planning. The present study is a longitudinal analysis of grade trends over time by hospital, plan type, and physician. The Wilcoxon-signed-ranked test was used to compare grades during the baseline PES period (2013-2016) to the follow-up period (2017-2021). A p-value below 0.05 is considered significant. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 20,069 cases for 14,300 patients were reviewed from September 2013 to November 2021. Of the total cases, 15,659 (78%) were curative and were included in the present analysis; 5,868 from the baseline period and 9,791 in the follow-up period. The fraction of A cases decreased from 74.8% (baseline) to 64.5% (follow-up), while the fraction of B's increased from 19.4% (baseline) to 35.4% (follow-up), and the fraction of C's decreased from 5.8% (baseline) to 0.1% (follow-up). The main hospital site contributed 54.8% of all cases and 48.1% of all B grades. IMRT plans accounted for 55.4% of all plans and 68.2% of all B scores, while 3D-conformal plans accounted for 24.4% of cases and 15.4% of all B scores. When normalized by total department A/B/C scores, there were no statistically significant changes in percent A/B/C scores over the time period studied (p-value> 0.05). However, for the 13 physicians with cases throughout the study period, there was a statistically significant increase in the fraction of B scores (p value = 0.01) and decrease in the fraction of C scores (p value < 0.01) between the two time periods when individual physician grades were normalized to their individual caseload. <h3>Conclusion</h3> PES improves the identification of quality-related factors that can impact downstream radiation treatment plan quality. The diminishing fraction of C grades over time indicates amelioration of ‘major failures,' which were addressed in the startup years of PES. The proportional increase in B's, at the cost of fewer putative A's, suggests increased scrutiny of cases, as well as findings-based improvements in contouring and planning, over time. Peer review rounds upstream of treatment planning provides valuable RT QA and should be considered by other departments to enhance the quality and consistency of RT.

Author Submission Guidelines

Author Submission Guidelines

Current Guidance on Inclusive Language for Medical and Science Journals

MODERATOR: Stacy L Christiansen JAMA SPEAKERS: Tracy Frey JAMA Network Annette Flanagin JAMA and JAMA Network Stacy L Christiansen REPORTER: Michele Springer Caudex New York, New York “Inclusive language supports diversity and conveys respect. Language that imparts bias toward or against persons or groups based on characteristics or demographics must be avoided.”1 This session focused on inclusive language updates from the AMA Manual of Style, a resource used by scientific authors, editors, and publishers worldwide. Stacy Christiansen opened the session by explaining the rationale behind updating the AMA Manual of Style so soon after the last update (February 2020): They believe it is imperative for medical and scientific journals to use consistent, equitable language when describing the race and ethnicity of patients or in articles that discuss health disparities in healthcare, research, and education (Figure). The AMA Manual of Style Committee began reassessing the guidance for reporting race and ethnicity in spring 2020. After 8 months of research, updates, and external review, the revised guidance was published as an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Assosication (JAMA) in February 2021 with an invitation for wider review and feedback. The guidance was revised following comments from numerous reviewers and those with expertise in diversity, equity, and inclusion. After another round of peer review, the updated guidance was published in JAMA in August 2021. The following key principles are included in the updated guidance: An acknowledgment that race and ethnicity are social constructs—race is a created concept, not defined […]

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force

ObjectivesDeliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap. MethodsThe joint Task Force consisted of 15 members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to 2 rounds of peer review. ResultsA deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation. ConclusionsThe guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by 6 phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Опыт и перспективы применения цифровых двойников в общественном здравоохранении

Digitalization of healthcare opens up opportunities for applying new approaches to the organization of medical care, improving its quality, optimizing the use of healthcare resources. Digital twin is one of the new approaches, a virtual model of a physical object with dynamic bidirectional connections between a physical object and its corresponding twin in a digital environment. Digital twins allow to study, create and test new hypotheses, conduct experiments and research in silico. T h e a i m o f t h e s t u d y is to describe the existing Russian and foreign experience in the practical application of digital twins in the field of healthcare. M a t e r i a l s a n d m e t h o d s . The literature review was conducted in Pubmed and Elibrary databases. Publications describing ethical and regulatory aspects, industrial, engineering or logistics applications were excluded. The articles have passed two rounds of peer review. R e s u l t s . Digital twins are used in clinical medicine to test new methods of treatment and the body’s response to them, to simulate the work of organs and tissues. The application of the technology for the development of precision therapy in cardiology, oncology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, orthodontic treatment, rehabilitation, intensive care is described. The digital twin can be used by health authorities to model patient behavior, predict the spread of the infectious process, the work of a medical institution and its structural units in order to optimize resources. C o n c l u s i o n s . The article provides an overview of technology and the main areas of application of digital twins for personalized medicine, public health and smart healthy cities. The prospects for using digital twins lie in the field of creating smart “healthy” cities and regions.

Peer review quality assurance in stereotactic body radiotherapy planning: the impact of case volume

Abstract Purpose: Peer review is an essential quality assurance component of radiation therapy planning. A growing body of literature has demonstrated substantial rates of suggested plan changes resulting from peer review. There remains a paucity of data on the impact of peer review rounds for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We therefore aim to evaluate the outcomes of peer review in this specific patient cohort. Methods and materials: We conducted a retrospective review of all SBRT cases that underwent peer review from July 2015 to June 2018 at a single institution. Weekly peer review rounds are grouped according to cancer subsite and attended by radiation oncologists, medical physicists and medical radiation technologists. We prospectively compiled ‘learning moments’, defined as cases with suggested changes or where an educational discussion occurred beyond routine management, and critical errors, defined as errors which could alter clinical outcomes, recorded prospectively during peer review. Plan changes implemented after peer review were documented. Results: Nine hundred thirty-four SBRT cases were included. The most common treatment sites were lung (518, 55%), liver (196, 21%) and spine (119, 13%). Learning moments were identified in 161 cases (17%) and translated into plan changes in 28 cases (3%). Two critical errors (0.2%) were identified: an inadequate planning target volume margin and an incorrect image set used for contouring. There was a statistically significantly higher rate of learning moments for lower-volume SBRT sites (defined as ≤30 cases/year) versus higher-volume SBRT sites (29% vs 16%, respectively; p = 0.001). Conclusions: Peer review for SBRT cases revealed a low rate of critical errors, but did result in implemented plan changes in 3% of cases, and either educational discussion or suggestions of plan changes in 17% of cases. All SBRT sites appear to benefit from peer review, though lower-volume sites may require particular attention.

Assessing initial plan check efficacy using TG 275 failure modes and incident reporting.

Plan checks are important components of a robust quality assurance (QA) program. Recently, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) published two reports concerning plan and chart checking, Task Group (TG) 275 and Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 11.A. The purpose of the current study was to crosswalk initial plan check failure modes revealed in TG 275 against our institutional QA program and local incident reporting data. Ten physicists reviewed 46 high‐risk failure modes reported in Table S1.A.i of the TG 275 report. The committee identified steps in our planning process which sufficiently checked each failure mode. Failure modes that were not covered were noted for follow‐up. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed the narratives of 1599 locally‐reported incidents in our Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (ROILS) database and categorized each into the high‐risk TG 275 failure modes. We found that over half of the 46 high‐risk failure modes, six of which were top‐ten failure modes, were covered in part by daily contouring peer‐review rounds, upstream of the traditional initial plan check. Five failure modes were not adequately covered, three of which concerned pregnancy, pacemakers, and prior dose. Of the 1599 incidents analyzed, 710 were germane to the initial plan check, 23.4% of which concerned missing pregnancy attestations. Most, however, were caught prior to CT simulation (98.8%). Physics review and initial plan check were the least efficacious checks, with error detection rates of 31.8% and 31.3%, respectively, for some failure modes. Our QA process that includes daily contouring rounds resulted in increased upstream error detection. This work has led to several initiatives in the department, including increased automation and enhancement of several policies and procedures. With TG 275 and MPPG 11.A as a guide, we strongly recommend that departments consider an internal chart checking policy and procedure review.

Author Submission Guidelines

Author Submission Guidelines

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.• Type of peer review: Double-blind• Conference submission management system: http://papersub.emetconf.org• Number of submissions received: 31• Number of submissions sent for review: 19• Number of submissions accepted: 16• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Approximately 52%• Average number of reviews per paper: 3• Total number of reviewers involved: 49• Any additional info on review process: After preview by editorial assistant, 19 papers were sent for peer reviews, 49 reviewers were involved in the process, and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the reviewers’ comments. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editors weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries: Name : Ms. Beckey ChenAffiliation: Association for Science and EngineeringEmail : info@emetconf.org

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.• Type of peer review: Double-blind• Conference submission management system: http://papersub.iceeep.org/• Number of submissions received: 223• Number of submissions sent for review: 215• Number of submissions accepted: 120• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Approximately 53.8%• Average number of reviews per paper: 4• Total number of reviewers involved: 933Any additional info on review process: After preview by editorial assistant, 215 papers were sent for peer reviews, 933 reviewers were involved in the process, and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the reviewers’ comments. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editors weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries: Name : Ms. Jiajia MoAffiliation: Wuhan Zhiming Cultural Communication Co., Ltd.Email : secretary@iceeep.org

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.

ObjectivesDeliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stake-holders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.MethodsThe joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review.ResultsA deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.ConclusionsThe guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Technical Issues Encountered During Ethics Review: Quality Assurance in the Research Process

Technical Issues Encountered During Ethics Review: Quality Assurance in the Research Process

A first interim assessment of the third round of peer review of the European statistical system

A first interim assessment of the third round of peer review of the European statistical system

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.• Type of peer review:Double-blind•Conference submission management system:http://papersub.pmsconf.org/• Number of submissions received:91• Number of submissions sent for review:85• Number of submissions accepted:52• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100):Approximately 57.1%• Average number of reviews per paper:3• Total number of reviewers involved:256• Any additional info on review process:After preview by editorial assistant, 85 papers were sent for peer reviews, 256 reviewers were involved in the process, and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the reviewers’ comments. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editors weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries:Ms. Lily GongAssociation for Science and Engineering, ChinaSecretary@iwegconf.org