Rounds Of Peer Review Research Articles

Reasons for Screen Failure among Patients Identified as Candidates for a Phase 2 Study of 5-fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Oligometastatic Cancer

The term oligometastatic (OM) was introduced to describe patients with a limited number of clinically detectable metastases for which local ablative therapy could potentially provide improved disease-free survival or even cure. The incidence of an oligometastatic disease distribution is difficult to estimate. The purpose of this analysis was to describe the reasons precluding trial participation in our trial of SBRT for oligometastatic cancer. We retrospectively audited all patients who were screened for participation in a single-arm phase II trial designed for patients with OM cancer (up to 5 sites of extra-cranial metastases). Study participants received local ablative therapy to all known sites of disease and at least one index lesion was treated with 5 fraction SBRT (study intervention). Eligibility criteria required baseline computed tomography (CT) ≤1 month prior to enrolment, and all cases were discussed at peer-review rounds to confirm eligibility. Between Mar 7 2013 and Nov 17 2017, 236 patients were screened and 145 (61%) enrolled to the study. The reasons for screen failure included patients declining study participation in 4% (9/236) [n = 9; 4 with <5 mets, and 5 with uncertain number] and 12% (29/236) having >5 metastases upon restaging baseline scans. Of the remaining 53 patients who had ≤5 metastases but were not enrolled, reasons for screen failure included uncertainty that the primary tumor was controlled (n=9), lesions where alternative ablative therapy was recommended (n=10), not suitable for SBRT (n=18; size n=3, non-SBRT strategy preferred n=8, toxicity risk n=4, previous RT field overlap n=3), high subjective risk of systemic relapse (n=9; progressive disease during restaging scans n=4, not suitable for comprehensive ablative therapy n=1, plan for systemic therapy n=4) or other reasons (n=7; e.g. index lesion resolution, index lesion was a primary tumor, presence of cranial metastases). In our review of a cohort of patients flagged to be potential candidates for enrollment in a clinical trial of SBRT for OM cancer, 87% of patients were confirmed to have <5 metastases. The screen failure rate was high. The most common reason for exclusion was detection of >5 metastases (12%) while a small group of patients (5%) were deemed to be at high risk of systemic relapse based on clinical factors and peer review rounds. Reporting of the characteristics of screen failed patients are important in the interpretation of trial results.

Pre-treatment peer-review: enhancing value through increased efficiency and effectiveness of radiation oncology peer review

The purposes of this study are to enhance our quality assurance process with the introduction of pre-treatment peer review within a large academic group practice and to document how this commitment impacts the delivery of safe and effective plans. We supplemented our chart-rounds-based peer review process with the addition of pre-treatment peer review rounds in August 2014. Chart rounds consisted of weekly meetings where all patients on treatment were reviewed within their first five fractions of treatment, regardless of treatment intent. Pre-treatment peer review consisted of all stereotactic radiotherapy cases (SBRT/SRS) or cases with increased complexity, or questions about appropriateness or technique, and was conducted separately from chart rounds. Treatment teams participating in quality assurance conferences included radiation oncologists (at least one other than the primary physician), residents, physician assistant, and physics and dosimetry teams. Components of peer review discussed were treatment intent, appropriateness of radiation therapy, organ at risk/target delineation, and proposed dose/fractionation. Changes were stratified into major and minor changes. Major changes included wrong use of radiotherapy (RT), change in RT modality, > 1 cm field change, > 4 Gy total dose change or adding chemotherapy or surgical evaluation. Minor changes included ≤ 1 cm field change, ≤ 4 Gy total dose change, or additional physical exam, imaging or pathology clarification to assist in target volume delineation. Since August 2014, there have been 1439 patients presented at our peer review conferences. A total of 8% of patients had changes recommended. Importantly, the frequency of change was 10 to 15 times higher for cases that were reviewed prior to treatment start, as compared to those reviewed during on-treatment chart rounds (22% for pre-treatment SBRT/SRS patients, 44% for pre-treatment non-SBRT/SRS patients and 3% for patients presented at chart rounds. Most of the changes were minor (62%), but 38% of all changes were major and thought to be of a magnitude that could potentially affect therapeutic outcome or normal tissue toxicity. The addition of comprehensive pre-treatment peer review proved valuable and effective. The introduction of pre-treatment peer review resulted in an almost 50% reduction in on-treatment chart round changes. This reduction provides value in both patient safety and clinical efficiency.

Prospective Case Review in Radiation Oncology Prior to Treatment Delivery

Prospective Case Review in Radiation Oncology Prior to Treatment Delivery

Does Peer-Review of Radiation Treatment Plans Impact Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature

Peer-review of radiation plans is recommended as an approach to improving patient safety and quality of care. However, peer-review rounds are resource-intensive, and their impact on clinical care is not well-quantified. The objective of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the literature to assess the impact of peer-review on clinical care. A systemic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and abstracts from relevant radiation oncology meetings. For inclusion, studies were required to report the impact of physician peer-review on at least one element of treatment planning (e.g. target volume/organ-at-risk delineation, dose prescription, or dosimetry). Surveys in which radiation oncologists were asked to estimate the impact of peer-review on treatment planning were also included to ascertain physician perspective on the clinical impact of peer review. Studies reporting central review of contours in clinical trials were excluded. All proportions reported represent weighted averages across studies. The initial search yielded 882 potentially eligible studies. Full-text review was performed independently by two researchers, with discrepancies settled by a third. In total, 16 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Twelve studies, involving 12,239 patients, reported patient outcomes whereas, four surveys reported oncologists’ estimates of clinical impact. Studies were recent, with the majority (75%) published since 2010. Twelve studies reported on multiple tumor sites, while single-site studies included head and neck (n=1), lung (n=2), and breast (n=1). In most studies, peer-review occurred before the start of radiotherapy or within the first few fractions. Overall, peer-review resulted in modifications to 10.7% of patient plans. Five studies differentiated between minor versus major changes and reported averages of 7.5% minor changes and 2.5% major changes. From the survey studies, oncologists estimates that modifications occurred in 6% of treatment plans. Based on a systematic review of the literature, peer-review results in changes in clinical care in approximately 1 out every 9 cases overall, with major changes in approximately 1 out of every 40 cases. Further research is required to determine the essential elements of peer-review, and to assess the impact of peer review on clinical outcomes.

Introduction: Advances in e-business engineering and management

The term ‘‘e-business’’ was coined by IBM in 1990s, and defined as business activities and processes assisted by Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). In e-commerce sector, according to a recent study, ‘‘Total e-commerce retail sale for 2014 in the US are estimated at $304.9 billion, marking a 15.4 % increase from 2013 sales. In the same time, total retail sales increased just 3.8 %. While e-commerce accounted for 6.5 % of total retail sales in 2014 (5.8 % in 2013), this number is on pace to increase at 14 % compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and will bring its share of the retail market to nearly 9 % by 2017. Not included in these calculations are the billions spent on travel booked online, including airfare, hotels, car rental and travel packages. According to comScore, US e-commerce travel sales were more than $100 billion in 2012, marking a 9 % increase from the previous year’’ [18]. Especially in the new world of IoT, cloud computing and big data science, data, processes, and devices are all converging to reshape how day-to-day business is done. E-business has rapidly evolved, is one of the most exciting and challenging research areas [11, 25, 26]. In such rapid development, new e-business engineering methods and techniques as well as e-business engineering management methods have been developed and applied [2, 5, 10, 13, 15–17, 23, 24]. To respond to the needs from both academic researchers and practitioners for communicating research results on e-business engineering methods and techniques, conference series organized by the IFIP, IEEE and other major research institutions have been developed. These conferences have provided an international forum for researchers in academia and industry to present their most recent findings in e-business engineering. This special issue of Information Technology and Management presents expanded versions of 7 papers from the above-mentioned conferences held recently, focusing on e-business engineering management. To prepare for this issue, all authors were asked to respond to at least two rounds of peer review. Each paper emphasizes the importance of e-business engineering from a unique perspective. Business transactions between different enterprises are more and more executed by a flow of well-defined electronic business documents [22]. However, the structures of these documents may significantly differ depending on industries and regions/areas/countries in which the corresponding inter-organizational business processes are executed [3, 4, 19]. In the paper by Novakovic and Huemer, a novel approach is introduced to apply the contextual knowledge for (semi-) automatically generating semantically interoperable data building blocks, so-called Core Components, comprised by electronic business documents. These documents conform to the Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS) which is proposed by the United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) [14]. With the development of global economic integration, technology standards have become increasingly important for business, industries, and e-business [21]. The paper entitled ‘‘Interaction between technology standardization and technology development: a coupling effect study’’ aims to extend the study about the interaction between technology standardization and technology development. & Li Da Xu lxu@odu.edu

When We Partner with Teachers: Educators as (Co-)Designers

In this special issue, we asked a broad question: what do our designs look like when we partner with teachers? More specifically, we began by acknowledging the fact that our design decisions - the “what has gone into this effort?” - are not always visible in our research publications. The result is a diverse collection of contributing teachers, teacher educators, and educational researchers. This is the first of two special issues focusing on partnership implementations of instructional designs intended for K-12 classrooms. From an open call for proposals, we invited manuscripts that represented different design approaches, contexts, and products, and gave special attention to those authored or co-authored by teachers. After several rounds of peer review, seven manuscripts were selected for the first issue. In this issue, we have brought together a collection of design cases that reflect a range of science instruction resulting from designing new or re-designing existing curricula to creating web-based virtual rainforest journeys to digital physics games. The authors document details of their design thinking, priorities, and influencers. They discuss implementation considerations and confront tensions that existed between their design ideas and the needs of the learners who would use their instructional products in contexts where resources and constraints cannot always easily be known in advance.

Two decades of external peer review of cancer care in general hospitals; the Dutch experience.

External peer review was introduced in general hospitals in the Netherlands in 1994 to assess and improve the multidisciplinary team approach in cancer care. This paper aims to explore the value, perceived impact, and (future) role of external peer review in cancer care. Semistructured interviews were held with clinicians, oncology nurses, and managers from fifteen general hospitals that participated in three rounds of peer review over a period of 16 years. Interviewees reflected on the goals and expectations, experiences, perceived impact, and future role of external peer review. Transcriptions of the interviews were coded to discover recurrent themes. Improving clinical care and organization were the main motives for participation. Positive impact was perceived on multiple aspects of care such as shared responsibilities, internal prioritization of cancer care, improved communication, and a clear structure and position of cancer care within general hospitals. Establishing a direct relationship between the external peer review and organizational or clinical impact proved to be difficult. Criticism was raised on the content of the program being too theoretical and organization‐focussed after three rounds. According to most stakeholders, external peer review can improve multidisciplinary team work in cancer care; however, the acceptance is threatened by a perceived disbalance between effort and visible clinical impact. Leaner and more clinically focused programs are needed to keep repeated peer reviews challenging and worthwhile.

EP-1328: Evaluation of a year of peer review rounds for patients starting EBRT; impact on quality monitoring and improvement

EP-1328: Evaluation of a year of peer review rounds for patients starting EBRT; impact on quality monitoring and improvement

Introduction: Advances in IoT research and applications

The future of the Internet will consist of heterogeneously connected devices that will further extend the borders of the world with physical entities and virtual components. The Internet of Things (IoT) is a term that has been introduced in recent years to describe objects equipped with digital functionality that are able to communicate via the Internet (Li 2013; Reaidy et al. 2015), and it is considered as a part of the Internet of the future. Kevin Ashton firstly proposed the concept of IoT in 1999, and he referred the IoT as uniquely identifiable interoperable connected objects with radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology. IoT can comprise billions of intelligent communicating ‘things’, allowing people and things to be connected anytime, anyplace, with anything and anyone, ideally using any path/network and any service (Perera et al. 2015); as such, IoT will empower the connected things with new capabilities (Li et al. 2015a). In recent years, IoT has drawn significant research attention, evidenced by the number of survey papers written on the IoT subject published (Li et al. 2015a; Perera et al. 2015; Whitmore et al. 2015; Xu et al. 2014). IoT is becoming an emerging Internet-based industrial information architecture that is employed to facilitate information flows among supply chain networks across the globe. The significance of IoT to supply chain management lies in streamlining supply chain operations, providing real time information, and tracking business processes at various stages. Many new opportunities in applying IoT to supply chain management are available today or can be foreseen in near future (Bi and Cochran 2014; Li 2012; Xu 2013). In this evolving process, IoT and its related supporting platforms have to be rapidly formed and designed in order to meet industrial demands. There are a plethora of issues needed to be addressed. These issues have been the central themes at a series of related conferences organized by IEEE, IFIP, ACM, and other societies including IFIP’s Confenis, IEEE SMC International Conference on Enterprise Systems, and other conferences. The purpose of the Special Issue is to report on the state-ofthe-art of, and emerging trends in research and practice of IoT. It provides a premier forum for researchers to present research results in all areas ranging from architecture, design, implementation, to the evaluation of IoT as it is permeating and integrating into industries and business. This special issue of Information Systems Frontiers presents expanded versions of six papers from the abovementioned conferences held recently, authored by scholars from the US, Sweden, and China. To prepare for this issue, all authors were asked to respond to at least two rounds of peer review. Each paper emphasizes the importance of IoT from a unique perspective. The problem of food safety is a critical issue in recent years. To address this issue, IoT can be used to track the processes in the stages such as production, storage, and transportation. In the paper entitled “The design of an electronic pedigree system for food safety”, an electronic pedigree system for food P. Wang (*) Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China e-mail: wangpan@whut.edu.cn

Continuous Quality Improvement

The Magnifying GlassFigureWhen considering the program evaluation and quality improvement (QI) cycle for any process improvement, data collection and evaluation are essential. In measuring the journal’s performance, we use both quantitative and qualitative inputs. The qualitative measures emanate from the editorial esthetics, our reputation, and the significance of our professional activities in teaching and learning, using multimedia editorial delivery. The journal of Advances in Skin & Wound Care (ASWC) continues to be one of the most highly cited journals in our field. In 2011, ASWC made its debut into the current biomedical Journal Citation Reports by Thomson Reuters, with an initial impact factor (IF) ranking of 1.438. With this first IF rating (IFR), we also ranked 13th of 97 journals in the report’s “Science” category! On August 18, 2014, the journal’s IF ranking increased to 1.634.1 The IF is a measurement of the frequency by which an article in a scholarly journal is cited in a particular year. For example, in 2013, there were 134 IF cites and 82 citable items in ASWC, resulting in an impact score of 1.634. The impact score is considered by many to be a measure of a journal’s influence and prestige. Because wound care is interprofessional, it is therefore appropriate to compare ourselves with other journals that also cover wound care topics. Categorically, among dermatology journals (N = 61), ASWC ranks 46 in “Total Cites Rankings” and 28 in IFR; of surgically related journals (n = 202), ASWC Total Cites Rankings is 137, and the IFR is 85, and among nursing journals (n = 106), ASWC has a Total Cites Rankings of 34 and an IFR ranking of 20. In fact, our company publishes 5 of the top 25 ranked journals in the “Nursing” category of the 104 nursing titles represented.2 Our readers provide input to the process as well; some of the highlights of a recent readership survey conducted in August 2014 make the following observations: Eighty-four percent read at least half of every issue; 81% have a need to learn more about debridement methods, with more than three-fourths of our readership highly interested in the topic of “bacterial bioburden”; 78% state that the journal assists them in their practice’s decision making; readers rate the overall publication a 4.3 on a 5-point scale; and the majority feel the credibility rating of the journal’s information to be excellent. The Peer-Review Process We rely on our collegial team of authors, peer reviewers, editorial staff, internal education consultants who oversee the continuing education (CE) process, and the leadership of Wolters Kluwer Health. In September 2014, we had one of the most well-attended and productive editorial board meetings in recent memory. In my mind, this meeting exemplified the “plan-do-act-study cycle” of the continuous QI. The discussions began around metrics, which are made readily available through our robust online Editorial Manager (EM) program. We also measure the total number of manuscripts processed. For 2013, 116 manuscripts were processed. Of those, 74 were ultimately accepted after undergoing rounds of peer review with revisions, 42 were rejected after peer review, and a few were triaged for not meeting the journal’s criteria. The tempo of the editorial process has significantly hastened, again with credit to the editorial team, EM, and the peer reviewers. We track “time-to-decision” trends, and in 2013, the number of days from initial manuscript submission to final disposition was 71.5 days. The Peer Reviewers The peer reviewers do incredibly important work in this process. The EM process tracks metrics for the time allotted for a peer reviewer to provide feedback, usually 7 to 10 days. The reviewers are scored by several parameters, including days to review and feedback credibility (are the decisions matched with a cogent and helpful narrative?). Research shows that the reviewer on a given manuscript should spend no more than 2 hours in conducting the review.1 More than 2 hours diminishes the quality of the review. Our peer reviewers earn CE credits for achieving a peer-review score greater than 70 on their reviews. For each manuscript, we assign a minimum of 3 peer reviewers with expertise in the subject matter. In my opinion, we have the best peer reviewers in the world! Each and every reviewer contributes substantially to enhancing the quality of the final published manuscript. The research published on the subject of peer reviewers indicates that the quality of the journal and the review process depend on having reviewers with statistical and epidemiologic expertise on the panel.3 Although we recently recruited new reviewers in health economics and ethics, we are interested in additional candidates with expertise in nutrition, surgery, hyperbaric oxygen, biostatistics, and QI methodology. Please submit your resumes to [email protected].FigureRichard “Sal” Salcido, MD, EdD

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, &lt;25% dose delivered, &gt;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.

Engaging patients and stakeholders in research proposal review: the patient-centered outcomes research institute.

The inaugural round of merit review for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) in November 2012 included patients and other stakeholders, as well as scientists. This article examines relationships among scores of the 3 reviewer types, changes in scoring after in-person discussion, and the effect of inclusion of patient and stakeholder reviewers on the review process. In the first phase, 363 scientists scored 480 applications. In the second phase, 59 scientists, 21 patients, and 31 stakeholders provided a "prediscussion" score and a final "postdiscussion" score after an in-person meeting for applications. Bland-Altman plots were used to characterize levels of agreement among and within reviewer types before and after discussion. Before discussion, there was little agreement among average scores given by the 4 lead scientific reviewers and patient and stakeholder reviewers. After discussion, the 4 primary reviewers showed mild convergence in their scores, and the 21-member panel came to a much stronger agreement. Of the 25 awards with the best (and lowest) scores after phase 2, only 13 had ranked in the top 25 after the phase 1 review by scientists. Five percent of the 480 proposals submitted were funded. The authors conclude that patient and stakeholder reviewers brought different perspectives to the review process but that in-person discussion led to closer agreement among reviewer types. It is not yet known whether these conclusions are generalizable to future rounds of peer review. Future work would benefit from additional data collection for evaluation purposes and from long-term evaluation of the effect on the funded research.

Jakość w statystyce publicznej

The author discusses, inter alia, organizational changes in the CSO (strategic and operational), the implementation of the European Statistics Code of Practice, the function of components of quality (criteria) in public statistics, system work related to the implementation of internal ordinance No. 35 of the President of the Central Statistical Office of 28.12.2011 on the measurement, evaluation and quality monitoring surveys of official statistics and the preparation for the next round of peer review, conducted by Eurostat.

Introduction to the CHES 2013 special issue

The 15th edition of the International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded System took place at the University of California, Santa Barbara, during August 20– 23, 2013. This special issue hosts five extended versions of selected papers among those presented at the workshop. CHES is an established event in the landscape of scientific conferences on security; it is considered a reference event that brings together academia and industry focused in the field of applied cryptography. The workshop covers a wide spectrum of subjects, from new implementations of cryptographic algorithms, advances in the field of side channel and fault attacks, countermeasures and secure implementations, protocols and security aspects of device manufacturing. The 15th edition of CHES received 132 submissions. The 43 members of the Program Committee were assisted by more than 190 external reviewers. In total, they delivered 463 reviews. Eventually, the Program Committee selected 27 papers (a 20% acceptance rate) for publication in the proceedings. Among these 27 accepted papers, we have selected 5 that have received the best reviews in the process. Authors had the chance to extend their manuscripts, and extended manuscripts have been submitted to a second round of peer review. The first paper, fromThomazOliveira, Julio Lopez, Diego F. Aranha, and Francisco Rodriguez-Henriquez, is entitled “Two is the fastest prime: Lambda Coordinates for Binary Elliptic Curves”. In thiswork it is possible to see the advance-

Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review - Time to Reflect.

As this year draws to a close, it seems an appropriate time to reflect on the progress of Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review during 2014. An increased issue frequency compared with previous years has meant a rise in the number of manuscripts published, from 11 in 2012, to 23 in 2013, and rising to 32 in 2014. All of the review articles that have appeared in the journal have passed through at least one round of double-blind peer review, with the average time from initial submission to first decision of 26 days. Most papers then undergo minor or major revision and at least one further round of peer review (just four papers were accepted without revision). I then conduct a final review of all papers myself before their final acceptance and publication. The average time from submission to acceptance of published papers in 2014 has been 10 weeks. The support of the journal’s peer review board and members of the wider cardiology community who have been called on to review papers in their specialist areas, and the authors who have worked with them to develop and refine their papers, have been integral to the success of the peer-review process. Three issues of Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review are planned next year – to be published in April, August and November 2015. We hope to publish an increasing number of articles online first, to create a steady flow of new, relevant content to the journal’s website, www.aerjournal.com. Thank you for your contribution as readers, reviewers and authors, which has been essential to the success of the journal in 2014. We look forward to your continuing support over the coming year. Dr Demosthenes Katritsis, Editor-in-Chief

Is Public Health Action achieving its goals?

Public Health Action (PHA) has now published 11 issues since its launch in September 2011, and this provides us with the opportunity to reflect on how it is operating. Specifically, PHA aims to publish operational research on health systems and services that serve the poor, and to do so in a timely manner. We have taken the opportunity to review the first set of original articles published by the Journal in its first 10 issues. We specifically looked at the pattern and progress of submission and the process of evaluation of the published articles submitted during the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. The pattern of submission has not been uniform over the calendar months evaluated: the number of submissions has increased steadily over each calendar period, with the lowest number of submissions in the earlier months and the greatest later in the calendar period, with a steady rise over each period. The number of monthly submissions was low at the outset but has increased over the three years by more than two-fold for each of the years. The articles published have come from specific sources: approximately half of the articles have come from authors involved in training or education programmes, an additional fifth have come from technical collaboration with public health programmes, another seventh were from research undertaken with academic institutions and the remainder from the work of non-governmental organisations not specifically involved in training or education. Over this initial period, articles have been published from 47 countries: 41% of the articles have come from the World Health Organization’s Africa Region, 32% from the South-East Asia Region, 17% from the Western Pacific Region, 5% from the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 3% from the Americas Region and 2% from the Europe Region. At its inception, PHA established ambitious targets for timely turnaround for review of articles. For the period evaluated, slightly more than three-quarters of articles were assigned to Associate Editors within four days of submission, and the same proportion completed the first round of peer review within 31 days. While the subject matter of the journal has specifically targeted operational research, the types of services evaluated have varied substantially, from communicable diseases to women’s health, child health, non-communicable diseases and neglected tropical diseases. Although PHA is still in its early stages, it appears to be proceeding according to the targets established at the outset. It focuses on health services, primarily in countries with large populations with a high proportion of poor inhabitants, it addresses a broad range of topics in public health services and it has managed to handle submissions in a timely fashion. On this basis, it should be able to expand to fill the broad need for critical evaluation of the operation of health systems and services. We hope it will be increasingly seen as the home of operational research, as well as a vehicle for analysing what we do in providing health solutions for the poor.

A New Method and Metric to Evaluate the Peer Review Process of Scholarly Journals

This paper will propose a new system that produces a metric that is an indicator of the level of peer review conducted prior to the publication of scholarly material. A mathematical algorithm which incorporates weighted values of the roles within the peer review process is created. The h-index, which is a value that “measures the productivity and impact of a scientist or scholar,” is also incorporated. Each round of review is weighted using the square root as later rounds of peer review are often less rigorous than earlier rounds. Once a paper is accepted the calculation is conducted and a “peer review evaluation” metric, or “Peer Review Evaluation Score” (pre-SCORE) is available. It is clear that such a metric would prove beneficial to all engaged parties (authors, publishers, readers, libraries). Authors will know that their work is being evaluated by a trustworthy publication and by experts in their field. Legitimate, ethical publishers will be recognized as such. Readers would have the ability to filter out material which was not properly vetted, and libraries/consortia would have further assurance that their limited funds are spent wisely. Future studies to see if there is a correlation between the pre-SCORE and Impact Factor or highly cited material is possible. The proposed metric would be one more tool available to aid in the discovery of quality published research.

Editorial

Editorial

What's in a peer review report?

There are two readerships of a peer review report: the author(s) of the article being assessed, and the editor making the decision. It reassures me if a reviewer can summarise the most important message(s) of a paper in a brief paragraph at the beginning of the report; I then have the impression that the reviewer can see the larger picture, and has not concentrated exclusively on second order details. As editors cannot be experts in the variety of fields they encounter, such an introductory paragraph can also be helpful to direct the editor's attention to a crucial aspect of the paper that might – because of the author's familiarity with that aspect – have been taken rather too much for granted. If a reviewer, for no fault of her/his own, finds it too hard to summarise the paper, then that should also be noted in the report. As an author, I would feel reassured if a reviewer correctly identified the crux of my thesis, hence indicating that a peer in the field has understood my thesis to the extent of being able to criticise it properly. Particularly in the ‘integrative’ review literature – i.e. papers that seek to present a synthesis that is more than the sum of the parts – it is very important that the new insight is unambiguously and consistently communicated at various levels of the paper: title, abstract, main text and conclusions. That is not a given, and peer reviewers should look out for inconsistencies in high-level messages. Note the merits (if any) of the work in a specific way. Be highly specific, and give reasons, with your criticisms: vague criticisms, particularly if strongly worded, are unlikely to produce a constructive response. Without doing the intellectual work on behalf of the author(s), give suggestions for improvement. Write from your personal expertise base, and with a personal voice: you, personally, are judging the paper, not your field. Unlike the exchanges at the end of a scientific talk, peer review feedback is ‘detached’, and – in the event that the paper is not seen again by the reviewer, or the author does not rebut the reviewer criticisms – unidirectional. Those aspects probably lead to quite a few ‘overly destructive’ reports tainted with wording verging on the offensive. If you truly wish the paper to improve, strong messages should be neutrally worded. Bear in mind that a very strongly worded review report makes it more likely that the author(s) will identify you; that might be intentional, but peer review is not a forum for the continuation of a long-standing personal battle. Neither is it a forum for trivial positive feedback, particularly if overdue: a belated two-liner merely praising the paper and strongly recommending its publication usually just delays the peer review process until another, more substantial, report can be obtained. Should you volunteer to view the paper again? My feeling is that unless you have recommended ‘reject’, the more severe your criticisms, the greater should be your preparedness to re-assess the work. A highly critical review report recommending ‘major revision’, but lacking willingness to re-assess the manuscript, comes across as a veiled ‘reject’ – unqualified unwillingness being a sign of rejection. If you genuinely cannot re-assess the manuscript, briefly state why. Seen from the author's perspective: if taken seriously, a hefty report will cause major investment of time in ‘improving’ the paper. But it might be impossible for editorial, in a further round of peer review, to obtain the same expertise needed to assess the improvements. Finally to language: here only broad assessment is required. Unless the writing is so bad that it obscures the science, you need not go into the detail of grammar/syntax/spelling/punctuation; that is Editorial's responsibility. Furthermore, if you have criticised the scientific aspects of the paper in great depth, adding a detailed critique of the language might dilute the efforts of the author(s) to address other, more important, failings. Make sure too that your own language is unambiguous and concise: your report will have most impact if written in your best English. Andrew Moore Editor-in-Chief

On Rejection, Resilience, and Retraction

This issue of Photomedicine and Laser Surgery (PMLS) marks the first issue of the New Year. Our journal continues to evolve and improve, thanks to our authors, reviewers, editors, and staff who provide, assess, and produce the cutting edge material our discerning readers enjoy and demand. We also thank our readers without whose support we would not exist. This journal strives to publish high quality scientific information and we are quite fortunate to receive numerous manuscript submissions for our review. We continuously refine our process and announced changes in our editorial process coincident with our monthly publication in 2011. The manuscript acceptance rate is used by some as a measure of quality. PMLS has a 50% rejection rate at the present time. The rejection rate has steadily increased over time, which demonstrates an ongoing commitment to select only the highest quality work for publication. The editorial process is rigorous, with each manuscript being evaluated by three or more reviewers and with the submissions checked for plagiarism and duplication using iThenticate software in addition to copy editing for language and content clarity. Authors must also provide a disclosure of relevant conflicts of interest as pertains to their work. Such practices are consistent with the standards of other scientific publishers and are representative of a collective effort to present and publish material that adds significantly to the body of scientific knowledge and that meets standards for scientific and professional integrity. It is this scholarly publication process that forms the nucleus of this editorial. Most of us who have been involved with scientific research and discovery have had to deal with some form of rejection. Perhaps this came in the form of the manuscript that was rejected for publication or the grant that was not funded. The specific details for the negative outcome may vary and their basis might have been appropriate, or perhaps the decision might have stemmed from real or perceived bias on the part of the evaluators. It is abundantly clear that not every manuscript is accepted for publication, and that the authors’ selection of a target journal to which their manuscripts are submitted for consideration is an important process. Calcagno and colleagues investigated the prepublication process and uncovered some surprising findings. They had hypothesized that authors would initially submit their work to high impact journals and that low impact factor journals would receive and ultimately publish articles that were rejected by the high impact factor journals. They surveyed authors of scientific research papers published in 923 scientific journals in the biological sciences between 2006 and 2008. They were able to retrieve information for 80,748 articles. They sent an e-mail survey to 200,000 corresponding authors asking whether the paper had been sent to other journals before the one it was ultimately published in, and if so, which one immediately preceded the successful submission. Their data demonstrated that 75% of papers were submitted to the first journal that would publish them and that authors generally did an excellent job of targeting their work to an appropriate journal. To their surprise, however, Calcagno and colleagues found that high impact journals published proportionately more articles that had been resubmitted from another journal. Even the highly respected journals Nature and Science were publishing articles that had been rejected previously by the other. Stepping down to a journal with a lower impact factor after an initial rejection occurred in 25% of cases. Calcagno’s group found that within this 25% group, papers that were submitted more than once tended to be published in journals with a lower impact factor than the journal that was the initial target of submission. Another interesting and unexpected finding of Calcagno’s research was that the number of times a resubmitted paper was cited was higher than that of other papers in that journal, regardless of whether a paper was ultimately published in a higher or lower impact factor journal, with the exception of papers that were resubmitted to journals in a different field. They concluded that this phenomenon was a positive benefit of manuscripts having gone through multiple rounds of peer review and revision. Therefore, the manuscript’s authors and competing journals benefit from the initial rejection. Kim et al. investigated whether there is a psychological basis to support the concept often espoused by eminently creative people that the experience of social rejection is a fuel for creativity. They posited that for individuals with an independent self-concept, rejection may amplify feelings of distinctiveness and increase creativity by conferring the willingness to recruit ideas from unusual places and move beyond existing knowledge structures. They hypothesized that rejection will reinforce the desire for individuals with an independent self-concept to differentiate themselves from others and that mindset would lead to more creative outcomes. They conducted three studies of college students