Technical Review Process Research Articles

An Evaluation of the Technical Review Process of the UP PGH Department of Medicine.

The technical review process involves an evaluation of the scientific merits of the research proposal and is a necessary part of the ethics review but can be done separately and ahead of the formal ethics evaluation. The aim of this paper is to determine the efficiency and quality of the technical review process of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) Department of Medicine Research Office. This is a cross-sectional study which involved retrieval of the technical review forms of protocols evaluated in the PGH Department of Medicine from the years 2018-2019, and then an evaluation of these metrics: timelines of the review process indicating efficiency, including time from (1) receipt of submission to receipt of reviewer (secretariat efficiency); (2) receipt of reviewer to first decision (reviewer metric); (3) initial receipt to final decision (total review time); and (4) number of re-submissions. To evaluate the quality of the reviews, the specific review findings in each part or section of the protocol were also extracted. In the years 2018-2019, a total of 199 protocols underwent technical review, with one protocol having no further data after the submission so only 198 proposals were analyzed. Majority of the protocols or 139/198 (70.2%) were submitted only once and were approved without comments, while the remaining 59/198 (29.8%) were submitted twice for technical review (mode of 1, mean of 1.32). The protocols were sent to the reviewers within the same day of receipt 100% of the time. The time from receipt of submission to receipt of reviewer was within the same day and the time from receipt of reviewer to first decision (mean, standard deviation working days) was 10.52, 8.54 days, range 0-51 days. Around one-fourth (21.51%) of the protocols were returned to the secretariat beyond the 14-working day deadline. The time from second review of technical reviewer to return to secretariat was a mean, SD of 6.72, 6.45 days, with a range of 1 day to 36 days, and time from initial receipt to final decision was a mean of 16.16 days, SD 18.3 days, range 0-111 days. The most common reason for the delay was the failure of the author to resubmit the paper for the second review in 17/23 (74%), while the other reason was the long duration of the initial review by the reviewer in 6/23 (26%). Half of the protocols (49.5%) were returned without comments. Majority of the comments were on the methodology. The technical review process is generally efficient with each step within the acceptable timelines. However, for 12% of the protocols, the over-all review process was still prolonged (>28 working days) because of the failure of the author to submit the paper for the second review in 74% of cases, and the long duration of the initial review in 26% of papers.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series 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: All the conference papers were submitted and communication was done via conference mailid (icnadbe2021@gmail.com). The Papers received for the conference were subjected to double-blind peer-review process. Preliminary Review: • At first the✓ manuscript ID was assigned to the received papers, then✓ technical preparation of the paper,✓ language/grammatical errors,✓ formatting and✓ originality using Plagiarism Software’s were checked.• Then the internal publication committee checked the theme/scope of the conference and it has been forwarded to the independent reviewers. Review Process • After the preliminary review, the papers were assigned to the appropriate reviewers.• The review committee comprises both International and National experts, considering their domain or area of interest.• The reviewers assessed the originality of the paper in terms of✓ quality,✓ novelty,✓ subject matter,✓ depth of technical contents and✓ contribution towards sustainable environment.• The decision on the paper was notified to the author(s), as on the following:✓ Accepted as it is,✓ Accepted with minor revisions,✓ Accepted with major revisions, and✓ Rejected.• The reviewers’ comments/suggestions helped the authors for improving the quality of their paper.• The authors were given time to resubmit the revised paper within the given timeline.• The papers were then scrutinized by the internal technical committee for the incorporation of required amendments indicated by the reviewers. With the above process we were able to successfully organize the technical reviewprocess. • Number of submissions received: 102 Papers• Number of submissions sent for review: 92• Number of submissions accepted: 64• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 63%• Average number of reviews per paper: 3 Reviews• Total number of reviewers involved: 20• Any additional info on review process: - • Contact person for queries: Name : Dr.P.ManimegalaiAffiliation:Associate Professor,Biomedical Engineering DepartmentEmail : manimegalaip@karunya.edu

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 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: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: icriet2020@gmail.com • Number of submissions received: 286 • Number of submissions sent for review: 192 • Number of submissions accepted: 147 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 51.3 • Average number of reviews per paper: Two (Screening and Technical) • Total number of reviewers involved: 42 • Any additional info on review process: All the manuscripts submitted have been screened for scope, technical relevance and similarity score. Manuscripts successfully passed these criteria have been sent for technical review process. The reviewers have been asked to check for novelty, technical quality, presentation of the concept, quality of figures and tables presented, discussion and validation of the results presented. Authors were given a chance to revise their paper before the acceptance (when needed). • Contact person for queries (please include: name, affiliation, institutional email address) Dr. C. N. MarimuthuDean, Research & DevelopmentProfessorDepartment of Electronics and Communication EngineeringNandha Engineering CollegeErode, IndiaEmail: marimuthu.cn@nandhaengg.org

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 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: Single-blind Single-anonymous: authors' identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authorsDouble-anonymous: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each otherTriple-blind: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other, and from the Editor(s)Open: author and reviewer identities are known to each other• Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? QR2MSE 2020 has a stringent process where the authors are not revealed to the reviewers. The technical review process will include the following steps:1. Receipt of all papers;2. Initial screen by plagiarism screening tools and language quality check;3. Assignment external reviewers;4. Simultaneous mailing to all identified reviewers;5. Review of the papers. manuscripts will be reviewed in accordance with the standard practice and criteria set by the Program Committee, on the basis of relevance, originality, significance, soundness and clarity. At least two referees will review each paper;6. Coordination of actual reviews and receipt of comments;7. Reviewers are updated on the status of papers in the review process including statements of acceptance or rejection by the conference. Only the rejected papers with major or minor revisions requirements can be resubmitted after addressing all the reviewers’ comments and queries.8. Prepare session plans to accept as many high-quality papers as possible in the conference;9. Notification to all authors of acceptance or rejection of papers;10. We use the “no-show” policy that any accepted paper included in the final program is expected to have at least one author or qualified proxy attend and present the paper at the conference. If a paper is not presented at the conference, the paper will not be published in IOP proceedings.• Conference submission management system: We use QR2MSE submission management systemhttps://www.qr2mse.org/login.html• Number of submissions received: We received 968 full paper submissions.• Number of submissions sent for review: 876 submissions were sent out for external review.• Number of submissions accepted: 268 submissions have been accepted to be included in IOP Proceedings.• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 28.3%• Average number of reviews per paper: Every paper must be reviewed by two external reviewers.• Total number of reviewers involved: 196 reviewers.• Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): All the accepted papers have been checked by crosscheck system.• Contact person for queries: Dr. Hong-Zhong Huanghzhuang@uestc.edu.cn

Technical experts’ perspectives of justice-related norms: Lessons from everyday environmental practices in Indonesia

The involvement of technical experts in environmental management and their perspectives on environmental justice issues can influence how justice notions become integrated into sub-national policies and programs. In other words, the justice-related norms perceived by technical experts have a huge impact on the delivery of justice for society and local environmental practices. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as the world’s most widespread environmental policy tool, provides an opportunity for exploring the incorporation of justice in everyday environmental practices. Specifically, how justice concerns related to global sustainability goals might be promoted or shutdown at the sub-national level through the actions of the technical experts involved i.e., those referred to here as ‘intermediary actors.’ This article reports on research which used semi-structured interviews to investigate the justice-related norms prioritized and promoted by intermediary actors, namely consultants, academics, and governmental officers, in the technical review process of EIA in Indonesia. It also examined the facilitating or constraining factors for negotiating and mobilizing those norms in the project debates of EIA at the sub-national level. We find that the intermediaries engaged with prioritized issues of justice unevenly, as they prioritized distributive and procedural justice over recognitional concerns. Our findings also uncovered crucial structural factors that have preserved existing unequal power relationships in a decentralized environmental governance system. Traditional and authoritative customs underlying environmental policies and practices therefore have significantly influenced the prioritization of justice-related norms. These social and cultural contexts have also restricted an upward mobilization of justice concerns from the sub-national to national and international governance levels. This study argues that the intermediaries need various institutional, physical, and social resources to advance global sustainability and justice agendas at the sub-national level via existing national environmental management tools.

Preliminary Review of Relationship between Medical Device Evaluation and Quality Management System in Premarket Approval

This paper analyzed the current reform of review and approval mechanism for medical devices and discussed the method for technical review process extending to product quality controllable direction and found the measures and suggestions to strengthen technical review for quality management system with the help with complementary relationship between the technical review and the quality management system assessment of the pre-market registration. Nowadays, because of the demand of eRPS， MAH and the amendment of regulation, the integration of technical review and quality management system is more important, necessary and scientific. Scientific and systematic evaluation should be carried out to strengthen the pre-market approval of medical devices and ensure the safety and effectiveness of medical products.

Quality of Laypersons' Assessment of Forensically Relevant Stimuli.

The current study examined the potential for cognitive bias in lay examiners' comparisons of footwear impressions within the technical review process while addressing limitations of previous research. Prior research has found inconsistent results regarding the extent to which cognitive bias may influence forensic comparisons, often asking non-experts to review forensic stimuli above their competency level. Furthermore, past research has largely ignored the potential for cognitive bias during the technical review process. In collaboration with the Miami-Dade Police Department's Forensic Services Bureau, we examined the effects of previous examiners' level of experience and prior knowledge of the previous examiner's decision on the technical review stage of footwear impression stimuli. Before lay examiners were presented with pairs of known match and nonmatch footwear impressions, they were either told that an expert or a novice had previously examined them and determined them to be either a match, nonmatch, or inconclusive (plus a no-information condition). Participants then evaluated each pair of footwear impressions to make their own determinations of match, nonmatch, or inconclusive. Results support the technical review process for all decision types, as known nonmatch stimuli were generally more difficult for lay examiners to assess than known match stimuli. Knowledge of a prior examiner's decision and status was observed only when the prior decision was inconclusive, suggesting the need for inclusion of inconclusive decisions in future research examining cognitive bias in forensic examination.

Magnetic airborne survey – geophysical flight

Abstract. This paper provides a technical review process in the area of airborne acquisition of geophysical data, with emphasis for magnetometry. In summary, it addresses the calibration processes of geophysical equipment as well as the aircraft to minimize possible errors in measurements. The corrections used in data processing and filtering are demonstrated with the same results as well as the evolution of these techniques in Brazil and worldwide.

Evaluation of Inspected Vehicles in Reporting Period at Technical Inspection and Emission Control Station

Abstract Technical inspection is a fast, relatively timely and inexpensive, and particularly comprehensive assessment of the technical condition of vehicles. The technical review process includes a wide range of control actions, which are slightly different depending on the category of vehicle. The evaluation of technical inspection is mainly dependent on the type of failures that occur on a vehicle, and it is a three-graded classification by the grades A, B or C. Based on data obtained from technical inspections, it is possible to determine the current condition of the fleet of road vehicles in the Slovak Republic.

Measuring coverage in MNCH: challenges and opportunities in the selection of coverage indicators for global monitoring.

Global monitoring of intervention coverage is a cornerstone of international efforts to improve reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health. In this review, we examine the process and implications of selecting a core set of coverage indicators for global monitoring, using as examples the processes used by the Countdown to 2015 for Maternal, Newborn and Child Survival and the Commission on Accountability for Women's and Children's Health. We describe how the generation of data for global monitoring involves five iterative steps: development of standard indicator definitions and measurement approaches to ensure comparability across countries; collection of high-quality data at the country level; compilation of country data at the global level; organization of global databases; and rounds of data quality checking. Regular and rigorous technical review processes that involve high-level decision makers and experts familiar with indicator measurement are needed to maximize uptake and to ensure that indicators used for global monitoring are selected on the basis of available evidence of intervention effectiveness, feasibility of measurement, and data availability as well as programmatic relevance. Experience from recent initiatives illustrates the challenges of striking this balance as well as strategies for reducing the tensions inherent in the indicator selection process. We conclude that more attention and continued investment need to be directed to global monitoring, to support both the process of global database development and the selection of sets of coverage indicators to promote accountability. The stakes are high, because these indicators can drive policy and program development at the country and global level, and ultimately impact the health of women and children and the communities where they live.

Lessons from serial tunnel collapses during construction of the Seoul subway Line 5

A large-scale underground railway construction project which is called the Second Phase of Seoul Subway consisted of 4 Lines from Line 5 to 8 was launched in Seoul in the early 1990s to share the increasing surface traffic volume. While constructing Line 5 which was the earliest planned Line in the Second Phase of Seoul Subway, 5 cave-in collapses took place in the central urban area in Seoul, which resulted in huge property losses to adjacent areas and project delay. A tunnel collapse may give rise to a potential for injury to the public or significant damage to the built environment. This paper presents and reviews the 5 cave-in collapses. Ground conditions, work environments, failure mechanisms and remedial works were analyzed and compared. Lessons from serial collapses were described in terms of both technical and non-technical aspects. It is concluded that safe and sound construction of tunnel requires well planned technical review process and management of nontechnical aspects involved are also important in ensuring safety of tunnelling. (A) This paper was presented at Safety in the underground space - Proceedings of the ITA-AITES 2006 World Tunnel Congress and the 32nd ITA General Assembly, Seoul, Korea, 22-27 April 2006. For the covering abstract see ITRD E129148. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier.

1.6.2 An Approach to Tailoring Major Technical Reviews Based on Project Characteristics and Stakeholder Interests

AbstractBoth NASA and DOD have well defined, proven technical review processes that include numerous technical reviews that occur throughout the systems engineering process life cycle. Many are well known by project managers and stakeholders such as developers and end users, an example of which is the critical design review (CDR). This major milestone for a large, complex new project may last two or more days, include an extensive agenda of topics, and entail hundreds of hours of developer time to prepare presentation materials and associated documents. Additionally, the weeks of schedule spent on review preparation is at least partly at the expense of other work.This paper suggests an approach for tailoring technical reviews, based on the project characteristics and the project manager's identification of the key stakeholders and understanding of their most important issues and considerations. With this insight the project manager can communicate to, manage expectations of, and establish formal agreement with the stakeholders as to which reviews, and at what depth, are most appropriate to achieve project success. The authors, coming from diverse organizations and backgrounds, have drawn on their personal experiences and summarized the best practices of their own organizations to create a common framework to provide guidance on the adaptation of design reviews to other system engineers.

Automatic Metrics To Measure The EfficiencyOf Technical Reviews

In SQM-94 in Edinburgh I presented a paper whose title was A Tool and a Set of Metrics to Support Technical Reviews [1.] That paper had two distinct parts, the tool to automate the technical review process and the metrics to measure and control the task. Lack of time during the presentation forbade me to explain satisfactorily the metrics part of the paper. Furthermore, since then we have made quite a lot of technical reviews and we have devised some new metrics, so now I feel we have quite a lot of new data to support our ideas about how metrics can foster and improve technical reviews. The aim of this paper is therefore to concentrate on the metrics part of technical reviews.