Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Peer Review”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristics of good peer reviewers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data gathered during a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The Journal of General Internal Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: 226 reviewers of 131 consecutively submitted manuscripts of original research. 201 (91%) completed the review and submitted a curriculum vitae. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The quality of each review was judged on a scale from 1 to 5 by an editor who was blinded to the identity of the reviewer. Reviewer characteristics were taken from the curricula vitae. 86 of the 201 reviewers (43%) produced good reviews (a grade of 4 or 5). Using logistic regression, the authors found that when a reviewer was less than 40 years old, from a top academic institution, well known to the editor choosing the reviewer, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript's authors, the probability that he or she would produce a good review was 87%, whereas a reviewer without any of these characteristics had a 7% probability of producing a good review. Other characteristics that were significant only on bivariate analysis included previous clinical research training, additional postgraduate degrees, and more time spent on the review. There was a negative but statistically nonsignificant association between academic rank and review quality: 37% of full professors, 39% of associate professors, and 51% of assistant professors or fellows produced good reviews (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Good peer reviewers for this journal tended to be young, from strong academic institutions, well known to the editors, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript's authors.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗
PubMed1999

Reviewer bias against the unconventional? A randomized double-blind study of peer review.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is a reviewer bias against publication of a test of an unconventional drug. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, double-blind study of peer review. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 291 medical doctors from a wide variety of specialties drawn from a list of conference participants. METHODS: Reviewers were randomly assigned to receive one of two versions of a manuscript. Version M related to an in-vitro experiment on a mainstream drug (Metoprolol). The otherwise identical version V used a highly unconventional drug (beef spleen cell extract) for the same experiment. Reviewers were asked to complete a standardised evaluation sheet including visual analogue scales (VASs) on a set of predefined quality criteria. All participants were debriefed after completion of the study. RESULTS: The response rate was 61%. There were no significant differences in VAS ratings between the two versions of the manuscript. Ratings covered the entire range of the VASs. CONCLUSION: In the present setting, there was no evidence for a reviewer-bias against testing an unconventional drug. The low inter-rater reliability, however, suggested inadequate validity of peer review.

Animals↗
PubMed1996

Group peer review: a questionnaire-based survey.

OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the findings from a questionnaire-based survey of psychiatrists designed to elucidate the positive and negative aspects of group peer review and its perceived place in accountability procedures, and to provide information about how accountability through group peer review might be improved. METHOD: Three hundred and eighty-eight psychiatrists were surveyed via mailout questionnaire. Demographic data, details of groups, and perceptions of beneficial and detrimental effects of group peer review were sought from group participants and non-participants. Attitudes of participants were compared with those of non-participants. Features of groups related to satisfaction in participants were examined. RESULTS: The majority of the 170 respondents participating in groups regarded peer review as a means of maintaining and improving skills, sharing ideas and methods, receiving constructive criticism and feedback, of educational benefit and an important source of professional accountability. Non-participants, while less positive overall, responded equally that participation in peer review groups would be an effective response to accountability procedures. Potential detrimental effects and problems with the functioning of peer review groups were elucidated. CONCLUSIONS: Group peer review contributes significantly to professional accountability and education in well-functioning groups. Further strategies for the facilitation of group functioning and for the processing of problems arising in group peer review need to be developed to optimise its contribution to the maintenance and improvement of professional standards.

Adolescent Psychiatry↗
PubMed1988

Peer reviewer agreement for major anesthetic mishaps.

In a study of peer reviewer agreement for major anesthetic mishaps, 42 anesthesiologists performed a standardized peer review of 48 reports of anesthetic mishaps obtained from a national data base. The peer review group exhibited agreement (P less than 0.0001) for judgments on the appropriateness of clinical care, the presence or absence of human error, and the role of better monitoring in prevention of the mishap. Personal attributes of the reviewers (eg, type of practice, length of time in practice, and previous experience with mishap review) did not appear to influence agreement. The study findings suggest a highly favorable environment for the development of broadly recognized standards of care in anesthesiology.

Anesthesia↗
PubMed2006

Encouragement to contribute to peer-review process in clinical neurology journals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the chance of peer-review assignment as expected from the amount of publications in "Japanese" and "Arabic" investigators differed from that for "Other" investigators in mainstream clinical neurology journals in 2004. METHODS: Fifteen clinical neurology journals with the impact factor in 2004 greater than 2.5 and with the full list of reviewers available in public were analyzed. Thereby, "Japanese", "Arabic", and "Other" investigators were defined as those with Japanese-sounding last names, those with Arabic-sounding last names, and others. The ratio of number of reviewers to number of original articles was compared between "Japanese" and "Other" groups as well as "Arabic" and "Other" groups. In addition, we described how "Japanese" and "Arabic" investigators were assigned peer-review in Brain and Development in 2004. RESULTS: In the above-mentioned 15 clinical neurology journals, the mean ratio of number of reviewers to number of original articles was smaller in "Japanese" compared to "Other" investigators (paired t-test: df=14; t-value=6.85; p-value<0.001) but failed to demonstrate a difference in the mean ratio between "Arabic" and "Other" investigators (df=11; t-value=-0.36; p=0.7). In Brain and Development, the number of peer-reviewers relative to the amount of publications was larger in "Japanese" compared to "Other" group (Fisher's exact probability test: p-value<0.001). CONCLUSION: More "Japanese" investigators are encouraged to contribute to peer-review process in clinical neurology journals other than Brain and Development. More "Non-Japanese" investigators are encouraged to contribute to peer-review process in Brain and Development.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Guide for peer reviewers of scientific article].

Despite its shortcomings, peer review is still the best tool of scientific publishing. It brings benefits not only to the journal and its authors, but to the peer reviewers: they are privileged to have an insight into the latest research and still unpublished results in their scientific field. Reviewers also build up their ability to critically assess scientific papers, which may be useful in their own professional work and development. We wrote these brief guidelines to help Croatian-speaking physicians to satisfactorily respond in case they receive a scientific journal editor's request for a manuscript review. The guidelines were created primarily for new reviewers, but they may be useful as a refresher text for experienced reviewers.

Peer Review, Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Interactive peer review: an innovative resident evaluation tool.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We designed an interactive peer review process for our inpatient family practice residents using a faculty-facilitated group format. This paper describes and evaluates the method. METHODS: During inpatient rotations, first-year residents evaluate second- and third-year residents, second-year residents evaluate first- and third-year residents, and third-year residents evaluate first- and second-year residents. Evaluations are conducted in discussion format, led by a faculty facilitator. Results are shared with the resident being evaluated. We surveyed residents and faculty regarding the usefulness of this review method and their comfort with the process using a 15-question survey. RESULTS: A total of 90% of residents and 100% of faculty responded to the survey; 82% of residents and 100% of faculty felt that the peer-review process was useful. All faculty felt that peer comments correlated well with their own impressions of resident performance. Only 4% of residents felt uncomfortable knowing that peers were evaluating their performance, and 93% of residents and 100% of faculty felt that the peer-review process had supported the team environment. CONCLUSIONS: Interactive peer review is an excellent tool to obtain timely, specific, and useful information regarding resident performance and has been well accepted in our program.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1983

Revamping the peer review process.

The time has come for peers to establish criteria to evaluate each other. No longer can this vital activity be left to the students alone. This is not to say that student evaluation has no place but rather to identify the need for peer review based on mutually determined and acceptable criteria. With the change to an integrated curriculum, in which there is emphasis on team work in both planning and execution of the program, the need for a tool to document areas previously considered to be too subjective becomes obvious. Faculty must be able to collaborate, cooperate, communicate, and be mutually supportive to each other in order to affect a successful operation of the program. Some faculty feel that these behaviors are an inherent part of being responsible, accountable and professional, and therefore do not need to be measured. Yet these are the same behaviors that we stress repeatedly and measure with students. We believe that our tool provides nurse educators with a method of peer evaluation that is both equitable and easy to use. We believe that it will also help the faculty member determine his or her goals based on an evaluation process that is broader as a result of input from three levels: students, peers, and self. Lastly, we believe that this tool meets the needs of the Peer Review Committee by providing valid input from peers to round out the evaluation procedure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Faculty, Nursing↗
PubMed1995

Arnett v. Dal Cielo: peer review confidentiality threatened by medical board investigational subpoenas.

If not modified or overturned on appeal, the Dal Cielo decision will very likely have a significant negative impact on the ability of California's organized peer review bodies to conduct frank, candid, and confidential peer review. Dal Cielo appears to permit the Board to subpoena committee minutes, physician credentials files, and live testimony whenever it determines that a physician should be investigated. Further, the impetus for the Board's investigation might be little more than a complaint from a single patient or even a disgruntled former employee of the physician or hospital. Regardless of current and future decisions, however, peer review bodies in California and other states operating under similar court decisions still retain at least some limited means to protect the confidentiality of their evaluative work. If, for example, a peer review body can establish that an investigatory subpoena seeks irrelevant information, is based upon little more than unsubstantiated rumor, or that the medical board has made no efforts to obtain information from other available, non-privileged sources, it may be able to convince a court that the subpoena is not supported by good cause. Peer review organizations should thus consider challenging medical board subpoenas in court to narrow their scope or establish that there is sufficient need for them. If any peer review body is served with an investigatory subpoena by a medical board requesting production of peer review information, it should carefully assess applicable state confidentiality protections.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

California↗
PubMed2001

Nurse practitioner peer review: process and evaluation.

PURPOSE: To describe the initiation and evaluation of a nurse practitioner (NP) peer review program for a group of 15 NPs practicing at a Veteran's Affairs Medical Center. DATA SOURCES: Using a standardized review form, 15 NPs performed a peer review on a total of 163 medical records; each review was re-reviewed by 2 researchers who were also NPs. To determine the congruency of the reviews among the 15 NPs, the data were analyzed with Intraclass correlations (ICC) and ANOVA. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively low ICC (r = 0.37) was found for the 15 NPs. The ANOVA indicated that there were significant differences among the NPs (F = 11.92, p < .0001). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The outcome of a peer review process depends upon the motivation and values of the NPs, practice sites, and standardization of the format, as well as the degree of collective participation. Peer review can reveal charting deficiencies as well as identify topics for continuing education and risk management programs.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

One peer review organization's experience in developing hospital peer groups.

The Health Care Quality Improvement Initiative is moving Medicare's quality improvement activities from review and action on individual cases to the analysis of patterns of care. A primary source for pattern analysis is the mortality data presented in the Medicare Hospital Information release. One of the requirements set forth by the Health Care Financing Administration is that peer review organizations classify hospitals into peer groups in order to compare mortality rates within and among groups. It is hoped that this type of analysis will lead to a better understanding of the relationship between process and outcome for a variety of medical conditions. This report describes the experience of one peer review organization in establishing hospital peer groups.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗
PubMed1988

Exploding 12 myths about quality assurance and peer review.

In order to accomplish effective, objective peer review and quality assurance in the midst of concerns about confidentiality and malpractice, 12 widely-held, false assumptions about the nature of peer review and quality assurance must be discarded.

Hospital Administration↗
PubMed1998

Peer review. Strengthening leadership skills.

In this model, peer review takes place on a nursing department-wide basis within the framework of a preceptor and clinical ladder program. The peer review program is described step-by-step, from planning through evaluation.

Humans↗
PubMed1998

Successful peer review of courses: a case study.

The authors describe their school's system of peer review for courses, established in 1988 to facilitate faculty evaluation and continual course and curriculum improvement. (The system has been temporarily suspended while the school's new curriculum becomes established.) They explain how the system was created and then report how faculty reviews of courses over the five-year operation of the system compared with students' reviews of the same courses. The faculty and students' ratings were in agreement 75% of the time. When not in agreement, the students' ratings tended to upgrade courses that were not very demanding, had easy grading, and emphasized clinical details, often at the expense of basic concepts and the big picture. The authors then document how the work of the peer review system favorably influenced the transformation of the school's curriculum. They also provide guidelines for the creation and operation of a course review process that uses faculty peers. The authors maintain that the peer review system worked because it was run by a committee of experienced and respected teachers who had been selected by their peers, the other faculty. Additional reasons for its success were that the school's faculty supported and respected the committee and its work, that course directors helped evaluate their courses, and that peer reviewers took their work seriously despite having no remuneration, and the clearly positive impact of the review system on faculty interaction, faculty-student interaction, and the reform of the curriculum.

Curriculum↗
PubMed1990

Editorial peer review in US medical journals.

This study determined if the process of editorial peer review is the same for all medical journals. Two categories of indexed US medical journals were examined: group 1 consisted mainly of well-known, clinically oriented journals, while group 2 was composed primarily of interdisciplinary or specialized journals. Data were collected through a series of interviews and questionnaires. All 16 group 1 editors or managing editors were interviewed. Questionnaires were mailed to 124 group 2 editors (69.4% were returned). Results showed that, although some of the practices of editorial peer review are the same, the two groups of journals had distinct editorial peer review practices. Group 1 made less use of editorial peer review than group 2 by relying on the editorial staff at several important decision points.

Interviews as Topic↗
PubMed2004

'Double b(l)ind': Peer-review and the politics of scholarship.

Abstract The double-blind peer-review of manuscripts for potential publication is a longstanding tradition in the production of scholarship. Nursing has adopted this tradition to secure a place of legitimacy and authority for its scholarship amongst the other disciplines in the academy. However, despite its ubiquity and avowed utility, the peer-review has not generally been the subject of much research let alone intense philosophical scrutiny and debate. This manuscript attempts such an engagement with a view to uncovering specific concerns about the essentially conservative and sometimes restrictive effects the double-blind peer-review produces. Drawing on the deconstructionist writings of Derrida and his acolytes this paper attempts to dig beneath the surface mechanics of the double-blind peer-review and in so doing, expose its rather shaky philosophical foundations. It is written to open debate from others who too, have harboured doubts about its adequacy and supremacy as a technology in the production of (legitimate) knowledge.

Double-Blind Method↗
PubMed1989

Medicare peer review organizations.

The Medicare Peer Review Organization (PRO) Program is undoubtedly the most ambitious attempt currently operational of a national health insurance program to use external audit to review the quality of medical care. This article reviews the history of the PRO program, including its genesis in the prior PSRO program, and describes the methods that it currently uses for reviewing the quality of medical care and for sanctioning physicians and hospitals that provide care of inadequate quality. Finally, the article reviews the meager data currently available indicating possible limitations in the effectiveness of the PRO program.

History, 20th Century↗