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 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
PubMed1995

The role of peer review in a health care organization driven by TQM/CQI.

BACKGROUND: Many health care organizations have embraced the philosophy and tools of total quality management (TQM) and continuous quality improvement (CQI) without overt linkage to existing peer review processes. Achieving total quality in an organization requires that both peer review and TQM/CQI improvement processes be effectively used. EXAMPLES: Three ways of linking peer review and TQM/CQI include: 1) coordinating TQM/CQI and peer review quality improvement initiatives whenever possible; 2) expanding the focus of peer review to include assessment of the processes and systems within which the clinician functions; and 3) linking peer review and TQM/CQI improvement processes to address behavioral and attitudinal issues having economic roots.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1988

Peer review organizations. Practical steps in dealing with them.

Peer review organizations exist to maintain high standards of medical care, not to intimidate physicians or hamper their style of practice. The author traces the history of these organizations and stresses their decentralized nature. Physicians are instructed on the optimal response to a peer review notice. In most cases, an adequate answer resolves the query. For physicians who are required to meet with the organization for further inquiry, practical advice is given regarding measures that they can take in their own defense. These include furnishing x-ray film and other evidence documenting their choice of care; bringing in additional health care personnel responsible for recording notes; and the right to legal counsel or a representative of their choice throughout the proceedings.

Interprofessional Relations↗
PubMed1991

Peer review. Part 1: Attitudes to internal and external standards.

Two peer review groups of ten general practitioners each reviewed their management of headache and fatigue. Each group used internal standards which they had set for the review of one condition and external standards set by the other group for the other condition. Data for the review was collected from the general practitioners' case notes and presented to them. The following year their management was again reviewed. The attitudes of the general practitioners to the use of both internal and external standards in peer review were measured using written questionnaire. There was no statistically significant difference in attitude to the two different types of standards. The attitudes of the general practitioners to external standards from a variety of sources were also measured. External standards developed by other peer review groups of general practitioners were significantly more acceptable (p less than 0.05) than standards developed by hospital specialists or the Department of Health.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2026

Artificial Intelligence Cannot Replace Peer Reviewers but May Help Editors Triage: A Comparative Analysis of a Large Language Model and Human Reviewer Recommendations at the American Journal of Sports Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The peer review system faces increasing strain from rising manuscript volumes, reviewer fatigue, and well-documented interreviewer disagreement. Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential to support the peer review process, but their ability to replicate editorial decisions at high-impact medical journals and their utility as manuscript screening tools remain unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the agreement between an LLM and the final editorial decision on manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Sports Medicine and to evaluate the potential of LLMs as a manuscript screening tool. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional agreement study. METHODS: Fifty-four manuscripts randomly selected from submissions to the American Journal of Sports Medicine (September 2024-October 2024) were reviewed by a locally deployed LLM (Ministral 3 14B; Mistral AI) using a standardized prompt. The artificial intelligence (AI) produced a categorical recommendation (reject, cascade, revision, or accept) and a numerical score (0-100) for each manuscript. Agreement with the final editorial decision was assessed by Cohen kappa (4-category model) for pooled human reviewers (n = 139 reviews) and the AI (n = 54). Screening performance was evaluated by positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Pooled human reviewers demonstrated fair agreement with the final decision (&#x3ba; = 0.181 [P < .001]; 42.4% agreement), while the AI demonstrated slight, nonsignificant agreement (&#x3ba; = 0.126 [P = .099]; 37.0% agreement). The AI recommended revision for 61.1% of manuscripts, of which 72.7% were ultimately rejected or cascaded, demonstrating systematic "revision bias." When the AI recommended rejection, 54.5% of those manuscripts were ultimately rejected and 27.3% were cascaded; when the AI recommended cascade, 50% were rejected and 50% were cascaded. However, when the AI recommended rejection or cascade (n = 21), 90.5% received a final decision of rejection or cascade (PPV, 90.5%; specificity, 81.8%). Manuscripts with an AI score <70 were rejected or cascaded 88.0% of the time (PPV, 88.0%). CONCLUSION: AI cannot replicate the nuanced judgment of human peer reviewers at a high-impact sports medicine journal. When AI recommended rejection or cascade, 90.5% of manuscripts received that final decision (descriptive PPV, 90.5%; 95% CI, 71.1%-97.3%), suggesting potential utility as an exploratory first-pass screening tool warranting further validation in larger cohorts. However, AI could not reliably distinguish manuscripts destined for outright rejection from those that would be cascaded to a sister journal-an important limitation for editorial triage applications.

Sports Medicine↗
PubMed1997

Peer review groups: problems and solutions.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate and delineate principles for dealing with problems encountered in peer review groups. METHOD: A workshop format was utilised in which a number of interested psychiatrists were invited to role-play specific problems which occurred in established peer review groups, and reported in recent research studies. Process notes or videotapes were used to record proceedings. Principles were delineated for the management of five specific problems via role-play and discussion. RESULTS: Principles have been delineated for the management of the following problems reported by peer review groups: dominating group member; member with disturbing behaviour; member providing inadequate treatment; member transgressing treatment boundaries; and group members strongly disagreeing about the management of a case. CONCLUSION: Problems encountered within peer review groups were adequately replicated during role-played enactments. The workshop format offered a means of engaging with these, allowing exploration and subsequent resolution of problems which had not proved resolvable in the real group peer review situation.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the authors' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the peer review process of the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. DESIGN: Anonymous questionnaires were sent to authors to survey their opinions about specific aspects of the peer review process. Authors were grouped by status of their manuscripts: AR (accept with revision), RR (reject but may resubmit), and RO (reject outright). PARTICIPANTS: Authors of unsolicited manuscripts submitted in 1991 to 1992. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors that determine authors' satisfaction with the relevancy and benefit of peer review of their manuscript. RESULTS: Significantly more authors of AR manuscripts responded to our survey than did authors of rejected manuscripts and viewed the review process more favorably. Authors of AR manuscripts were more satisfied with specific aspects of the review process, which led to improvement in their manuscripts. More authors of RR manuscripts believed that our review process improved subsequent manuscript preparation than did authors of accepted manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: The surveying of authors, important clients of the peer review process, should guide change necessary to better serve our authors and improve peer review.

Attitude↗
PubMed1995

Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer review: influence of internal and external reviewers and committees.

OBJECTIVE: To determine what factors of the peer review process played a significant role in the assignment of scores for scientific merit by a major cardiovascular research finding agency. Specific variables studied included scores of internal and external reviewers, committee assignment and year of application. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective analysis of research proposals submitted to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario from 1990 to 1994. SUBJECTS: Of a total database of 804 grant-in-aid (operating or project) proposals submitted to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario from 1990 to 1994, 779 had complete data and were included in the study. Variables analyzed were scores of internal and external reviewers, final committee score, committee assignment and year of application. MAIN RESULTS: There was poor correlation (r = 0.113) between external reviewers of grant proposals and only slightly better correlation between internal reviewers (r = 0.331). When mean internal and external scores were analyzed, correlation improved (r = 0.451) but agreement beyond chance was only moderate (weighed Cohen's kappa = 0.532). Regression analysis established that mean internal score had a greater impact on final committee score (r2 = 0.607, P < 0.001) than mean internal score (r2 = 0.348, P < 0.001). When review committee was entered as a dummy variable into a regression statement, it was statistically significant (P < 0.001) but explained less than 8% of variance in the final committee score. Mean scores showed a small 'upward creep' over the five-year period but explained less than 4% of variance in final committee score (r2 = 0.039, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the peer review system studied, the scores of internal reviewers were more closely correlated to final committee score for scientific merit than those of external reviewers. Nevertheless, final committee scores were significantly different from either internal or external scores, suggesting that the process of committee discussion is an important, and highly influential, step in the peer review process.

Canada↗
PubMed1992

Peer review as a quality assurance mechanism in three pharmacist-run medication-refill clinics.

A peer-review system for monitoring pharmacists' practice in medication-refill clinics is described. Pharmacist practitioners trained in pharmacology, therapeutics, and physical assessment provide services in three medication-refill clinics associated with a 350-bed Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. The clinics serve patients who have exhausted their prescribed drugs before their next appointment with a physician. During a clinic visit, the pharmacist assesses the patient and the drug therapy and either consults an attending physician or writes new prescriptions. The pharmacist documents his or her activities in the medical record. The peer-review mechanism involves quarterly audits in which the chart notes written by the pharmacists are reviewed by other pharmacists. Five indicators of the quality of care are used in the peer reviews. The results are presented to the ambulatory-care and quality assurance pharmacy committees for analysis and discussion. The peer-review system has resulted in better compliance by the pharmacists with the quality indicators and clinic procedures, suggesting that the quality of care has also benefited. Peer review is used successfully to evaluate and monitor the care provided by pharmacists in medication-refill clinics associated with a VA medical center.

California↗
PubMed1977

Establishing guidelines for peer review of the clinical dietitian.

Guidelines for peer review of clinical dietitians are needed. In this study, two areas relevant to such guidelines, i.e., data useful in assessing nutritional status of patients and written communications of the dietary staff with other health care staff, were explored. Admission height and weight and blood chemistries, as found on dietary cards for 119 randomly selected patients during 1973, were tabulated. In addition, pertinent information on dietary cards and in the medical records was compared. The findings indicated that the biochemical and anthropometric indicators of nutritional status were available in the medical records but were not being utilized by dietitians to the degree expected. The dietary card is the logical focus for peer review, but better documentation is needed in areas of dietary history recording, computation of ideal weights, utilization of laboratory data, and development of nutritional care plans.

Blood Proteins↗
PubMed1979

Peer review of group therapy: Washington, D.C., 1972-1977.

The author discusses the evolution of psychiatric peer review in Washington, D.C. In its first six years (1972-1977) the Washington Psychiatric Society Peer Review Committee evaluated 146 cases, 23 (16%) of which focused on group therapy. Eight of these cases (35%) were partially or fully denied. Most of the cases involved outpatients with neuroses or character disorders who were treated in combined group and individual therapy. The author presents specific cases illustrating group therapy issues and peer review decisions. He discusses the benefits and liabilities of peer review and emphasizes its importance as a flexible, clinically sensitive, confidential, and meaningful process.

District of Columbia↗
PubMed1985

Audit: a project on peer review in general practice.

A project of group-based peer review by general practitioners is described. Attention is given to the motivation of general practitioners to participate in audits, to the threat posed by peer review and to the use of criteria. The recruitment and motivation were successful. A total of 253 general practitioners took part, divided into 23 groups. This represented approximately 30% of all general practitioners in the area and 72% of all general practitioners specifically approached by us. The threat posed by audit disappears rapidly for most physicians once they have started auditing. The use of predefined criteria developed by 'experts', representing an optimal way of work for the general practitioner, appeared to be quite feasible in this project. From the results several conclusions are drawn as regards the planning and implementation of peer review under general practitioners.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1996

Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.

BACKGROUND: Academic biomedical journals use peer review and editing to help to select and improve the quality of articles. We have investigated whether articles accepted by the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, the Dutch Journal of Medicine, were improved after peer review and editing (post-acceptance scientific and copy editing). METHODS: 400 readers of the journal (100 each of medical students, recent medical graduates, general practitioners, and specialists) were invited to participate in a questionnaire survey. The first 25 from each group who agreed to participate were included. We posted a pack containing a set of identically appearing typescripts (ie, blinding) of the submitted, accepted, and published versions of 50 articles that had been published in Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. Each evaluator received two of the sets of versions, and each set was evaluated by one person from each group. The package also included two questionnaires: the first was used to compare the submitted with the accepted version (25 questions), the second compared the accepted with the published version (17 questions). The questions were answered on five-point scales, and were about the quality of the articles or were general/overall scores. We analysed the data as scores of 3-5 (ie, improvement) versus 1-2. FINDINGS: After peer review, the quality in 14 of 23 questions (61%) was significantly improved (p = 0.03 or smaller). In particular, the overall score and general medical value were significantly improved (p = 0.00001 for each). Editing led to significant improvement in 11 of 16 questions (69%, p = 0.017 or smaller), and especially in style and readability (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004). Generally, we found no differences between the scores of the four categories of evaluators. 72% of the evaluators correctly identified which version was which. INTERPRETATION: Evaluations by readers of the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd indicated significant improvement of published articles after both peer review and editing. We think that peer review and editing are worthwhile tasks. We also think that possible biases would have had a negligible effect on our results (including the fact that we selected the first 25 evaluators who responded, that some evaluators may have read the published version, and that one questionnaire may have looked more scientific than the other, more editorial one).

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Planning a peer review program.

The purpose of this study was to provide a basis for the planning and subsequent implementation of a peer review program, concomitant to exploring the perceptions of registered nurses regarding initiating a peer review program in a small midwestern hospital. The study findings indicated that registered nurses liked the peer review process, perceived peer review as helping their professional growth, and indicated a strong desire for education and in-service. Based on the study results, planning and recommendations for further implementation are discussed.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Peer review.

All research agencies and prestigious journals insist they are rewarding excellence, that they have a merit-based system, and that their system serves their mission well--all part of the ideology of the infallibility of peer review. There have been, and continue to be, criticism about the peer review system and several alternatives to peer review have been posed. A discussion of peer review is intended to allow the reader to evaluate approaches to the peer review system.

National Institutes of Health (U.S.)↗
PubMed2005

Preserving blind peer review of electronic manuscript files.

Peer review of manuscripts for potential publication has become an intrinsic component of the scientific process, and is aimed at improving the manuscript's quality through unbiased, independent, and critical assessment by experts who are not on the journal's staff (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2003).

Editorial Policies↗
PubMed2000

Moving to global standards for accreditation processes: the ExPeRT Project in a larger context. External Peer Review Techniques.

The ExPeRT (External Peer Review Techniques) Project, a European Union effort to examine and compare methods of health care evaluation currently in use, includes an assessment of accreditation as one such method. This article contributes to that examination by describing recent work, through the International Society for Quality in Health Care (ISQua), to investigate and to enhance the international comparability of national health care accreditation programs, both existing and newly emerging.

Accreditation↗
PubMed2000

Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most scientific journals practise anonymous peer review. There is no evidence, however, that this is any better than an open system. AIMS: To evaluate the feasibility of an open peer review system. METHOD: Reviewers for the British Journal of Psychiatry were asked whether they would agree to have their name revealed to the authors whose papers they review; 408 manuscripts assigned to reviewers who agreed were randomised to signed or unsigned groups. We measured review quality, tone, recommendation for publication and time taken to complete each review. RESULTS: A total of 245 reviewers (76%) agreed to sign. Signed reviews were of higher quality, were more courteous and took longer to complete than unsigned reviews. Reviewers who signed were more likely to recommend publication. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the feasibility of an open peer review system and identifies such a system's potential drawbacks.

Feasibility Studies↗