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 271 records · Page 15Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of the peer review and editorial processes on the readability of original articles. DESIGN: Comparison of manuscripts before and after the peer review and editorial processes. SETTING: Annals of Internal Medicine between March 1 and November 30, 1992. MANUSCRIPTS: One hundred one consecutive manuscripts reporting original research. MEASUREMENTS: Assessment of readability by means of two previously validated indexes: the Gunning fog index (units of readability in the fog index roughly correlate to years of education) and the Flesch reading ease score. Each manuscript was analyzed for readability and length on receipt and after it had passed through the peer review and editorial processes. Text and abstracts were analyzed similarly but separately. Mean readability scores were compared by two-tailed t tests for paired observations. RESULTS: Mean (+/- SD) initial readability scores of manuscripts and abstracts by the Gunning fog index were 17.16 +/- 1.55 and 16.65 +/- 2.80, respectively. At publication, scores were 16.85 +/- 1.42 and 15.64 +/- 2.42 (P = .0005 and P < .0001 for before-after differences, respectively). By comparison, studies of other print media showed scores of about 11 for the New York Times editorial page and about 18 for a typical legal contract. Similar changes were found for the Flesch scores. The median length of the manuscripts increased by 2.6% and that of the abstracts by 4.2% during the processes. CONCLUSIONS: The peer review and editorial processes slightly improved the readability of original articles and their abstracts, but both remained difficult to read at publication. Better readability scores may improve readership.

Manuscripts as Topic↗
PubMed1992

Strategies for eliminating unfairness in peer review.

Physicians often find themselves the victims of uninformed peer review practices whereby hospital boards make decisions regarding medical staff privileges without adequately evaluating the charges and without affording physicians the appropriate due process protections. In addition to damaging a physician's reputation, such unfair review practices can lead to liability exposure and expensive and prolonged litigation. This article describes how medical staff physicians and hospital board members can avoid these problems by taking an active and informed role in the peer review process.

Constitution and Bylaws↗
PubMed1998

Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.

We analyzed the peer review process in the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) from 1992 to 1996 by a retrospective analysis of review forms for 319 manuscripts. The forms asked about manuscript's structure (7 questions), its scientific value (7-item scale), clarity and length, and final recommendation (5-item scale). An international manuscript had at least one author affiliated with a non-Croatian institution. The overall rejection rate of manuscripts was 23.5%. National and international manuscripts had similar rejection rates except for original research manuscripts in clinical sciences (34.7% vs. 18.9%, p=0.046). Out-door peer review was asked for 77.4% of the manuscripts; other manuscripts were commissioned and passed an in-house review. Over the years, the number of international reviewers increased, and that of national reviewers decreased. National reviewers more often did not fill in the review form, and international reviewers more often asked for a major revision. The agreement between reviewers ranged from 34.1% (scientific value) to 90.7% (reference citations). Kappa for inter-rater agreement was poor to fair, without difference between national and international manuscripts. International manuscripts had shorter median review time (from receipt to decision) and publishing time (from acceptance to publication) than national manuscripts: 58 vs. 112 days (p<0.001), and 116 vs. 140 days (p<0.009), respectively. Our analysis shows that peer review can be introduced and sustained in a small journal from the scientific periphery. It can be fair both to national and international manuscripts, although work with the authors of national manuscripts may be needed to improve the quality of data presentation.

Croatia↗
PubMed2006

Abstracts presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting: determinants of subsequent peer reviewed publication.

PURPOSE: Abstracts submitted to medical meetings do not undergo the same critical peer review process as published manuscripts. Despite this limited scrutiny presented abstracts often influence clinical thinking and practice. Consequently the peer reviewed publication rate of abstracts becomes critical in judging the quality of this research. We determined this publication rate and factors influencing it. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 1,584 abstracts presented at the 2000 American Urological Association Annual Meeting were reviewed and assessed for subsequent publication with a fixed MEDLINE search protocol. We searched for publications from January 1, 1999 to May 31, 2005. Abstracts were deemed published if 1) at least 1 author of the presented abstract was a manuscript author and 2) at least 1 conclusion in the presented abstract was included in the final publication conclusions. Publication rates according to mode and topic of presentation, country or state of origin and time to publication were calculated. Journal impact factors for publications were compared according to these variables. RESULTS: Of presented abstracts from the 2000 American Urological Association meeting 55% went on to successful publication, including 59% of podium, 55% of poster, 55% of unmoderated poster and 42% of video presentations. Mean time from presentation to publication was 17 months. The average journal impact factor was 3.2. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of presentations at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting is never subjected to or fails the critical peer review process. The overall journal impact factor for published manuscripts is modest. Meeting attendees should consider these observations when deciding whether to incorporate the findings of presentations into their clinical practice.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2004

Peer review of validation studies: an assessment of the role of the OECD by reference to the validation of the uterotrophic assay for endocrine disruptors.

The involvement of the OECD in managing the validation of the rat uterotrophic assay for endocrine disruptors, and in organising the peer review of the results of this study, has been assessed and compared with the many conclusions and recommendations in several published reports of international workshops on validation, and information in guidance documents, produced by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), the US Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and the OECD itself. It is concluded that the OECD has not followed the recommendations for full transparency and independence of the peer-review process. This is based on the fact that it has published a draft guidance document that differs from the report of a recent OECD workshop on validation, in such a way as to give the OECD the flexibility to fully control the peer-review process and, in so doing, to avoid full transparency. Comparison of the timing of the organisation of workshops by the OECD and the progression of the validation study, together with the fact that a draft test guideline for the assay was written before completion of the peer review, suggest that the OECD has given a higher priority to the expedition of the validation and regulatory acceptance of the uterotrophic assay than it has to good scientific and logistical practice. This severely undermines its credibility in the validation process, so, in order for the OECD to be rightly perceived as an honest broker, it is recommended that the OECD should play no role in the validation of new or revised tests, until after they have been successfully validated, peer reviewed, and endorsed by the appropriate authorities, and are ready for test guideline development. With regard to the on-going OECD validation studies of other in vivo assays for endocrine disruptors, the OECD should take immediate steps to ensure full independence and transparency of their peer review.

Animal Testing Alternatives↗
PubMed2001

The General Medical Council's Performance Procedures: peer review of performance in the workplace.

The General Medical Council procedures to assess the performance of doctors who may be seriously deficient include peer review of the doctor's practice at the workplace and tests of competence and skills. Peer reviews are conducted by three trained assessors, two from the same speciality as the doctor being assessed, with one lay assessor. The doctor completes a portfolio to describe his/her training, experience, the circumstances of practice and self rate his/her competence and familiarity in dealing with the common problems of his/her own discipline. The assessment includes a review of the doctor's medical records; discussion of cases selected from these records; observation of consultations for clinicians, or of relevant activities in non-clinicians; a tour of the doctor's workplace; interviews with at least 12 third parties (five nominated by the doctor); and structured interviews with the doctor. The content and structure of the peer review are designed to assess the doctor against the standards defined in Good Medical Practice, as applied to the doctor's speciality. The assessment methods are based on validated instruments and gather 700-1000 judgements on each doctor. Early experience of the peer review visits has confirmed their feasibility and effectiveness.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2002

Autopsies in trauma do not add to peer review or quality assurance.

OBJECTIVES: The literature supports the concept that autopsies are useful in uncovering missed injuries or undiagnosed conditions that contribute to death after injury, especially late deaths that take place in the intensive care unit. Review of autopsies are also used as part of the trauma quality assurance (QA) process, and autopsy rates are queried by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma in their reviews. Our hypothesis was that autopsies add little useful clinical or diagnostic information compared with QA peer review analysis in a mature trauma program. METHODS: Autopsies for all mortalities at a Level I trauma center between January 1998 and October 1999 were reviewed. The autopsies were reviewed in a "blinded" fashion such that each review occurred before examination of the chart, the trauma registry, and the findings of the trauma QA peer review. Findings from all sources were compared and examined for Goldman type errors (I-IV). RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-three mortalities were identified, with 216 autopsies reviewed. One hundred two (39%) mortalities were considered dead on arrival to the trauma center by QA review, with no management errors identified (group 1) (Immediate Death group). Sixty-one patients survived more than 48 hours after injury (group 2). One hundred sixty-one (61%) patients were admitted to the hospital. Ninety-nine patients died within 48 hours (Early Death group) and 62 died between 2 and 143 days (Late Death group). There were no Goldman type I errors (major diagnostic discrepancies that might have influenced mortality) identified in either group. Autopsy data did uncover one potentially technical error in a death that was considered nonpreventable on peer review analysis. CONCLUSION: We conclude that autopsy information for either group appeared to add little useful information to the QA peer review of deaths in a mature trauma program. This was true even in cases where the final QA determination was held pending the results of the autopsy. Autopsy rates may not be a useful parameter in evaluating a trauma QA program.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Quality in paediatric anaesthesia: a pilot study of interdepartmental peer review.

A pilot to assess a process of interdepartmental peer review of paediatric anaesthetic departments in the United Kingdom was undertaken. Departments were assessed in relation to the standards which should characterise anaesthetic departments throughout the country. Examples of good practice and areas for further development were identified. Peer review visits were conducted by teams which included medical and non-medical members. The importance of the inclusion of lay people in such visits is being increasingly recognised. All of those who participated in the process felt their time had been usefully spent, and they were enthusiastic for the process to continue.

Anesthesia↗
PubMed1997

Identifying peer-reviewed journals in clinical medicine.

BACKGROUND: Two directories that contain information about serials also offer lists of thousands of journals identified as peer-reviewed. Librarians generally regard these lists as authoritative. OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical medicine journals on both peer-reviewed lists, measure the extent of discrepancies between these two lists, and determine the cause for these discrepancies. DESIGN: Comparison study. MEASUREMENTS: The extent of the discrepancies were tallied once the author had attempted to control for all extraneous variables. Interviews with the editorial staffs of each directory in regard to procedures for compiling the directories did not produce an explanation for these discrepancies. RESULTS: Nearly half (46%) of the 784 clinical medicine journals were unique to either one directory's list of peer-reviewed journals or the other's, indicating significant discrepancies between the two directories. Specifically, The Serials Directory listed 211 (27%) unique titles and Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory listed 150 (19%) unique titles (total unique titles = 46%). Both directories listed 423 of the same titles (54%). CONCLUSION: Widespread confusion about the actual identities of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals appears to explain the discrepancies between lists in these two periodical directories.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1990

Assessing peer review in the quest for improved medical services: Part II.

The first part of this article explored the flaws in the operation of peer review in two contexts: selection of articles for journal publication and decision-making in the award of research grants. There it was suggested that, to the extent these flaws had adverse effects on the information available to medical practitioners and those who conduct peer review of medical practice, the quest for improving the quality of health services is hampered. In this part of the article, medical peer review is defined, its practitioners noted, and the distinction between medical peer review and certain other activities and processes directed toward improving the quality of medical performance in hospitals illustrated.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2001

Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing.

Many undergraduate and graduate students understand neither the process of scientific writing nor the significance of peer review. In response, some instructors have created writing assignments that teach or mimic parts of the scientific publishing process. However, none fully reproduced peer review and revision of papers together with the writing and publishing process from research to final, accepted draft. In addition, most have been instituted at the graduate rather than undergraduate level. We present a detailed method for teaching undergraduate students the full scientific publishing process, including anonymous peer review, during the process of writing a "term paper." The result is a review article in the format for submission to a major scientific journal. This method has been implemented in the course Cell and Molecular Biology for Engineers at the University of Virginia. Use of this method resulted in improved grades, much higher quality in the final manuscript, greater objectivity in grading, and improved understanding of the importance of peer review.

Attitude↗
PubMed1992

Results of a multi-institutional outcome assessment: results of a structured peer review of TRISS-designated unexpected outcomes.

The utility of TRISS as a component of trauma center quality assurance (QA) was evaluated. TRISS survival probabilities were estimated for a total of 2,023 consecutive trauma patients admitted to three level-I trauma centers during a 6-month period. A structured peer review was performed of the 50 patients (2.1%) having statistically unexpected outcomes. For 23 (18 survivors, five deaths) TRISS-designated outcomes were sustained in peer review. In 27 cases (one survivor, 26 deaths) TRISS-designated outcomes were not sustained by peer review and TRISS. Limitations were identified in each case. Peer review of unexpected outcomes identified by TRISS provided a consistent and objective QA methodology. An understanding of TRISS as an objective component of the trauma center QA process is essential in blending it with what is, at present, a largely subjective process in many hospitals. Use of TRISS standardizes the peer review process, resulting in a more reliable base for development and improvement of trauma center QA programs.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1995

Evolution of peer review: enhancing communication through team review.

Few institutions have successfully implemented peer review. It is considered a hallmark of the nursing profession and in theory has positive effects by stimulating personal and professional development and challenging nurses to think critically about their practice. The key is that the change must be managed, unit readiness assessed, and an implementation plan developed. It is suggested that all members of the critical care team be involved in the review process. Characteristics of a unit that is ready to implement team review are presented and discussed.

Critical Care↗
PubMed2004

Peer-review and publication of research protocols and proposals: a role for open access journals.

Peer-review and publication of research protocols offer several advantages to all parties involved. Among these are the following opportunities for authors: external expert opinion on the methods, demonstration to funding agencies of prior expert review of the protocol, proof of priority of ideas and methods, and solicitation of potential collaborators. We think that review and publication of protocols is an important role for Open Access journals. Because of their electronic form, openness for readers, and author-pays business model, they are better suited than traditional journals to ensure the sustainability and quality of protocol reviews and publications. In this editorial, we describe the workflow for investigators in eHealth research, from protocol submission to a funding agency, to protocol review and (optionally) publication at JMIR, to registration of trials at the International eHealth Study Registry (IESR), and to publication of the report. One innovation at JMIR is that protocol peer reviewers will be paid a honorarium, which will be drawn partly from a new submission fee for protocol reviews. Separating the article processing fee into a submission and a publishing fee will allow authors to opt for "peer-review only" (without subsequent publication) at reduced costs, if they wish to await a funding decision or for other reasons decide not to make the protocol public.

Access to Information↗
PubMed2004

Peer review: an essential step in the publishing process.

Among the many steps involved in publishing a professional paper, peer review of the submitted manuscript presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Peer review is essential to ensuring that published papers meet appropriate research, scholarship and journal criteria. Peer review is also a valuable resource, providing detailed, professional evaluations that help authors carry out and present scholarship of the highest quality. When combined with the commitment of the Journal of Genetic Counseling to encourage and mentor authors, it is also a resource for developing writing skills.

California↗
PubMed1995

A peer review programme to audit the management of hypertensive patients in family practices in Israel.

We introduced and evaluated a self-audit and peer review programme for the management of hypertension in eight urban and rural family medicine practices in northern Israel between January 1991 and December 1992. Changes in the level of blood pressure control and the effect of peer review and self-audit on physicians' management of hypertension were evaluated. Participating physicians were provided with feedback throughout the course of the study. Six hundred and seventy-four hypertensive patients from a total adult population of 4445 patients (15%) were identified in eight practices and followed for two years. The percentage of uncontrolled hypertensives (blood pressure > or = to 160/95 mmHg) decreased from 46.8% at the beginning of the sstudy to 34.3% at its conclusion (P = 0.01). Data on prevalence of hypertension were analysed by participating clinics (prevalence range 8.5-24.6%) and by type of community (rural or urban). In rural communities 50% of the hypertensives were > or = to 70 years of age, compared with 39.5% in the urban practices. Differences in prescribing practices among participating physicians were discussed during peer review group meetings and changes in prescribed medications for hypertension were evaluated. We conclude that this method of self-audit and peer review is effective in improving the management of patients with hypertension in family medicine practices. It was implemented at a minimal cost, is feasible in busy practices and can be generalized to the management of other chronic diseases in the community.

Adult↗
PubMed1988

A peer review process to assess the quality of graduate medical education.

Accreditation standards for graduate medical education require the internal evaluation of programs. In this paper, the authors describe a system of peer review instituted to meet these requirements and report on the supporting administrative structure and outcome of the peer review process. Although time-consuming and in some cases causing apprehension among staff members and residents, the experience of a peer review process was useful for staff members, residents, and administrators. Peer review was found to be effective in identifying program strengths and weaknesses and in increasing communication among staff members and between administrators and staff members about the teaching programs.

Internship and Residency↗
PubMed2001

Sales and science: changing patterns of pharmaceutical and medical device advertising in peer reviewed urology publications, 1975-2000.

PURPOSE: The effects of advertising on urological practice are controversial. We studied patterns of pharmaceutical and medical device marketing in peer reviewed urological journals in 1975 and 2000. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pharmaceutical and medical device advertising in 1 European and 2 American peer reviewed urological journals were evaluated in 4 randomly selected issues of each journal published in 1975 and 2000, respectively. Advertising quantity and the qualitative characteristics of each advertisement were analyzed. RESULTS: We analyzed 574 advertisements in 24 issues. Advertising decreased between 1975 and 2000 based on the number of pages per issue (55.3 to 31.9, p = 0.04), number of advertisements per issue (30.4 to 17.4, p = 0.0098) and the ratio of advertising-to-scientific pages (0.399 to 0.151, p = 0.0016). Mean advertisement length was stable at 1.8 pages. The top 3 advertisers in 1975 were Eaton, Roche and Warner compared with Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Merck in 2000. Advertising for antibiotics comprised 70.3% of all pharmaceutical advertisements in 1975 but only 15.2% in 2000 (p = 0.0001), while advertising for benign prostatic hyperplasia, erectile dysfunction and hormonal therapy increased sharply. Nutritional supplement marketing increased from 0.5% of all advertisements in 1975 to 4.3% in 2000 (p = 0.0026). The incidence of advertisements citing peer reviewed literature increased from 16.7% to 33% (p = 0.0001) with a greater increase in the European than in the American journals. CONCLUSIONS: Advertising in peer reviewed urological journals has decreased since 1975 and fewer companies now market more products. Few advertisements cite the scientific literature. Better understanding of pharmaceutical marketing patterns may improve awareness of these efforts to influence physician practice.

Advertising↗